William of Ockham, a 14th century philosopher, is credited with his “razor,” that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity,” often interpreted to mean that the simplest explanation usually leads us closest to truth.
It is a tool, nothing more, and like any tool, the craftperson holding it is more important than the tool itself. You can give me a pallet and oil paints and brushes, but I assure you the end product will not be a Mona Lisa, but rather more like a Jackson Pollack. Onlookers to Pollack’s work, seen at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, are encouraged to look at the painting below and marvel at its beauty.
I have been to MOMA, and have gazed at this painting, and (seriously) a young boy and his parents were standing nearby. “What must the child be thinking?” I wondered. Adults are ingrained with media and expert opinion, and so are not able to reduce this to the mind of a child thinking “It looks like garbage!”
That’s Occam at work, ignoring all of the expertise of the art world, and reducing this painting to its essence, garbage.
That’s a rare quality. Often in life, Occam’s Razor does not yield good results. Often in life we are confronted with multilayered hoaxes, and unraveling them is difficult work. Take Covid, for example.
- Is there a real virus? The answer, as I see it, is “No!”, but to arrive there takes work, trying to understand how virologists have abandoned the scientific method, allowing groupthink to prevail over objective science.
- Are people dying of a new disease with unique symptoms? No! Same old symptoms, same causes of death as before, new labels.
- Is the PCR test finding “cases” where people are infected with a virus? No! It is a fine test used for other purposes that is being abused by charlatans to create the illusion of a spreading disease.
- Are people dying off in unusually large numbers? No! Indeed, quite a few older people were murdered (manslaughter) by ventilators, but not enough to bend the curve.
- Is the vaccine being used to immunize people from this new and deadly disease? No! It has other purposes, nefarious and insidious … and deadly.
Occam, help! What would Occam say? Nothing useful, I am afraid. He would eliminate the skeptical inquiry and reduce everything to this: “Absent our own expertise, our simplest explanation is that authority figures in virology, medicine and government must be trusted. Maybe he would not say that, but it is the simplest explanation.
It takes a whole lot of exploration and private thinking and research to get away from that and conclude that if my own eyes cannot see the truth behind the hoax, then I am useless. I think everyone is wrong, and fall back on Plato, said to have said (I do not read Greek) “Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”
Occam was on to something, for sure, but mere invocation of his razor is no substitute for hard thinking. I know I am singling out one commenter here, but I do so without rancor. Life is very complicated, and reality is often lurking privately behind “truth’s protective layers.”
Many years ago I read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, fortunately beyond my teen years so that I could keep a skeptical arm’s length. I noticed something in real life, and was unceremoniously banned from a Montana blog run by Dave Budge where the writers followed her to her extremes. At the time, electricity had been deregulated in California, and the result was chaos and exploitation. I said in a comment on the blog that the thing I noticed about Rand was that whenever her ideas were put into practice, the result was chaos. Life is not as simple as she made it, and public policy is not simple.
Nonetheless, she did come up with one aphorism I have found useful, more so than Occam’s Razor, and I will quote her:
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Over the years I have relied heavily on Wikipedia, not as a source of truth, but rather of lies shrouded in expertise and footnotes. For instance, here is Wiki concerning AIDS and the alleged virus causing it:
A small group of individuals continue to dispute the connection between HIV and AIDS,[308] the existence of HIV itself, or the validity of HIV testing and treatment methods.[309][310] These claims, known as AIDS denialism, have been examined and rejected by the scientific community.[311]
That’s a lie, as the supposed retrovirus has never been isolated and never been found in an actual AIDS sufferer. We are dealing here with contradiction writ large, and THAT is the pathway to truth. It is a painful journey, as we have to abandon authority figures and think our own thoughts, a rocky path that often leads us afar from truth. But it is the only way. Mistakes are a better path to truth than either Rand or Occam. Mistakes are our best teacher.
The same with Covid, SARS-CoV-2, and yes, the moon landings. Just one little contradiction in regard to the latter: The Van Allen Belts. How did the astronauts manage to clear them without harm?
Many answers are offered. The most prominent, “Well, they went really fast.” Others are more subtle, as in aluminum foil shielding them, and Van Allen being a big liar. He did, after all, back away from the belts after the Moon landings.
Where does Occam take us? Any one of those will do. Where does Rand take us? We have a large contradiction, and all premises are up for grabs. Hard thinking and research are needed. Something is not right.
My problem with Occam? It is too formulaic, and does not necessarily lead to clear thinking. My problem with Ayn Rand? She’s right, but does not make it easy. We still have to think properly.
Piece of Mindful 
when are all of the mysteriously held back posts coming through Mark?
why is the public audience withheld the spontaneous martial arts scene
yet you, thank you, keep my hands stretched out in the form of contact details through
what is your logic Mark?
what is YOUR razor?
why do we keep being Marked by CARNIES?
when do we get to things holistically, mentalversally, meaning
TOGETHER
without any of those prefab boxing ring “experts” ??
===
LikeLike
“Are people dying off in unusually large numbers? No!”
I’m seeing this as a cover to move people(agents) to new assignments. Hey what happened to Joe or Jane? Oh she died, did she take the vaccine? type of curiosity, yet they faked their deaths and are moved elsewhere. It’s not just celebrities and wealthy people that do this. Military too, and what is the old saying of “a government agent on every street in the USA?” No way to prove the person died or not, always cremation services. The obituaries have spook numbers and wording that isn’t convincing of a real death. Time of death at 9:11pm or 1:18am, birth dates same as death dates, or spook numbers once again in the dates like 1/18 or 3/11, death ages 33, 47, and 65, which is usually retirement age. Instead of stating “died on” or “Passed away” or stating a reason like “automobile accident”, it states odd wording like “Passed on to their heavenly home”, “Found not compatable with life”, “Joined the angels today”, “took his final journey today”. Comments on the tribute wall can be revealing. I’ve noticed younger and healthy siblings or spouses, that pass away a year or two prior or later. Not paranoid about it, just have a hunch something is going on like that. However these people will not return to the area so in a way the are dead.
LikeLike
What an interesting quote from Plato all those centuries ago. I need to keep reminding myself that it has always been thus.
Occam’s Razor – the “simplest” trap
It is not simply the “simplest explanation” but the “simplest explanation to fit the evidence” – not the same thing at all.
So your hypothetical covid example isn’t an example of the use of the Occam’s Razor.
I think a more helpful definition is:
What hypothesis does the evidence fit with the fewest assumptions and questions raised – essentially the same thing but avoids the “simplest” trap.
And that is the question we must always ask. We shouldn’t be dismissing pieces of information with “Oh, but that might be X,” we should always run it past the competing hypotheses and see which one it fits with the fewest assumptions and questions raised and ask if our chosen hypothesis still stands the strongest if this new piece of information seems to favour the opposing hypothesis.
I believe that Occam’s Razor works every single time assuming there is enough information to favour or disfavour competing hypotheses. If anyone can give me an example where that doesn’t apply I’d be most interested.
What I’d be interested in is a discussion on critical thinking and what people’s rules for critical thinking are. Why don’t you do a post on critical thinking, Mark?
LikeLike
You do know that occam’s abductive inference is necessarily a logical fallacy, right?
LikeLike
I think my qualification avoids logical fallacy:
“assuming there is enough information to favour or disfavour competing hypotheses”
Let’s say a murder is committed in a house where recent signs of break-in have occurred and DNA belonging to a person who has obvious motive is found where the break-in has occurred. There is no clear alibi for the suspect but the suspect’s claims of being elsewhere are not unreasonable. We have no other evidence or reason to suspect any other person of the murder – no murder weapon, no other DNA, no other motive, etc. We might say Occam’s Razor means we infer the obvious suspect is the murderer but it’s simply not enough information, is it? because we know other possibilities exist, we are simply lacking evidence of other possibilities as well as lacking more evidence implicating the obvious suspect.
The situation is not strong enough to apply Occam’s Razor.
In the case of psyops though and in the case of the real event of the moon landings there are tons and tons of pieces of information and the possible hypotheses are extremely limited so in these situations Occam works perfectly according to my understanding – always willing to be proved wrong however.
LikeLike
To put it analogically, if we have say 5% of the jigsaw pieces that we can tell can form a number of different pictures we cannot apply Occam’s Razor, however, if we have say 50% which clearly indicate a picture and cannot fit any other picture we can.
LikeLike
Here’s one for you, Petra, say someone comes along and dumps out a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle and says “It’s a picture of the moon landing. Can you put it together?”
You roll up your sleeves and set to work. It’s tedious, but hours and hours later you’ve got about 90% of the puzzle put together. Some edge pieces were missing, but you can clearly see from what you have that it IS a moon landing picture. The lander looks a bit hokey, but then, you’re not an engineer and who’s to say that isn’t the best way to design one?
Then someone else comes along and says “hey I found these edge pieces, want to see if they fit in your puzzle?” You sigh and tell them you can already see plainly that it’s what the first guy told you it was, no need to go further, but fine if you must…
So he puts them together and around the edges we see the “lunar night” stops abruptly, and grips, gaffers and production personnel circulate about in a giant Hollywood soundstage, among all sorts of film equipment.
“What a liar that first guy was, eh?” he says.
“Oh no!” you reply. “I trust the 90% that shows it’s a moon landing. It all fits together so well, and looks so much like a moon landing, that I really find it hard to believe those few pieces you brought could be correct. In fact, it shows a lack of critical thinking on your part, and ignorance of OR. Also why can’t you admit the box those came from is puzzle propaganda?”
Okay, maybe the analogy breaks down eventually… Just a little humor (or attempt), carry on 😂
LikeLike
HEAR HEAR !!
later I will add my sketch to the pile
you set a good first standard, as second (I send a long one, dunno if it finally came through the Razorblade censorship machine) sketch about the absurdity of non-reasoning according to petralogical laws
I thought teaching petrology was a challenge, you ain’t seen petrAlogical spaghetti yet…
I have a great one in thinking, let me play it out on air….
Suominen I received your last and only email with text in the subject but empty field
send me a proper one, the address works you see and we are in great contact my friend !
what did you think of my quick Kimi work ?
and this one ?
LikeLike
Part 2
Why I worked out Bill Kaysing was an agent and WTM is a work of propaganda from start to finish … and you guys didn’t
Not rocket science!
Step 1:
I aimed to prove my hypothesis wrong
(In a fascinating interview with Gary Null, Kary Mullis says, “The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong,” and I thought yep, bingo! that’s what I do.
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1FXbxDrDrY”
Richard Feynman (who surely must have known that atom bombs were a hoax) effectively says the same thing in an interesting 1974 Caltech commencement address
“https://speakola.com/grad/richard-feynman-caltech-1974”
In that endeavour, I followed the debunking trail. I looked at all the claims saying we didn’t go and all the responses to those claims. What became very obvious was that all the anti-moon landing claims were resoundingly refuted and the people responding to the claims had a far greater knowledge base than those making them.
Step 2:
I confined analysis to the most tangible evidence and things I had no reason to doubt such as the unique lunar conditions as stated.
When you follow the right process you are so much more likely to get to the correct answer. You guys didn’t immerse yourselves in the refutation trail and went down physics-babble rabbit holes instead of looking at the clear evidence first.
As indicated in Part I in Gerard Holmgren’s, A Theory: there is a profile of people who disbelieve the authorities by default – a conclusion I came to myself independently before I read Gerard’s piece when I tried to talk to my diehard moonhoax acquaintance … and do you think you’re not targeted?
They made Bill Kaysing as ridiculous as possible just as they made their 9/11 narrative as ridiculous as possible … totally confident that you guys wouldn’t pick him up. They KNOW you, they UNDERSTAND how you think. Is that who you want to be? Understood and targeted for mind control by those in power?
LikeLike
Physics-babble rabbit holes? So you looked at “all” the evidence – except potentially violating the laws of physics, okay…
Imo, physics talk can be made into “babble,” as with those StackExchange experts you cite, who needlessly assign variables to everything, but the basic concepts are very comprehensible by anyone. Newton’s laws are something we all see and experience every day, even if we can’t do the math at advanced levels.
Thought experiments, like Suominens ice sleigh, can help in thinking about special conditions. Tests like the rocket in a vacuum video MiniMe posted (which I haven’t watched yet) are also not “babble,” or beyond any layperson.
Anyway, if you won’t even engage with the issues many have raised in regard to rockets in space conditions, because it’s all so utterly incomprehensible, you also can’t say it’s been “resoundingly refuted.”
I don’t think I’ve ever stated a position on McGowan or Kaysing so much of what you write is just an irrelevant strawman about my views – and I assume many others, who all probably hold a variety of nuanced and open-ended positions, as BMSeattle suggested at one point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim, join Eye am Eye
you are funny
me too
we should do comedy
I DID
yesterday
the sketch I announced here
the second one
with my good friend
Uninstall Media
names say all
Suominen did the smart thing, I hope others recognize that too
enjoy your days
LikeLike
Part 1
Tim,
Irrefutable facts:
F1: Moonhoaxers haven’t indicated on the internet in any discernible number (or at all as far as I can see) that they are aware that Bill Kaysing is an agent and that he spouts nonsense so if you worked it out Tim fair enough but the claim that generally moonhoaxers haven’t stands strong. Seriously, do you not see how you’re grasping at straws here?
F2: The refutation of Boethius’s claims by people on StackExchange has not been counter-refuted. If you can show me how it has been counter-refuted please tell me. I cannot see it. In the absence of counter-refutation I seriously wonder how you can still keep plugging it – how can you do that? Where is the counter-refutation? Why isn’t it there? Please tell me why I should accept Boethius over StackExchange. You need to explain it – in detail.
If I said to you that you need conduct an investigation into the alleged deaths on 9/11 to prove that death and injury were staged you’d say, “No, I don’t have to do that to see the clear evidence that death and injury were staged.” Of course, some people may have died or been injured we cannot be sure they weren’t but it makes no odds – we know that essentially it was all staged.
What needs to be understood is that we simply do not need to know or understand everything about an event to know what it is was or wasn’t. The nature of reality isn’t that 60% favours one hypothesis while 40% favours another, that’s not how reality works. What we absolutely shouldn’t do is waste our time on things we know we cannot understand or concern ourselves with information unavailable to us in favour of focusing on the wealth of things we can see and understand to determine the clear picture that emerges.
Make facts mean what they must mean, Tim, make them mean what they must mean.
Those in power understand us, they understand how we break into different inclination-to-believe profiles and they target us accordingly.
9/11 – They KNEW that:
-1- The majority would accept their 9/11 nonsense story despite the fact – or seemingly because of it (propaganda works better that way) – they went way over the top with Defence HQ being penetrated by a little guy they told us couldn’t fly a plane when that wasn’t a requirement for their terror story – two planes (impossible of themselves even so) into the twin towers would have been more than sufficient but no – no, no – they really, really went for it in the ridiculousness stakes because experience has taught them that they can so they do.
-2- A minority would see the nonsense.
-3- A tiny minority would see that they were targeted too with propaganda to maintain their belief in real death and injury.
They KNEW all this beforehand, they knew how it would play out.
LikeLike
I’m “grasping at straws” because I point out you’re arguing against an imaginary opponent? I’m not even directly familiar with Kaysing aside from hearing his name come up at times. Not sure why I’m tasked to answer for his sins, or those of “moonhoaxers” who fell for him.
As far as all the circumstantial evidence that you base your case on, the great mass of photos etc produced by officialdom, with their great track record of credibility – to the extent I’ve looked at it, it raises many many red flags. It has all the usual absurdity found in official stories. I don’t really understand how you see that in other official stories, but not this one.
But that said, all of that stuff is equivocal – one can interpret the issues according to preference. That’s why I’m more interested in the basic physics involved in space travel. That, for me, would be more conclusive, one way or the other.
The StackExchange guys do indeed have a refutation up, but then, so do climate scientists and covid researchers “debunk” their skeptics. Even as a layperson, I can see potential issues with their logic. They may even be sincere, but if they’re just regurgitating their training, assuming it “must” work in space, because “obviously” the official story is true, that could lead them astray. The smarter you are, the more impressively you can buttress your priors.
Secondly, they’re only responding to the one issue involving action and reaction of the fuel and rocket. They do not respond to many other points raised by commenters here.
I’m still very curious about the “under-expanded nozzle” issue, from SMJ’s link. That might sound like abstruse jargon, but just examine the diagram – it’s quite understandable and would need to be addressed before I’d begin to accept the official story. Likewise all the issues involving chemicals, equipment, and people in an environment of hot and cold extremes.
LikeLike
—1- I’m not tasking you with any sins, Tim, what I’m pointing out is:
— Bill Kaysing was an agent clearly indicated to us with typical psyop signs of OTT ridiculousness, namely, ludicrously named, professioned and accented nephew, absurd job title and complete nonsense on the moon landings
— No person who disbelieves the moon landings (as far as we know) picked up that he was an agent despite some of the disbelievers being familiar with OTT psyop indicators
— The complex hypothesis “we went and the perps targeted the disbelievers, both encouraging them to disbelieve the moon landings and predicting they wouldn’t pick up their obvious psyop signs” is much better supported by the above two facts than the hypothesis “we didn’t go”. For “we went etc” no questions or assumptions raised while for “we didn’t go” questions about why disbelievers would be targeted with complete nonsense is raised. Why not at least throw in some truth against the moon landings, why only have him spout nonsense and how were they so confident he wouldn’t be picked up?
—2- The visual and audio evidence for going isn’t circumstantial evidence it is hard evidence even if in digital form. In theory, it could be faked, however, all the claims of fakery I’ve seen are reasonably refuted in my opinion and we have no evidence of anyone actually duplicating the alleged fakery. In my opinion, there is zero evidence of fakery in the masses of evidence presented and when we consider the unique lunar conditions, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I find it extremely compelling.
—3- Basic physics – if the basic physics are agreed upon I’m all for it but we don’t have agreement on the basic physics. I stick to my rules of critical thinking:
—1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
—2. Confine analysis to the most tangible and irrefutable evidence in the first instance
When a clear picture can be painted with the irrefutable evidence I don’t delve into areas I don’t understand and doesn’t have agreement. If your rules are different OK you follow your rules, I think mine serve me well in my quest for truth.
When an hypothesis is correct anything we grab randomly that is relevant in some way no matter how large or small or tangential will support if not favour that hypothesis. So whether it’s Bill Kaysing, WTM, minute amounts of dust on the landing pads, the faintest of radial exhaust patterns under the lunar module, consistency of images with the unique lunar conditions, no trace of fakery in audio, unmanned landing images corresponding with manned images, etc then every single piece will support if not favour it … and it does! oh my goodness it fits it like a glove.
LikeLike
Part 1
I always keep an open mind, Tim, so if someone comes along and shows how it was all done I’ll be the first to say I was wrong :).
However, my attitude is that if there is sufficient evidence to favour an hypothesis over any competing hypotheses without any evidence contradicting it I say, “This is the correct hypothesis.” Often sufficient information simply isn’t available or even if it is, I might recognise I don’t understand it properly in which case I reserve judgement whatever I might be inclined to think.
The question you should all ask yourselves is why I not only worked out that Bill Kaysing was an agent but PREDICTED he was an agent before I even looked at him and worked out that WTM is a work of propaganda (claim stands until proven otherwise) but none of you did – Mark and perhaps others worked out that Dave Mc is an agent but you’ve only got it half-right with him – and aiming for us to get it half-right is a specialty of the propagandists, to wit 9/11. Half-right is half-wrong and really kind of the same as wholly wrong – we need to get it all right at least in the fundamentals.
A 9/11 analyst I admire, Gerard Holmgren, who sadly died of a brain tumour in 2010 before I had the slightest clue about psyops wrote a short piece entitled, “A Theory”, which he admitted was completely wrong. In it he says two very important things:
“https://www.yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/A-theory.pdf”
This first quote reflects how propaganda works better the less it corresponds to reality. It also reflects the nature of the false dilemma propaganda strategy used by the perps – we had only two stark choices – box-cutter armed terrorists or evil US government cold-bloodedly killing all the people. I don’t know whether Gerard worked out before his death that all death and injury were staged – he obviously knew the plane deaths were – but regardless he encapsulates the propaganda strategy perfectly.
“The official story required either that one descended into total intellectual senility in order to still believe it – perhaps deliberately made ridiculous for that very purpose – or else that one keep ones intellect alive but destroy almost everything that one had previously believed about how society works.”
In this quote he shows how he understands that we split into types of believing profiles: some of us believe nothing from those in power while some of us believe everything.
“When I first got into S11 activism, I had a theory that there would be about 10 % of the population who would automatically assume that the govt did it, even if they didn’t have any evidence and about 10 % who would never believe it, no matter how much evidence they got.”
LikeLike
second attempt, after CTRL-SHIFT-F5 till boredom, …
let’s if it passes the censorhip committee of the shift ….
LikeLike
Actually, it depends on the situation how many pieces we need. For 9/11, there are a number of single items upon which we can say it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US government was responsible, eg, WTC-7’s collapse is clearly a controlled demolition, which they, in fact, showcased from seven angles, with the confidence of the limitless elasticity of the Emperor’s New Clothes effect. We need nothing else or we could even limit it to the 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration. All on its own 2.25 seconds of freefall proves US govt did it. Likewise, the obviously faked Flight 175 proves it on its own and so on. We only need ONE of a number of pieces of information to prove 9/11 and it’s all so obvious we don’t really need to invoke Occam’s Razor but OR applies regardless.
LikeLike
No matter how you slice with Occam’s razor you can never use it deductively of course.
That typed; I do enjoy your unparsimonious defense of your favorite heuristic.
LikeLike
I guess the thing is that where you have sufficient evidence, the evidence by itself proves its case without applying Occam’s Razor, however, I think it’s always good to use that OR “thinking” to guide you.
LikeLike
¡Ay, caramba!
LikeLike
Try breathing 100% oxygen at 5 psi for eight days.
Be sure to have your affairs in order beforehand though.
LikeLike
O.M.G! And I’m not even so religious guy. Is there really no end for that claptrap? Mark was more right in his writing than You have never been here.
LikeLike
I read Atlas Shrugged quite recently (I am in my fifties). I couldn’t decide on whether the writing was utter garbage or absolute brilliance – but I know I thoroughly enjoyed it, and will probably read it again. Something about it did feel quite prophetic – and what with the bizarre happenings on the railroads over the past few years, well, I do continue to wonder…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found the characters to be like 1950s architecture, square, unimaginative. The sex scene between Darcy and Rourk? launched Rand into a long and dry lecture on how romantic love does not exist, is pure selfishness, etc., which to me was a reflection of her dour outlook on life and sexual congress. So it should be no surprise that she openly carried on with Nathanial Brandon with full knowledge by her husband. Of course, if I was married to her, I would be repeating the Henny Youngman line, “Take my wife, please!” And don’t forget, in the end, she took Medicare and Social Security.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While examining the claims made in support of Heliocentrism, consider Mr. Occam’s shaving device if you will…
Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
That’s orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it’s reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour
Of the galaxy we call the ‘Milky Way’
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It’s a hundred thousand light years side to side
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick
But out by us, it’s just three thousand light years wide
We’re thirty thousand light years from galactic central point
We go ’round every two hundred million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know
Twelve million miles a minute, and that’s the fastest speed there is
So remember, when you’re feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space
‘Cause there’s bugger-all down here on Earth!
Okay that last line may actually be true 😀
LikeLike
Lovely song, very talented writer/singer. I remember it well when I first saw it … “Can this be for real? Is anyone really that talented?” That kind of talent really exists.
LikeLike
It is a great song, I agree, but I think you rather missed my point, which was that that song more or less accurately reflects the scientific consensus and makes claim after fantastical claim about the motion of the Earth and the unfathomable size of the universe, all of which paints a terribly complex portrait of our world, and none of which are substantiated by a shred of actual evidence.
On the contrary, every scientific experiment ever devised by man, not to mention or god-given senses, tell us the Earth is motionless. Ergo Heliocentrism is invalid. Ergo the moon landings could not have happened.
That the moon landings were faked is obvious and quite frankly, boring. Far more exciting and interesting is the fact that Heliocentrism itself is a lie. But by all means, continue to argue ad nauseum with obvious trolls and shills about tinfoil spaceship propaganda from half a century ago.
LikeLike
I have gazed out into the ether at spherical objects like the Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, and have been awake early in the morning when Venus and the Moon are near each other, which somehow moves my spirit. I just do not buy into these theories, and so dismiss them. I realized when I hear Eric Idle’s words that he was expressing the knowledge of that time, and have since read (though have not grasped) that the speed of light as put forth by Einstein might not be so well defined. But I do not pretend to reduce it all to a standing still (flat?) earth as you do. That is lunacy.
LikeLike
Cyrus – The classic case for heliocentrism is of course Galileo’s – it removed the need for all the epicycles and tinkering required to support a geocentric model (there’s that shaving implement again..) False? Epicycles are not an issue?
LikeLike
“… in the case of the real event of the moon landings there are tons and tons of pieces of information…” There are not. There is the NASA pipeline, but no objective observations other than rockets taking off … it could al very easily have been a ruse to hide “truth’s protective layers.” Ever think about that? Was he saying that “truth” is layered in deceit? What is the truth that is being hidden from us? We’d have to wade through NDAs and careers and apparatchiks, and even then, the best we could do is speculate. Of course we did not go to the Moon, but what was going on, really? You are of no help in this matter, as you are using inductive reasoning to try to show us that we were not lied to. I would substitute the word “absurd” for “inductive,” as it appears to me at times that you are a grab-bagger. You will take anything that NASA or their “debunkers” say, and without further research or skeptical thinking saying “There. That is what is true.” Even Occam would spit up his corn flakes.
I await with bated breath for your tons and tons. McGowan merely did a yeoman’s task of assembling the known inconsistencies into a readable series if essays, which you’ve never read, or, excuse me, you say you read but have forgotten. Same thing. You used to say that the dialogue among the ground and astronauts was one of those “tons of pieces” but the rest of us could see that either the astronauts were in LOE doing other things, or in basements in Houston or Alabama. That evidence was worthless.
Got more? Cannot wait.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our ideas of critical thinking are very different Mark.
To me a claim needs to be backed up. You make claims about WTM but you don’t back them with evidence.
I’ve made a claim about it – I say it’s a work of propaganda and I back this claim with refutations from SS guy and my own nugget “frigid lunar night,” an error which no one with the knowledge that McGowan would have made innocently.
“https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/hs6zji/debunking_wagging_the_moondoggie_part_1/”
Where is YOUR evidence of a single element of truth in that book that contradicts the reality of the moon landings. Where is one piece of evidence?
Critical thinking means that when you make a claim, you back it up, you don’t just make the claim.
LikeLike
No. Critical thinking means that you THINK things critically with your OWN brains. It’s not about backing anything up or making any claims about anything. You clearly are not thinking critically in this Moon hoax thing. Really THINK about it if You can, don’t just repeat that nonsense NASA claptrap.
LikeLike
AND there were those “frigid lunar nights” when they (According to the official story anyway) were orbiting the Moon. (I don’t believe anymore that crap) When someone is in the shadow of the Moon and when there is no sunshine then they are in the night side of the Moon even if they are just orbiting the Moon. just like here in Earth there are nights when the Sun is opposite side of the planet. The third astronout in every trip were supposed to spent all his time alone in the Command Module while the other two were supposed to be in the ground of the Moon. Where there really hot or really cold then flying in the “frigid lunar nights”? Nobody knows that because there were nobody flying around the Moon.
Why are You continually lying here about that? If You believe in official story why You don’t believe in those “frigid lunar nights”?I’m too lazy and impatient to write long comments with nonsense science vocabulary like You do. But I’m not really so stupid man You think I am, dear special agent Petra. You keep on ignoring my comments because You know I’m right about them. But keep on deceiving. I don’t care anymore. There’s better things for me to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Typos: not “Where there really hot or really cold then flying in the “frigid lunar nights”?” but “WERE there really hot or really cold WHEN flying in the “frigid lunar nights”?” “.
LikeLike
That poor lone third man. Nobody ever remember him.
“No one knows what it’s like. To be the third man, to be the cold/hot man….”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent article once again Mark. You really know how to write about things like Occam’s razor. I tried to explain it very simple to that lady like for five years old kid many times without any succeed. I almost hate when people repeat time after time that thing without knowing what it means. Every one who use the term Occam’s Razor as the argument when discussing something lose their credibility in my eyes at that moment. I have never been in any situation in the real life or in the online where I could use that tool in any cases.
LikeLike
I notice that after I abused Occam, you dumped him and redefined yourself as “critical thinker.” Since by your own admission you have not exposed yourself to critical evidence from all sides, demanding that I do it for you, I wonder if your next step in this will be to characterize your lightly cited wanderings as papal bulls. You don’t have the Inquisition behind you, I should warn you. You cannot just burn us at the stake. But we will lock our doors.
LikeLike
Occam’s snow mobile …
LikeLike