One does not have to be condescending to be telling the truth about people who do not INTEGRATE their knowledge:
<snip>
A lot of people also are deliberately not informing themselves. There are some things which are not actually debatable any more.
<snip>
Or they get furious just hearing of "that kooky stuff." Because it's been KEPT OFF-LIMITS, made off limits by official denouncements.
In fact, it's history, reality. Some of it is now KNOWN.
ZetaTalk and chemtrails, the notion that the Moon is not rotating, that planes didn't crash into buildings on 9/11, that the many witnesses in NYC are wrong, that Apollo didn't go to the Moon and that the Zapruder film is a fake are not "history" and are all certainly debatable.
[...]
I also question the premise that the "kooky stuff" has been kept off limits. Are you seriously suggesting that for example, JFK assassination theories haven't been widely accessible for years? Or 911 theories?
You are covering a lot of ground in your interview and touching on some things that I might consider valid.
However, anything real that you might discuss is discredited by association with the implausible. That's frequently mentioned as a strategy of deliberate disinformation.. I don't believe you are involved in anything like that, but the function is the same regardless of intent.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583Get real. Of course the assassination theories have been around, but kept as "theory as a notion" not theory tht would stand in a court of law and yes, let's take it there. No -- the mendia have talking points and always present it as "no credible evience" whenever they can. This keeps good people believing there is no conclusion possible.
As to the Z-film it is debated but not "debatable" any longer. It was at issue before Costella's work on optics. Now, the case is done. It is only the after-party of debate teams which you are now listening to: where the losers keep sayng, "we didn't lose".
Regarding the video fakry AND the plane issue of 9/11, the former is also proven with conclusive optic evidence (not all evidence is of that calibre, but some is: the parallax issues are), and for the latter, there is conclusive lack of evidence: planes leave massive wire, parts, etc., and can only manoevre in certain ways.
The Moon hoax I said I am not as familiar with the total case, but it stinks to the stars because of the photo fakes (some are definitely), and like the Z film, they were presented on a continuous roll. They are studio prints and technically perfect ...
But also the Van Allen belts and the little LEM make the thing preposterous.
The Zeta thing is not at the same level of testability. Not unless they present themselves physically for testing. Or PX presents itself -- but in that case, this debate is moot.
