Men on the Moon

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

And if the US is a society almost entirely based on lies how would you know?
How could you know?
Who would tell you?
Me?

Common sense. For example, none of the 'lunar hoax' theory seems to add up. There seems to be a willingness among the theorists to include as evidence everything they can possibly think of even if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Examples of this would be:

1. Lack of stars in pictures.
2. Flag waiving in breeze.
3. Impossibility of space suits.

etc.

When enough of these are brought up, I'm more inclined to believe that the hoax theorists are misguided and that the moon landings are genuine.

There is, of course, a possibility of them being faked. But this is unlikely given the scrutiny of the Soviets and other countries tracking the spacecraft and the other things mentioned on this thread.

If it was a cover-up, it is one like no other cover-up in history and therefore the burden of proof, imo, is on the hoax theorists. Instead, what we see is an attempt to turn the question around. We see the scientific standard of repeatability being applied disingenuously to something which isn't a scientific experiment.

There have been cover-ups by the US, but these have been of a far more mundane sort. And even then they have been exposed.

Most coverups involve hiding things and making sure they never come to light - e.g. the Iran-Contra affair. With the moon landings, an entire alternative story is involved.

You say this could be done by Hollywood. Who was the producer? Who were the camera operators? Have any of them come forward? Has anyone come forward with the *real* story of exactly what happened and how the hoax was pulled off. This is the sort of evidence that is required. Not stuff about shadows or flags or spacesuits that simply demonstrate a lack of understanding on the part of the hoax theorists.

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

There have been cover-ups by the US, but these have been of a far more mundane sort. And even then they have been exposed.

I am not concerned with the popular hoax theories, and possibly staw men, that you prefer to refute.

In regard to your quote above, you don't know about the cover-ups that are far from mundane, that have not been exposed. You only know what you are told. You do not know what you are not told. You know about the mundane Monica Lewinsky because that is what you are told. You were told men landed on the moon and you accept that along with Ms. Lewinsky. What about what you are not told?

To repeat my previous question, if the U.S. is a society almost entirely based on lies how would you know?

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

I am not concerned with the popular hoax theories, and possibly staw men, that you prefer to refute.

But it serves as an example of how we use common sense to assess the truth of a theory (as well as being the topic of the thread). We look at the points that make up the argument. Are any of them really persuasive? Do they add up to something convincing?

In regard to your quote above, you don't know about the cover-ups that are far from mundane, that have not been exposed. You only know what you are told. You do not know what you are not told. You know about the mundane Monica Lewinsky because that is what you are told. You were told men landed on the moon and you accept that along with Ms. Lewinsky. What about what you are not told?

The question, for me at least, is why were we told about Ms Lewinsky and the Iran Contra affair and other mundane scandals (by comparison with the Lunar Hoax)? Either these were deliberately allowed or else they leaked out. If they were deliberatly allowed, then for what purpose? If they leaked out without authorisation, then this does not say much about the US government's alledged control of the press.

To repeat my previous question, if the U.S. is a society almost entirely based on lies how would you know?

I don't know for sure. It is possible that the entire world media is part of a conspiracy designed to lead me to believe that the Vietnam war occurred, that the USSR sent men into space and so forth.

However, were this the case, I would expect far more anomolies as the various reporters and editors tried to get their stories straight.

We know that in the Soviet Union and other states where all media are controlled and owned by the state, that word on what is happening still gets out. In the US where there are tens of thousands of news sources, how is such control excercised and coordinated?

I am aware that the US government manipulates the media through the use of spin and selective release of information, but in order for the country to be based on lies, there would have to be the sort of control over the media that North Korea has and more. If this is the case, I would have to ask, how is this done?

Also, where are the dissidents and refugees from this totalitarian state where people in the media are forced to put out lies invented by the state or face prosecution? And, unlike the former Soviet Union or North Korea, you can just hop on a plane out of the country.

And again, if this is the case, how do you explain Lewinsky and the other mundane yet damaging scandels that - were there to be the sort of control you speak of ("mouthpiece of the US government") - should be fairly easy to keep the lid on. If they can't keep the lid on things like this, how the hell could they manage a lunar landing hoax with the world's press on their doorstep and the Soviets listening and tracking spacecraft ready to blow the whistle?

There is a judgement involved in all this. It is possible to imagine a scenario where everything is controlled so well (with deliberate leaks of mundane scandel for credibility, for example) that people don't believe that there is total and rigid control of absolutely everything that is read or watched by the public. But you have to ask yourself how likely is this?

robindch

Hi again Turley -

Landing on the moon is not in your field and the other guys fall into my previous response to Dappergent.

Rocketry is not my specific field, but mechanical engineering and physics certainly are, and in my capacity as a qualified, chartered engineer, I can tell you that all of the (very basic) physical arguments that you have put forward as demonstrating 'suspicious' behaviour are nothing of the kind. FYI, I also speak Russian and spent a pleasant evening two years back, discussing rocketry and the achievments of the US and Soviet space programs with an effusive rocket engineer in Siberia and discovered, amongst much else, that the moon-hoax idea does not exist in Russia, where people tend to be somewhat quicker at picking up certain kinds of mindwash. In fact, my friend laughed out loud when I mentioned that the moon landings are considered 'debatable' in certain strata.

Out of interest, what's your qualification, if you don't mind me asking, that you feel yourself sufficiently knowledgable concerning spaceflight to be able to out-guess and out-smart the guys in JPL, Baikonur and Zvezdny Gorodok, Jiuquan, Xichang, Guyana, Jodrell Bank and elsewhere? Or do you feel that there's a global conspiracy afoot of agencies who otherwise compete for business in the orbital insertion game?

Not knowing that the Amercan press is the voice of the American government is a severe handicap.

While this is not relevant to the moon-hoax notion, I have already clearly stated that although there are some media outlets which are republican party soapboxes (Fox News, CNN (up to a point) etc, etc), nonetheless, there are quite a few that are worth listening to, NPR and PBS springing to mind, apart from the newspapers I mentioned earlier (and which you also rubbished as conspiratorial).

It is not the moon landings Robin.

In this case, what is the it to which you're referring?

- robin.

DapperGent

Turley wrote:

You are making a very big mistake.

I don't understand. I was agreeing with you, my old geology lecturer was a really shifty character and obviously up to no good.

Being less sarcastic. Syke made a very good point with regard to lunar samples and the rigourous scientific testing to which they have been subjected, these examinations and experiments have been conducted across the world and by scientists from many different countries. Their charterictics have been used to both confirm and support geological theories, to suggest others and to scupper more.

What every scientists has been in agreement on is that they are not of this world.

I would agree further with you but it appears you either lack the with or more likely the desire to examine fully your own beliefs, being quite content as you are. I suggest a career in organised religion or at least a belief in one as a means to furthering your own sense of well being.

Turley

DapperGent wrote:

What every scientists has been in agreement on is that they are not of this world.

According to NASA moon samples were primarily made of plagioclase which consists of sodium, calcium, aluminum, silicon, and oxygen. Plagioclase can be found worldwide.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/answers.html

Turley

robindch wrote:

...Or do you feel that there's a global conspiracy afoot of agencies ... there are quite a few that are worth listening to, NPR and PBS springing to mind, apart from the newspapers I mentioned earlier (and which you also rubbished as conspiratorial).

If, in fact, you are incorrect, and the Americans never landed on the moon while you maintain they did, it does not follow then that you, are part of a conspiracy. I have never argued that there is a conspiracy among numerous scientist and journalists.

The fact that a lot of people accept something false as true does not mean they are part of "a global conspiracy."

robindch wrote:

In this case, what is the it to which you're referring?

truth

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

The question, for me at least, is why were we told about Ms Lewinsky and the Iran Contra affair and other mundane scandals (by comparison with the Lunar Hoax)? Either these were deliberately allowed or else they leaked out. If they were deliberatly allowed, then for what purpose?

Before you ask why something is you must know that it is.

SkepticOne wrote:

However, were this the case, I would expect far more anomolies as the various reporters and editors tried to get their stories straight.

They do have stories very straight that Oswald killed JFK, men landed on the moon, Vincent Foster shot himself, and 19 men committed suicide and mass murder on 9/11. All the reporters and editors have these stories straight.

SkepticOne wrote:

In the US where there are tens of thousands of news sources, how is such control excercised and coordinated?

Again you are asking how it is before you have determined that it is. First we must know "that it is so" before we ask how it is possible.

SkepticOne wrote:

Also, where are the dissidents and refugees from this totalitarian state where people in the media are forced to put out lies invented by the state or face prosecution? And, unlike the former Soviet Union or North Korea, you can just hop on a plane out of the country.

That remains true for now, but the borders are closing. You can't leave the country without going through security and there already is a "no fly list" for some people and once your name is on the list there is no know way to get it removed. The Americans force all travelers to go though security even for domestic travel. Train stations are also coming under the same security. It is the American people that are being searched. There are plans for national identity cards. Americans are a breath away from being locked in their land.

SkepticOne wrote:

And again, if this is the case, how do you explain Lewinsky and the other mundane yet damaging scandels that - were there to be the sort of control you speak of ("mouthpiece of the US government") - should be fairly easy to keep the lid on.

They are keeping the lid on this http://www.fbicover-up.com/

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

Before you ask why something is you must know that it is.

I don't agree. You can assume for the sake of argument that something is the case and then examine what questions are raised by that assumption. If these questions don't have satisfactory answers, then this casts doubt on the original assumption.

Let us assume that we have been deliberatly told by the US Government about the Monica Lewinsky affair. If that is the case, then why were we told? What is the motive behind the telling? Did it serve some political purpose?

You are suggesting that the US Government has total control over the media. They would have to have total control to pull off the supposed Lunar Landing hoax.

If that is the case, then either they deliberately wanted the Lewinsky affair to emerge, in which case why? What did Clinton gain from this exposure?

Otherwise we have to conclude that, perhaps they don't such total control. In which case how did they manage the supposed Moon hoax?

Again you are asking how it is before you have determined that it is. First we must know "that it is so" before we ask how it is possible.

But "that it is" is what is being questioned. If you suggest something is the case that I consider impossible, I'm perfectly entitled to ask how you think it is possible?

If you can't come up with how it is possible, then fine. I'll draw my own conclusions from that.

That remains true for now, but the borders are closing. You can't leave the country without going through security and there already is a "no fly list" for some people and once your name is on the list there is no know way to get it removed. The Americans force all travelers to go though security even for domestic travel. Train stations are also coming under the same security. It is the American people that are being searched. There are plans for national identity cards. Americans are a breath away from being locked in their land.

I understand your worry about the future, but we are talking about events in the 60's and 70's.

robindch

Hi again Turley -

I have never argued that there is a conspiracy among numerous scientist and journalists.

Again, for the umpteenth time, you are wrong, this time about yourself and yes, you have argued this, both indirectly and directly:

NASA is part of the U.S. Government [...] The FBI and US government [...] have notably and knowingly deceived the world on many occasions

The only difference between the American press and the press in North Korea is a bigger budget and a better quality illusion.

At this late stage, and as I mentioned yesterday, you've provided no (even faintly) incontrovertible technical evidence whatsoever that the moon landings were faked, and instead, you appear simply to rely on a deep, personal, almost religious (see your posting of 21-12-2004 22:08), conviction that everybody in a position of power is telling you lies, though I've yet to establish why you think that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions?, of people are going to this huge effort, or what possible benefit might accrue from such a conspiracy.

Given also, that you've failed to answer, or even mention, the large majority of my rebuttals, I'm afraid that I'll have to stop contributing to this thread as I feel that any further input from me is simply going to be wasted effort. FWIW, while checking up some facts last night, I came across the Apollo press kits which are available here from the KSC website's historical section and which make absolutely fascinating reading for any larval space-jockeys like myself and, no doubt, further evidence of something-or-other doom-laden for conspiracy theorists.

Thanks for an enjoyable, though ultimately fruitless, discussion and have a good festive season.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

...you appear simply to rely on a deep, personal, almost religious (see your posting of 21-12-2004 22:08), conviction that everybody in a position of power is telling you lies, though I've yet to establish why you think that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions?, of people are going to this huge effort, or what possible benefit might accrue from such a conspiracy.

Robin-
I am sorry that you have become frustrated and have found the discussion fruitless. I was once frustrated. I have learned to accept my views are unpopular with patience. You have always been polite and I thank you for that.

Please consider that it is not necessary for people to conspire to avoid the truth. People act in their own self-interest. In Herik Ibsen's seldom staged play, "An Enemy of the People" the society did not conspire against the main character. The townspeople were united against the truth because it was in their own self-interest for each citizen to oppose the truth. Ibsen, a former journalist, knew something about our reality.

Upton Sinclair's disturbing book "The Jungle" published in 1906 is still used in schools and can be found in stores. But his self-published (1919), even more disturbing, expose on journalism, "The Brass Check," is only available in used copies. Sinclair pondered the sell-out psychology of his fellow man when he wrote:

“If you are the publisher of a great newspaper or magazine, you belong to the ruling class of your community. You are invited to a place of prominence on all public occasions; your voice is heard whenever you choose to lift it. You may become a senator like Medill McCormick or Capper of Kansas, who owns eight newspapers and six magazines; a cabinet-member like Daniels, or an ambassador like Whitelaw Reid or Walter Page. You will float upon a wave of prosperity, and in this prosperity all your family will share; your sons will have careers open to them, your wife and your daughters will move in the “best society.” All this, of course, provided that you stand in with the powers that be, and play the game according to their rules. If by any chance you interfere with them, if you break the rules, then instantly in a thousand forms you feel the pressure of their displeasure. You are “cut” at the clubs, your sons and daughters are not invited to parties–you find your domestic happiness has become dependent upon your converting the whole family to your strange new revolutionary whim! And what if your youngest daughter does not share your enthusiasm for the “great unwashed”? What if your wife takes the side of her darling?” (end excerpt)

One of the brainy guys of the last century that some might call an evil genius, Bertrand Russell wrote: “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” Russell must have known something about foolish widespread beliefs. He also wrote, “There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.”

If an official document, exposing the moon landing as a hoax, were available and placed in a public library no one would notice. Recently the Seeley Mudd library at Princeton University included in its collection an official U.S. document that has been secret for 55 years. No one has noticed, no one knows the significance of the document, and no one cares to know. http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/finding_aids/forrestal/willcutts/index.html
I do not know “Why” people remain ignorant when the truth is in plain sight. But people do remain ignorant.

No one reads the 510-page tome I co-authored available for free at http://www.fbicover-up.com/ We wrote it because we mistakenly thought someone would be interested in suppressed news. People are comfortable not knowing disturbing things.

I think one difference between us is that I know of official history, widely believed to be true, that is provably false. Thus I am a skeptic. Without this knowledge that some of our official history is false it is almost impossible to consider the possibility that other official popular historic events are false.

I too will be leaving this message board. I thought I might find some skeptics. Instead I have found people that think pretty much like everyone else and are skeptical of skeptics. I remember the observation of the late Paul Goodman: "In America, you can say anything you want as long as it has no effect."

If someday you seek an alternative to what is in our history books you might visit http://www.dcdave.com/ David Martin is a skeptic. His recent article on America’s first Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestall is truly groundbreaking and predictably ignored.

Overdoing Learning

Could it be I’ve learned too much
If charged I must confess.
My views would be more popular
If I knew much less.

I could vote for Democrats
Or for the GOP
And not have old acquaintances
Almost run from me.

Educations big with them
And ignorance the foe
Except for those disturbing things
That they don’t want to know.
-David Martin

Merry Christmas,
Turley

Turley

SkepticOne wrote:

I don't agree. You can assume for the sake of argument that something is the case and then examine what questions are raised by that assumption. If these questions don't have satisfactory answers, then this casts doubt on the original assumption.

SkepticOne-
I see your point. You are right that we can put up a hypothesis and test it. But just because something works does not mean it is true. Men use the square root of 2 on the hypotenuese and measure curves with straight lines. The Ptolemaic universe works and is still used for navigation even though it does not correspond with reality.

SkepticOne wrote:

Let us assume that we have been deliberatly told by the US Government about the Monica Lewinsky affair. If that is the case, then why were we told? What is the motive behind the telling? Did it serve some political purpose?

I can answer your question. Like the Watergate scandal the Lewinsky affair is necessary to promote the false idea that the press and government are adversarial. The world view of most people rests on this false premise. It provided the appearance of accountability, necessary for people to believe the system works. The Lewinsky affair also provided cover for Kenneth Starr, and his associates John Bates and Brett Kavanaugh who joined with the press in concealing the far more serious crimes of murder and grand jury witness intimidation.

Starr became Dean of Pepperdine Law School, Bates a federal judge, Kavanaugh an official in the Bush White House and journalists involved advanced their careers accordingly. The real history suppressed from public view can be found at http://www.fbicover-up.com/ but no one is looking for what is not popular.

SkepticOne wrote:

If that is the case, then either they deliberately wanted the Lewinsky affair to emerge, in which case why? What did Clinton gain from this exposure?

In the same way a magician uses the big motion to conceal the little motion, the Lewinsky matter concealed a murder. Clinton did not gain from the exposure. Presidents come and go and are not the real power. The permanent goverment, the media elite and intelligence community, who shape public opinion gained credibility with the appearance of accountability.

SkepticOne wrote:

... we are talking about events in the 60's and 70's.

It is true the security was not tightening around America's borders in the 60's and 70's but now that you and I can share unfiltered information with the click of a mouse it is different world and America is changing.

I don't expect to change any minds. The best I hope for is to plant some seeds of doubt. As you said, for the sake of argument, assume I am correct that a serious crime was concealed behind the Lewinsky matter. What does that tell us about our 24-7 relentless investigative journalists? What does it say about your question, "how we know what we know?"
If they can lie about the murder of a White House official what else are they lying about? Moon landings? Maybe.
Skeptically,
-Turley

Turley

Turley wrote:

... and Brett Kavanaugh who joined with the press in concealing the far more serious crimes of murder and grand jury witness intimidation.

Brett M. Kavanaugh who I mentioned earlier is in today's edition of The Washington Post concerning a White House press release dated yesterday http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041223-1.html

You might think it would be news when a President of the U.S. appoints a man who is part of an on-going cover-up of a murder to serve on the bench of second highest court in the country.

The overwhelming evidence of Kavanaugh's participation in a murder cover-up and grand jury witness intimidation is well documented in the court ruling made public on October 10, 1997, by the same court he is being appointed to, as well as in secretly (and legally) tape recorded telephone conversations of Kavanaugh and his predecessor assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez.
http://www.fbicover-up.com/

When the Watergate scandal, Lewinsky affair, trusted media suppress the news, the public does not know what is suppressed. The opponents of Bush will cry Kavanaugh is too conservative and that he was too tough on Clinton over the Lewinsky matter!

No one will mention Kavanaugh's criminal past and present role in concealing murder. On some things to powers that be are unwavering, support for Israel, the Kennedy assassination, the death of James V. Forrestal, etc.

Reverse Logic
If something is wrong, the Russians would surely tell us.
The Russians have not told us,
Therefore, everything is okay.

If we can believe men walked on the moon we can believe Brett Kavanaugh is not concealing a murder. Or can we? Wouldn't someone tell us?

Turley

robindch wrote:

BTW, in Summa Theologica, Aquinas also said that "woman is defective and misbegotten.". Doesn't mean he was right, even if he was speaking from his self-appointed position of divine authority, as christian authors are endlessly wont to do.

Robin-

I can’t leave your quote of Aquinas unanswered. Aquinas also wrote, “woman is not misbegotten.”

In Question 92, of the First Part of the Summa, in Article 1, Objection 1, Aquinas quotes the Philosopher [Aristotle], “the female is a misbegotten male.”
In his reply to Objection 1 Aquinas wrote:
“As regards the particular nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex, while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external change, such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes. On the other hand, in relation to the universal nature, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as ordered to the work of generation. Now the universal intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but the female.”

By reading the entire Question 92 it is clear that Aquinas notes that while male and female are different they are one and both necessary. People have pulled a sentence our of context and used it to throw out Thomas Aquinas, one of the truly great thinkers. People dismiss Aquinas and accept men walking on the moon and whatever else suits their fancy.

I am not surprised to find people misquote Aquinas as easily as they accept men on the moon mythology.

Since you accepted the popular belief that Aquinas did not say "woman is not misbegotten", you might ask what else do you believe that is not true? Men walking on the moon?

For the truth,
Turley

robindch

Hi again Turley -

Leaving aside, as I said I would, the topic of moon-hoaxery and addressing the off-topic subject of Aquinas, I included the small quotation because it accurately summarised the intent of the entire sentence. To summarise the full text which you've kindly provided, we can learn from Aquinas that,

Woman is misbegotten(*)

Woman is not misbegotten

Male babies are perfect

Female babies are the result of defects, for example, from the south wind

Women exist only to produce babies

(*)Both the OED + Webster give the primary meaning of 'misbegotten' as 'bastard'.

Given this level of ignorance on display here, I can only wonder why anybody bothers to read him any more, other than as a historical oddity.

People dismiss Aquinas

Can't see why not. What did he say that's either true or useful in the preceeding?

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Can't see

Hello Robin-
That is right. I am sorry. You have formed a firm opinion of Aquinas and of men walking on the moon and you apparently can't see beyond your confident view.

I don't know where you got this quote

Women exist only to produce babies

I don't think you have read much of what Aquinas has written. You have absolutely no interest in studying Aquinas. You have formed an opinon based on very little reading and your mind is firmly closed. I can't change that.

Christ did not wash his hands according to the strictest Pharisaic rules and that was all the Pharisees and Scholars of the law could see. They saw only what they wanted to see and they were confident in their judgement of Christ.

My first step was self-doubt and accepting that I could be wrong. Not the popular view to be sure, but I do not seek what is popular.
-Turley

Fanny Cradock

i'm flabbergasted by the cynicism displayed towards, what i believe, is mankind's finest achievement.
the lesson to be learnt here is that no matter what man accomplishes, either as an individual or a collectively as a species, there will always be some "doubting thomas" who will poo-poo the achievement........... and that is a depressing thought.

these conspiracy theories MAY in a very FEW cases have SOME truth, but generally speaking they seek to only undermine popular beliefs (for the sake of it) and to purvey mistrust and fear in everything that is believed :eek: . and when i say everything, i mean EVERYTHING - the moon landings were faked, the twin towers attacks were orchested by the us goverment, terrorists exist around every corner, princess diana was murdered, ****ing roswell....etc etc. its all x files bull****

there is a conspiracy theory for EVERY socially important event. they cant all be true. this is an example!

robindch

Hi Turley -

I don't know where you got this quote "Women exist only to produce babies"

This summary comes from the second of the four sentences of Aquinas' which you've quoted to me, to wit:

in relation to the universal nature, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as ordered to the work of generation

...which, shorn of its antiquated grammer and archaic vocabulary, clearly indicates that Aquinas regarded woman as suitable only for 'generation', or baby-making in modern English. Is there another possible meaning to this sentence which you feel I may have missed?

As with my rebuttals in answer to your points concerning the alleged moon-hoax, you have failed again to answer, or even mention, any of my substantive arguments concerning the accuracy or worth of the text which you quoted to me, and have instead fallen back upon ad hominem attacks toward me concerning the openness of my mind, amongst other things.

At the risk of appearing unpleasant, when I wish only to state what seems to be the core issue here, it seems to me that you seem to have trouble assimilating information, digesting argument and forming a consequent opinion which is reasonably backed up by factual information. In particular, you seem to have great difficulty in determining appropriate authorities for sources of information, which is behaviour familiar to any of the skeptics around here who've put a bit of time and effort into developing an understanding of the propagation of the religious memes -- creationism, for example, amongst many others.

My first step was self-doubt and accepting that I could be wrong. Not the popular view to be sure

Around here, judging by the adverse comment your postings have generated (Fanny Cradock's one perhaps being the most forthright), I suspect that it may well be the popular view that you're wrong in your views concerning the moon-hoax.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

I don't know where you got this quote "Women exist only to produce babies"

This summary comes from the second of the four sentences of Aquinas' which you've quoted to me, to wit:

in relation to the universal nature, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as ordered to the work of generation

...which, shorn of its antiquated grammer and archaic vocabulary, clearly indicates that Aquinas regarded woman as suitable only for 'generation', or baby-making in modern English. Is there another possible meaning to this sentence which you feel I may have missed?

Robin-
Yes I feel you missed a lot. I think you are being unfair to attribute comments to Thomas Aquinas that he did not say.

It is incorrect to say Aquinas "clearly indicates" that he "regarded woman as suitable only for 'generation' or baby-making". Aquinas did not say "women exist only to produce babies." On the contrary, Aquinas consistently maintained that women and men exist for a higher purpose.

Aquinas also wrote, “it is in keeping with reason for a man to exercise the act of carnal union in the manner which is suited to the generation and upbringing of offspring.”(SCG,Bk3,pt2,Ch126) This does not mean that Aquinas is saying "men only exist to produce babies."

It appears both men and women are "included in nature’s intention as ordered to the work of generation." But this does not mean they only exist to produce babies. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of Aquinas by claiming he regarded women as only suitable for baby-making. He wrote, "Among all human pursuits the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful and more full of joy."

robindch wrote:

...fallen back upon ad hominem attacks toward me concerning the openness of my mind, amongst other things.

I am sorry, but I think it is a narrow-minded to misquote a renowned scholar like Aquinas and then dismiss his writings with your words, "Given this level of ignorance on display here, I can only wonder why anybody bothers to read him any more, other than as a historical oddity." The ignorance on display here was not that of Thomas Aquinas.

robindch wrote:

At the risk of appearing unpleasant, when I wish only to state what seems to be the core issue here, it seems to me that you seem to have trouble assimilating information, digesting argument and forming a consequent opinion which is reasonably backed up by factual information. In particular, you seem to have great difficulty in determining appropriate authorities for sources of information,

The difficulty in assimilating and understanding is demonstrated by a postion that Aquinas held, "Women exist only to produce babies"

Are U.S. government officials and the U.S. media the appropriate authorities for sources of information?
-Turley

bus77

robindch wrote:

This summary comes from the second of the four sentences of Aquinas' which you've quoted to me, to wit:

in relation to the universal nature, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as ordered to the work of generation

...which, shorn of its antiquated grammer and archaic vocabulary, clearly indicates that Aquinas regarded woman as suitable only for 'generation', or baby-making in modern English. Is there another possible meaning to this sentence which you feel I may have missed?

Tbh yes. While he did use the word "woman" he also stated "in relation to the universal nature'' Now that takes in many differnt species in all forms. If he was only thinking of women in relation to men instead of the female sex in nature he would not have used the word universal.

robindch wrote:

of the religious memes -- creationism, for example, amongst many others.

Seeing as this revolves around issues of government, Nationalism would be a better starting point.

Turley

Fanny Cradock wrote:

...the twin towers attacks ...there is a conspiracy theory for EVERY socially important event. they cant all be true.

I think you are right, they can't all be true, like the twin towers you mentioned. The excerpt below is from http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr27.html

"So what theories have we been offered to explain the events of that day?

"The most popular theory, at least among Americans, is the one offered by the Washington gang -- and it is, I must say, one that would have been met with riotous laughter and ridicule had it first been offered up by a 'conspiracy theorist.' It goes something like this: a loosely-knit gang of Islamic fundamentalists, living in caves and brimming with hatred of "our freedom" and "our democracy," secretly put together an elaborate plan, presumably sketching most of it out with sticks in the dirt, whereby nineteen guys armed with toothbrushes and razor blades would board four different commercial airline flights, commandeer them, radically alter their flight paths so that they would be aimed towards the East Coast's two most densely-packed and politically and economically significant targets, and then fly them masterfully into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, unimpeded by the fact that the country under attack has the most sophisticated air force and air defense system in the world, and spends more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined.

"The plotters apparently knew that everyone would be caught completely off guard by the assault, due to the fact that probably lass than a dozen countries had warned of the coming attacks, as had various agents of our own government, and because everyone knows that the Pentagon, even when on the highest state of alert, as it would be after both WTC towers had been attacked, is a sitting duck that is completely incapable of defending itself, because no one ever thought of allotting any of those hundreds of billions of dollars in 'defense' money that we spend every year to designing any sort of defenses for the Defense Department itself.

"In a major breach of terrorist etiquette, the terrorist group fingered for the attacks declined to take credit. But not to worry. We had evidence. And it was good evidence too. It wasn't manufactured and/or planted evidence, or anything of that nature. So don't go thinking that it was.

"Take, for example, hijacker/pilot Mohammad Atta's passport -- intact and deposited like a calling card atop a literal mountain of debris, as though it had hung in suspended animation for an hour or so - while the building burned and then imploded - before settling down atop the crumbled remains. That's solid evidence.

"And those flight manuals and copies of the Koran left behind in the rental car? You can hardly argue with evidence like that. And those Osama bin Laden videotapes? Why, it's clearly an open-and-shut case.

"Speaking of the bin Laden tapes, by the way, the one I want to see goes something like this:
Osama speaking to assembled followers: "We're the number 1 terrorist organization in the world ... (loud applause) ... We've masterminded every significant act of terrorism around the world for years now ... (more loud applause) ... We receive countless millions of dollars in funding ... (applause) ... Can't we get a decent videocamera around here? ... (silence) ... Look at these tapes! Have you seen these? I'm grainy, I'm out of focus, the sound quality is horrible. In this one I'm thin, in this one I'm heavy. And where are my close-ups? Can someone get my agent on the phone?"

[END EXCERPT]
-Turley

bus77

Turley, you must start a new thread for a new subject. This makes it easier for people new to the thread to follow the discussion.

Turley

bus77 wrote:

Turley, you must start a new thread for a new subject. This makes it easier for people new to the thread to follow the discussion.

I am sorry.

I did not intend to start a new discussion or thread. Defenders of the theory that men walked on the moon have continually argued that it is necessary to hold a "conspiracy theory" to disagree.

Fanny Cradock in a recent post argued that to question popular beliefs like moon landings and the twin towers attacks requires "conspiracy theories."

Since "conspiracy theories" are part of this discussion I took an excerpt from David McGowan's article on "conspiracy theories" at http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr27.html

The official version of the trade tower attacks is the very definition of a "conspiracy theory." It is a very popular and widely held conspiracy theory.

David McGowan would qualify as being a skeptic and unlike the unquestioning faithful believers in official "truths" and popular beliefs like men walking on the moon.

bus77

Turley wrote:

I am sorry.

No. On an individual level you regard your cause as being true.
Therefore, you are not really sorry.

Turley wrote:

Defenders of the theory that men walked on the moon

Technology itself has become sort of "faith" to a lot of people.
So it will be defended on at least a subconscious level a bit quicker than other subjects. However, to believe that others will debate with you/or examine a subject, based purely on blind faith is a mistake in itself. Blind faith only truly occurs in times of extreame fear or mistrust. The same principle applys to blind suspicion.

Turley wrote:

have continually argued that it is necessary to hold a "conspiracy theory" to disagree.

This is a mistake on many peoples part. For individuals who have lost complete trust in their government, and by association, the people who are still suportive of it. It is only nessesary to hold and propogate suspicion amongst the population in order to bring change. "Rabble rousing" is a phrase for it.
Suspicion in the government is natural, not only natual, but nearly unavoidable in countrys with massive populations. However, when compleate faith is lost in ones country/leadership/people, then suspicion/diversion alone becomes a valid tool/philosophy in itself. Both for the individual and the leadership.

Turley wrote:

Fanny Cradock in a recent post

I saw Fanny Cradocks post, and then I saw your reply. You were waiting for another subject to present itself.

Turley wrote:

Since "conspiracy theories" are part of this discussion

The stated original discussion was the moon landings. The best way to reach the truth in many matters, is by debate/discussion with others. But this was impossible because....

Turley wrote:

unquestioning faithful believers in official "truths"

You are a Nationalist.

Turley wrote:

I took an excerpt from David McGowan's article on "conspiracy theories" at http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr27.html

I understand the point you were making. That you dont need to have anothers conspiracy theory to be mistrustfull.

On a personal note, I'm far more interested in the motovations/needs that create a conspiracy in the first place, on a State or Individual level.

Turley

bus77 wrote:

You are a Nationalist.

bus77-
I am thinking you can't be talking to me. Perhaps you missed the ridicule in the excerpt of McGowan's article.

Terms of Opprobrium

"Anti-Semitic," "conspiracy theorist,"
Throw in "isolationist," too.
We don't need laws to limit our thoughts
When labeling language will do.
-David Martin

-Turley

bus77

Turley wrote:

bus77-I am thinking you can't be talking to me

Turley- I am thinking I was talking to you.

Turley wrote:

Perhaps you missed the ridicule in the excerpt of McGowan's article.

Didnt miss it, just not really interested in "musical-chairs" when it comes to words. Nevertheless, I will respond to this piece of poetry.

Terms of Opprobrium/Dont call me names.

(3)."Anti-Semitic,"
At the end of self-doubt, can come group-disgust/mistrust. The group involved depends on who the individual suspects was/is the root cause of the isolation and self doubt in the first place.

(2)."conspiracy theorist,"
In isolation, self-doubt becomes king. The main questions are, Why?Who?How?

(1).Throw in "isolationist," too.
It starts with group-doubt, then self-doubt. Isolation. If not in form, then in spirit.

(b) We don't need laws to limit our thoughts
We dont need David Martin to limit our words either tbh.:)

(a) When labeling language will do.
I've tried to learn what's behind a lot of labels turley. And I think my label for you, still stands. What would be your label for me? Or do you just find this entire post "rude"?

robindch

Hi again folks -

At the risk of repeating myself:

in relation to the universal nature, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as ordered to the work of generation

Well, taking this sentence apart, I get:

in relation to the universal nature: Seems to mean 'in relation to the world', or perhaps 'in the world'?

woman is not misbegotten: women aren't useless

but is included in nature’s intention as ordered to the work of generation: ...and are included for the sake of baby-making.

Which, again, seems to indicate to me that women are put on the earth to produce babies and nothing else. You've not yet explained why Aquinas regarded women, outside this narrow requirement for procreation, as defective, or as the result of defects caused by the South Wind, or whatever else.

I think it is a narrow-minded to misquote a renowned scholar like Aquinas

I did not misquote him and I went to some trouble to ensure that I was quoting him accurately. Though I do admit to having interpreted him in a way which you do not like. I inlcluded this quotation because it seems to summarise a peculiarly mediaeval worldview, as one would expect from a 13th century writer inspired (it seems to me) by a sense of his own perfection and inerrancy. There are plenty of other equally obnoxious quotations available from Aquinas' voluminous output, for example:

If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy.

...in favour of which I'd be interested in hearing any defense you may have to offer.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Which, again, seems to indicate to me that women are put on the earth to produce babies and nothing else.

Hi Robin-
It is true that a function of women is to produce babies. This is a function of men as well and Aquinas makes this clear. Your error is your interpretation that this means "and nothing else." Aquinas never said producing babies was the only function of women or men. Women and men are intended for a much higher purpose according to Aquinas.

robindch wrote:

...from a 13th century writer inspired (it seems to me) by a sense of his own perfection and inerrancy. There are plenty of other equally obnoxious quotations available from Aquinas' voluminous output...

I do not think you have read Aquinas. From the very beginning of his Treatise on God he refers to "the admixture of many errors" so he certainly had no "sense of his own perfection and inerrancy."

I do not think your view of Aquinas will change. Your mind is made up. But it appears you formed your opinion based on very little knowledge of what Aquinas actually wrote. And based on your opinion you have dismissed Aquinas as irrelevant and not worth reading. It would seem that you have a sense of inerrancy.

I had no interest in Aquinas and could not appreciate his wisdom until I discovered my own errancy.
Happy New Year,
Turley

robindch

It is true that a function of women is to produce babies.

I'm happy to see that, at last, we're able to agree on something.

Aquinas never said producing babies was the only function of women or men

Again -- <sigh> -- I have clearly parsed, phrase by phrase, the sentence where he claims this of women. I did not mention anything about men. Please do try to read what I write carefully; I do take time to express myself clearly and accurately.

I do not think you have read Aquinas

I'm surprised to hear that, despite never knowingly having met you outside this forum, you claim to know what I've read. FYI, I have indeed read various parts of Summa Theologica, but only in the sense that they're an historical oddity and not the bearers of any particular truth or wisdom, other than the usual, tedious, christian stuff. And also because they form some of the political backdrop to later books like Kramer's thoroughly odious Malleus Maleficarum, through much of which I've ploughed. Personally, I found Aquinas grating and largely uninformed, as one would expect form a religious writer of the 13th century.

At this stage, I was going to ask again some of the many questions that you've consistently ignored, but at this stage of the discussion, and as as before with the moon-hoax issue, frankly, I think I'm wasting my time because you simply ignore them.

Happy new year to all from snowy Kiev.

- robin.

bus77

robindch wrote:

If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy.

...in favour of which I'd be interested in hearing any defense you may have to offer.

- robin.

What made you think he was in favor of it?

The problem with both of you is, you think people only do and say things for no other reason than internal or selfish perspective.