It was real, and there is no benefit in denying the truth. This idea of "keeping an open mind" is just an unwillingness to sort truth from lies---which is a desire to keep lies in play, perpetually.
Open minds require actual evidence, not conspiracy theories or fabulous imaginary scenarios.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If anything has been revealed to me is that I shouldn't take a hardline stance on anything I haven't done proven my very self. I question everything now, unless I can personally confirm or deny it. I will listen and view all evidence, but I still won't go all in and assault anyone else's beliefs. I may think some folks are silly, but I won't disparage them. Spirited disagreement is fun, but keep it light.
At some point, you will have to trust your life to what you know...and it is impossible to verify all knowledge personally. People ask me if I gamble, and my answer is "only with my life."
The best armor of truth is a broad knowledge that connects subject matter together. If the span of knowledge integrates, that is a good sign that it does so because it is true. Nature is far more complicated than any conspiracy could ever hope to be.
You have to continue to operate and function with certain beliefs. Those beliefs may be very convincing and be strongly linked to evidence that asserts their validity, however rejecting any new evidence that is contradictory to your beliefs is the problem with science and many other people today. If new evidence is presented, I approach it with some skepticism, and analyze the evidence carefully to determine validity. If I find it true, I don't necessarily abandon my original belief, I just take it into consideration and weigh the new evidence against the body of other evidence and determine that my belief may be wrong, but definitely need to investigate further into all the evidence to find out if there are flaws in some of the evidence. My basic point is that I try to keep an open mind and not lash out against people without careful consideration.
Give me "new evidence" and I will consider it. ALL evidence must cohere. You don't need to lecture me about science. Read about the work of Halton Arp if you want to see "new evidence."
There is so little to doubt about the Apollo program, there is no "new evidence." Someone here already mentioned the laser and radar retroreflectors that were set down on the Moon, that are still in use today. Not possible if they weren't set there. All the cavils about the images from the Moon are ignorant of the condition on the Moon and the limitations of photography. The argument that men cannot pass through the Van Allen belts is an urban myth, disproved by their factual passage. It is exasperating. You talk like you are some defender of science, but I find that tone to be quite easily adopted by those who really do not know much of science, much less have an academic or professional specialty in it. Real science is often contrary to "common sense." As Galileo discovered about falling weights.
It was real, and there is no benefit in denying the truth. This idea of "keeping an open mind" is just an unwillingness to sort truth from lies---which is a desire to keep lies in play, perpetually.
Open minds require actual evidence, not conspiracy theories or fabulous imaginary scenarios.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If anything has been revealed to me is that I shouldn't take a hardline stance on anything I haven't done proven my very self. I question everything now, unless I can personally confirm or deny it. I will listen and view all evidence, but I still won't go all in and assault anyone else's beliefs. I may think some folks are silly, but I won't disparage them. Spirited disagreement is fun, but keep it light.
At some point, you will have to trust your life to what you know...and it is impossible to verify all knowledge personally. People ask me if I gamble, and my answer is "only with my life."
The best armor of truth is a broad knowledge that connects subject matter together. If the span of knowledge integrates, that is a good sign that it does so because it is true. Nature is far more complicated than any conspiracy could ever hope to be.
You have to continue to operate and function with certain beliefs. Those beliefs may be very convincing and be strongly linked to evidence that asserts their validity, however rejecting any new evidence that is contradictory to your beliefs is the problem with science and many other people today. If new evidence is presented, I approach it with some skepticism, and analyze the evidence carefully to determine validity. If I find it true, I don't necessarily abandon my original belief, I just take it into consideration and weigh the new evidence against the body of other evidence and determine that my belief may be wrong, but definitely need to investigate further into all the evidence to find out if there are flaws in some of the evidence. My basic point is that I try to keep an open mind and not lash out against people without careful consideration.
Give me "new evidence" and I will consider it. ALL evidence must cohere. You don't need to lecture me about science. Read about the work of Halton Arp if you want to see "new evidence."
There is so little to doubt about the Apollo program, there is no "new evidence." Someone here already mentioned the laser and radar retroreflectors that were set down on the Moon, that are still in use today. Not possible if they weren't set there. All the cavils about the images from the Moon are ignorant of the condition on the Moon and the limitations of photography. The argument that men cannot pass through the Van Allen belts is an urban myth, disproved by their factual passage. It is exasperating. You talk like you are some defender of science, but I find that tone to be quite easily adopted by those who really do not know much of science, much less have an academic or professional specialty in it. Real science is often contrary to "common sense." As Galileo discovered about falling weights.