TCT 017: Critical Thinking About Conspiracies | Part 2

http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com/2011/tct-017-critical-thinking-about-conspiracies-part-2/ This link takes you to the podcast episode hosted at the Critical …




  1. @PhilosophyFreak
    Quite true. However, I don't think you can discount any theory without looking at the evidence (I forget if it was this video or another one that had skeptic magazine suggesting you could). You just have to keep the a priori unlikelihood in mind when coming to a conclusion (keep in mind, our government doesn't necessarily have to be involved for explosives to have taken down the buildings).

    The strongest evidence I've seen for 9/11 conspiracy:

  2. @PhilosophyFreak
    I'd skip past the first ten minutes (its just setting up the sides and his credentials)

  3. A very good and balanced podcast. Personally it frustrates me that grand conspiracy theories tend to discredit legitimate information by connecting it with unfalsifiable theories. for example, I think there is more than enough evidence to believe the richest elites , corporations and governments have an agenda that isn't in the best interest of the rest of the world. wars are sold to the public as 'liberations' trough the use of fear. It's all a result of putting profit before everything else>>

  4. problems are often more profitable than solutions, so we destroy our environment , and cause suffering on a massive scale because that is what our system rewards. This doesn't mean that some secret group has been planning to enslave humanity for decades. People clearly prefer the idea of blaming one group of 'evildoers' for what is essentially a natural and inevitable result of a system that reinforces selfish and corrupt behavior despite the social or environmental cost.

  5. @PhilosophyFreak
    Hey. If You would be one of the people who rigged building 7 would You be willing to "tell the story"? Wouldn't there be anything at stake if You did so? Like your life, and Your family life? After all – You worked for psychopats in government, the most vicious ones of them. This is the parrt of the theory, and it is also supported by one study on exclusive hookers from east coast. It's mentioned in Grof's Beyond brain. A-bomb makinng is not a good analogy.

  6. Dude, You underestimate the power of TV. For some time people actually believed what they saw in this little box, and they had no way to crosscheck it with anything.
    Besides- evidence, evidence, evidence. Like the existance of the Van-Allen belt and nonexistance of any shield from it for the astronauts. LIke the official NASA movies showing how they made the distant shot of the moon by covering window.
    The lack of earth shot from moon or stars (no good camera for that) but took cars

  7. I was allmost hearing the argument that we all make at the end, but shockingly You missed it – no we do not argue that mind controll technics are omnipotent – this is not true. What we alway say with the grand theories is: the bigger hoax the harder it is to believe government would dare to pull it off – ok. If it's that unthinkable it must not be true. You just fell for it.

  8. Damn It's true what Moleneux sais about intelectuals – "so called". Their intelligence makes them vulnerable to all kind of lies and propaganda because their smartness developed as a safety mechanism to rationalize everything arond them. It is a psychologically proven way of relieving ones stress.
    He will explain it better:
    "Mensa Statists and the Aneurysm of Truth!"

  9. Well interesting calm look into this. I find strange inconsistency with the claim that nobody talks. Usually there are even some big name people supposedly talking about some conspiracy (like Roswell and extraterrestials), e.g. Philip Corso. Or chief of USA embassy in Yemen protesting against giving VISA to later 911 accused Al Kaida guys. I only found one interview with him on CBS. Media were not much interested in the whole passport case.:) Who knows here from home computer but…

  10. A very valid point, Another problem more specifically to do with global conspiracy theories is that the scope of the secret would have to be so large that somewhere along the line the chain would be broken and the secret would come out. Each additional person involved in the conspiracy adds another possible chance of it leaking, and even if that's a 99.9% secrecy rate, after a few thousand people in on the conspiracy chain….

  11. EXACT. these kind of people are the mouth piece for the the all seeing eye that Stewart Swerdlow talked about (he is a Montauk Project Survivor, only one thousand survived out of 300 thousand "KIDS")
    the guy that send me this video doesn't like what I am showing about the moon fill with "Reptilian statues and buildings that I found in so many NASA over-expose, blurred, smudged images and thanks to Rpeternell reverse photoshop he showed what's really on the MOON. Fuck these GOV. Debunkers slaves

  12. Man you know they found nano explosives in 3 different samples from the World trade CENTER debris. gasoline alone would not have been suficient to produce the kind of heat to burn the steel colums, firefighters talked about "explosions in the basement? several on the lower floors that people were thrown up and against walls? in the LOBBY?. The first plane exploded right before it hit the tower? on top of that it was a military plane. the Pentagon left no a single piece of the titanium engines?

  13. No "they" is a single man named Steven Jones who got a sample from some random woman in NY and can't even be verified.

    Steven Jones is a BAT SHIT CRAZY MORMON who believes Jesus lives with god on planet Kolob. Read his paper "Behold My Hands" where he tried to prove that Jesus visited Mayans and NA Indians.

    The guy is a KOOK like all the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth".


  14. Perhaps erea 51 employees and there consistency at no interview released SECRETS available mainstream, is a lender to how quiet employees can be. …just a thought

  15. I feel that the moon hoax also had a time frame of which the populous was to believe it (cold war arms race). of which now days a lot of people question the landings and for good reason, there is a huge amount of evidence that points to a falsification. This isn't just a rumor. BTW NASA is basically done for, at least in comparison to what it used to be. its all going private sector.

  16. I have yet to see a single bit of evidence for the moon "hoax". There are just countless logical fallacies, factual errors, good old plain maniplation of the 'lying for Jesus' kind and dead horses debunked so easily and often it not even funny anymore.

  17. You have two sides to the debate, the claimant and the skeptic. The claimant has the burden of proof, but who is making the claim, the people saying man walked on the moon or he people saying show me.

  18. I have seen one which proves the photo was no taken on the moon. I assume that you have seen this and gone further and can explain why it does not cast doubt on the moon landing.

  19. Chances are extremely high your "proof" photo has been debunked a thousand times already but by all means, please provide a link to it and I'd be happy to take a look.

  20. Yes and it's a claim that has been proven with physical evidence.

    You should watch my moon landing hoax debunk playlist.

    You sure have bought into a lot of bullshit you know that !

    I suggest you take the free courses.

  21. it isnot true that when you expose something it will be big news, it is known fact that the mainstream media is under the c.f.r control , somebody admitted involvment to jesse ventura, in the jfk assassination on his deathbed and it didnt even go mainstream. if you whistleblow now they just kill you.

  22. The moon landings: Some of the people have spoken out, also recall the Manhattan project, they managed to keep that secret, and tens of thousands were involved, everything works on a need to know bases, not everyone in these hoaxes are aware what’s going and why. Only a fe chosen individuals, and many who open their mouths, meet with accidents, that goes on too, oddly enough.

  23. Your whole underlying premise is flawed: that they cannot control what people say or do: Who owns the media and who has control or great influence over it, the same people who contrive these events in the first place ( look at the BBC reporting the collapse of building 7 near 30 mins before it happened) . You said it, spin doctors, departments which supply disinformation: You admit this yourself, then if there is no cover-ups or conspiracy why have them ? it’s cover them up!

  24. it's a shame you have no idea what your on about, you don’t know who you’re talking to or what I know, but you claim to indulge in scholarly debate, yet here you are mindlessly throwing around unsubstantiated comments like there facts or evidence. You’re a deluded fool! Go back to school and learn something!

  25. No! All it demands is the race with undertaker, to let all parties involved to be deceased after NDA expiration. Then there is no one left to reveal it.

  26. All this drivel mumbled about should be replaced by research and verification from various sources that are no affiliated to NASA or any financial benefit dealing with any party. This video is no different from the Bible. Does the author even know that NDA with DoD is for 50 years, and that all programmes are compartmentalised? This video is so cheap.

  27. NDAs back then were only for classified information. Most of the Apollo Program wasn't top secret. Some of the rocket work by Rocketdyne was top secret because the tech could be used for ICBMs.

    If you believe the moon hoax conspiracy you are clearly not a rational critical thinker.

    You should consider taking the courses at criticalthinkeracademy com

  28. Oh, and Soviet N1 ( nositelj 1) moonrocket was also for a short time? How about Tonkin incident? How about Tacit Blue aircraft? B-2 ? A-12? Where are your numbers, references, verification, stats?

  29. The Tacit Blue was a test aircraft in the 1980s and flew for three years. Only one was ever built and it was revealed in 95 I think.

    The B-2 was never "secret" as the ATB program was publicly known as an acquisition request though Aurora was a top secret black project. The GAO etc couldn't say jack shit until the mid 1980s and it was publicly reveled in '88.

  30. The A-12 Oxcart was a prototype used between 62 to 68. Johnson made the existence of the SR-71 public on 25 July 1964. Technical details of the program were only declassified in 2007.

  31. Do you realise that from blueprints to actual working prototype it takes about 10 years. And thousands of engineers and technicians that are involved, yet somehow they didn`t reveal details on these classified programms. Moonhoax will be revealed in next 10-12 years under lack of funding to obfuscate inconsistencies and NASA will be fragmented in space related services and consulting.

  32. Have you heard of the Google Lunar X Prize ?

    Expect live 1080p HD video from a PRIVATE lunar rover documenting an Apollo landing site.



  33. What's this arbitrary claim it takes ten years from a blueprint to prototype ?

    For what specifically ?

    Many famous aerospace vehicles have been developed from paper to manufacture in way less than ten years.

  34. The NSA PRISM program was meant to be a secret indefinitely, but somebody squealed. Sandy Hoax was meant to be a secret indefinitely, but it's easy to see through it now. 9/11 is questionable.

  35. Ummmm Edward Snowden.  People said that the government monitoring and listening in to calls and emails was a conspiracy theory. I appreciate that you weren't condescending when talking about this subject.  I ask you, the host of this show, why is it "conspiracy theory" to question the words on known liars, murderers and thieves, I am talking about the agents of the state, of course. I find it both perplexing and frustrating, that so called "skeptics" will always dismiss anyone who dares question the words of government so called officials, yet never apply that same skepticism to the state.

  36. At 4:00, "…the bigger and grander the conspiracy." Any competent engineer knows that the more complicated a system, the more like it is to fail. By extension of the principle, the larger and more complicated the conspiracy, the less likely it is to remain secret (and the more likely it is to fail).

  37. I enjoyed the video but, I don't agree when you imply that every big conspiracies , need mind control of the many people involved, and that alone discredits them, .. but there's the possibility that ,most of the people involved doesn't even know it,… For example , nurses that administrate vaccines have no control or knowledge of the substance they administer , they're qualified and they assume they're giving just the vaccine they been told. ….

  38. I would add that any foreign government would profit greatly at having something like the moon landing exposed as a conspiracy and that the intelligence community of, say, the USSR would not be so easily duped by a fake moon landing. They have not only the motive to expose a moon landing hoax, but also the means to expose it. If the whole of the communist worlds, with all their resources, can't seem to uncover the moon landing "hoax" it seems entirely implausible that some high school drop out, trailer park, internet "investigator" conspiracy nut would be able to accomplish what they could not. Given that, it would seem that the most reasonable explanation for the moon landing "hoax" is that it was not a hoax.

  39. I have a question about what is being defined here as grand conspiracies. The skeptics position as you point out is the more people would have to keep quiet the less likely it is. That seems reasonable. Someone would let the cat out the bag right.
     What if someone were to appear on TV apparently letting the cat out the bag. Saying I was involved. I did this and I did that and I was threatened not to talk. How would you know that they werent lying? There are a couple of reasons someone might lie. For one fifteen minutes of fame. For another disliking the group in question because of their perceived aims and therefore deliberately slandering them. I couldnt really know. Yet it might all be true. The conspiracy theorist would be saying see someone wasnt able to keep quiet.
    For example we have all seen something like this. I was a freemason for years, and when it came to getting my 33 degree I had to sacrifice a chicken to satan. Brave whistle blower, or lunatic Christian? How can we know?

Leave a Reply to Norm Vigas Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *