Critical thinking: The moon landings, 9/11 and covid - Part 1

The two fundamental rules of critical thinking

Part 1: The two fundamental rules of critical thinking

Part 2: How those in power have influenced the disbelievers’ thinking with regard to both 9/11 and the moon landings

Part 3:  The second fundamental rule of critical thinking applied to covid

---

“People can be extremely intelligent, have taken a critical thinking course, and know logic inside and out. Yet they may just become clever debaters, not critical thinkers, because they are unwilling to look at their own biases.” – Carole Wade

“When your mind is full of assumptions, conclusions, and beliefs, it has no penetration, it just repeats past impressions.” – Sadhguru

“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” – Voltaire

“A great truth wants to be criticised not idolised.” – Nietzsche

Common combinations of beliefs about 9/11 and the moon landings are:

1. The moon landings happened and 9/11 was a terrorist attack
2. The moon landings were fake and 9/11 was an “inside job” *
3. The moon landings happened and 9/11 was an “inside job”
4. We don’t know enough about one (or both) event/s to be sure what kind of event/s they were

* Inside job: The US government was responsible for everything that happened including the alleged deaths and injuries

A much less common combination of beliefs is:
5. The moon landings were fake and 9/11 was a Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise** pushed out as a real terror attack

The rarest of all though, held by hardly anyone else as far as I can tell, but what I believe to be true is:
6.  The moon landings happened and 9/11 was a Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise pushed out as a real terror attack

** A Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise comprising numerous smaller exercises and drills, many of which we were informed of but a crucial few we weren’t; the planes were faked and death and injury were staged and there is no clear evidence of any real injury or death at all which isn’t to say none happened.

If the combination of my beliefs about these two events is incorrect who cares? If I’m right, however, and virtually everyone else has got it wrong about one or both of two major events in recent history what does that say about the way of thinking of the vast majority and what is it about my thinking that’s so different?

The way I see it is I do nothing special except follow two key rules of critical thinking and what I observe is that others don’t, rather their superior skills in critical thinking appear only when their inclination to believe and reality align which is not critical thinking at all really, you cannot apply critical thinking only in that situation, what is required is to detach yourself from any inclination to believe and steadfastly follow the rules regardless of your biases.

Two important guideposts
1. Every relevant piece of information will at least support if not favour the correct hypothesis

It is useful to constantly bear in mind that the nature of reality is that every single relevant piece of information will at least support if not favour the correct hypothesis. Any relevant item selected at random will show that it at least is consistent with the hypothesis if not favour it. If not, the hypothesis isn’t correct. Sometimes seeming anomalies might contradict the correct hypothesis but on closer inspection will be revealed to be only seeming anomalies not real anomalies.

2. Internal consistency and consistency with expectations

Where all the evidence is both internally consistent and consistent with expectations, unless a good reason is put forward for doubt we should accept an hypothesis as correct.

If you abide by the following two rules and bear in mind the two guideposts above you will much more likely get to the truth than not:

Rule 1: Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
Rule 2: Confine your analysis to the most relevant and unarguable-with data in the first instance

Rule 1 applies generally to the validity of the hypothesis you hold
Rule 2 applies to the best way to approach evidence in order to get to the truth

Rule 1: Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong

When I came across the statement by Kary Mullis, the Nobel-prize winning inventor of the PCR technique, in an interview with Gary Null, "The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong," I thought, "Bingo! That's what I do.” If ever what I believe is challenged by anyone or anything I review my hypothesis against the challenge to see if it still holds. I also go out of my way to investigate the opposing arguments sufficiently to ensure I can respond to them … and if I can’t respond with a good argument, I change my mind or at least “park” the challenge for later review. Richard Feynman effectively said the same thing as Kary Mullis in his commencement address at Caltech in 1974 entitled, Cargo Cult Science.

My experience with regard to this rule is that people tend to:

1. Blatantly ignore challenges to their thinking and steamroll on – this would be the most egregious but unfortunately an extremely common offence against critical thinking.

2. Make no serious effort to check their hypothesis is correct. They don’t immerse themselves in opposing arguments to check they can respond to the case put forward for them. A requirement of Rule 1 is to “follow the debunking trail” if there is one. If Expert/School-of-thought A says, “It’s X” and Expert/School-of-thought B’s response is, “It’s not X, it’s Y because Z” check what Expert/School-of-thought A says in response and so on. It is a fallacy that as non-experts we cannot determine what is correct; not on our own perhaps in many cases but we often can follow argument between experts and determine who has the better argument. Sometimes, the argument is too arcane but in that case there are often less arcane arguments we can use to guide us. It is not generally just purely scientific or scientifically-challenging data we need to rely on.

3. Cherry-pick - they throw up a possible alternative explanation for one item in the opposing case without considering whether this possible alternative is better or debunks it and without consideration of the other items in the case. If it doesn't debunk the challenge it has no value. When your belief is challenged you need to do a considered review of all the reasons you maintain your belief and whether the reasons put forward for the belief that challenges yours are superior, not just grab at a possible alternative explanation for single items in the opposing case.

Rule 2: Confine your analysis to the most relevant and unarguable-with data in the first instance

If the nature of reality is that every single piece of evidence will at least support if not favour the correct hypothesis then if there is a reasonable amount of unarguable-with data and all of it supports your hypothesis if not favours it over any other then it's going to be rather difficult for another hypothesis to be correct.

People get carried away with claims on subject matter about which they have insufficient understanding, for which there is not good evidence and that do not align with all the evidence. They also focus on irrelevant information which creates confusion and clouds the issue. Even if certain facts are unarguable-with are they necessarily the most relevant? Considering the most relevant and unarguable-with data first sets you on a good path to the truth. In essence it’s Occam's Razor, shaving away the unnecessary.

Small but significant

Imagine opposing hypotheses as opposing kerbs of a road where information on one side of the centre line seems to favour one hypothesis while that on the other seems to favour the opposing hypothesis. Of course, only one hypothesis can be correct (if either of them are) so all the information must really exist only on one side of the centre line, assuming one of the hypotheses is correct.

To my mind, the information that’s really most significant is that which hugs the kerb, the information that is the most difficult to push over the centre line to the other side. A large, seemingly compelling piece of evidence might actually prove to be easy to push over the centre line when it is understood properly, for example, seemingly injured people really being actors in a drill, while a tiny, seemingly insignificant piece of evidence might hug the kerb very tightly unable to be pushed away and if indeed this tiny piece of evidence cannot be dislodged from the kerb and cannot make its way over the centre line, then in the absence of evidence to the contrary, this tiny piece of evidence essentially acts as proof of the correct hypothesis.

Let’s consider small but telling pieces of evidence for the moon landings and 9/11:

The moon landings – subtlety so utterly consistent with expectations
Images of the moon landings show minute amounts of dust on the landing pads of the lunar module which can only be seen in high-resolution photos with the magnifying tool and a faint radial exhaust pattern under the lunar module.

These barely detectable elements seen in the moon landing images hug the “we went” hypothesis as tightly as can be – they are lodged into the kerb with glue and - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - on their own they virtually prove the moon landings. Why on earth would images be faked in such a manner? Who would even think of such a thing? If the moon landings were a psychological operation (psyop) as 9/11 was then they were a psyop like no other because an element of psyop fakery is deliberate sloppiness and this level of subtlety is completely alien to psyop fakery and would not be expected even in fakery aimed to simulate reality as closely as possible.

And, of course, these subtle indications of only a tiny amount of dust on the landing pads and only slight disturbances under the lunar module are exactly what are expected according to the lunar conditions and the thrust of the lunar module when it landed. We see perfect internal consistency and consistency with expectations from every angle.

Have the disbelievers of the moon landings:
1. Tried to prove their hypothesis wrong by immersing themselves in the Apollo program material and ensuring they can respond to all the debunking of the moon hoax arguments, including explanations for many seeming anomalies such as shadows not appearing to be parallel?
They have not.

2. Confined their argument to the most relevant and unarguable-with data in the first instance?
No, they have focused on areas in which they have no authoritative knowledge, arguing as if they do. There is no need to look at more arcane areas. All we need to do is compare the evidence put forward against our expectations considering the unique lunar conditions, for example, the brightly-sunlit lunar surface against a black sky, and see that there is a perfect match and that there are no seeming anomalies that bear scrutiny.

9/11 – media personnel “scripted” rather than “speaking candidly”

On the day of 9/11 (or at least it seems as though they were done on that day) there are recordings of reporters alluding to controlled demolition when speaking about the collapse of WTC-7, the third building to come down on 9/11 at the World Trade Centre. I quote four below seen in this extraordinary video showcasing WTC-7’s impeccable implosion made to the song, Free Fallin’, by Tom Petty:

Vince DeMentri, WCBS reporter
“It was almost as if it were a planned implosion. It just pancaked.”

Al Jones, 1010 WINS reporter
“And I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion. It looked like it had been done by a demolition crew, the whole thing just collapsing down on itself.”

Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
“Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.”

Exchange between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant

“Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?”

[“To go in” is a demolition-industry term used in relation to building destruction by implosion that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]

“Yes, sir.”

“And you guys knew this was comin’ all day.”

“We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”

9/11 researchers who use these allusions in their argument for cause of destruction of WTC-7 being controlled demolition assume that the reporters are speaking candidly, however, the “speaking candidly” hypothesis doesn’t fit the bare “inside job” hypothesis at all well (Brian Williams using an industry-term that would indicate he was in on the murder of 3,000 of his fellow citizens?) while “scripted” perfectly fits the hypothesis that:

• 9/11 was essentially a glorified anti-terror exercise that was completely staged apart from the building destructions, that is, the planes were faked and death and injury were staged and

• the perps don’t try to hide the fact, they advertise it in various ways, they simply rely on the perennially trusty Emperor’s New Clothes effect of their propaganda for the majority of people (but most importantly, not all) not to recognise that the 9/11 narrative is preposterous from start to finish.

How the allusions fit “scripted” better than “speaking candidly”.

It is pretty much impossible to explain how Brian Williams’ use of a demolition-industry term in relation to WTC-7’s collapse fits the “speaking candidly” hypothesis:

• By the afternoon the terrorist narrative was in full swing so why would a journalist use a term that incriminates the government in such a casual fashion?

• One would wonder how he would know the term “to go in”, it’s not used much at all outside the industry.

• Above all, 9/11 is a narrative which needs to be managed. We really wouldn’t expect media personnel to be left loose to say whatever occurred to them.

On the other hand, “scripted” fits the hypothesis perfectly:

While a journalist as an individual wouldn’t choose to say something so incriminating those in power have complete confidence in the seemingly limitless elasticity of the Emperor’s New Clothes effect. They know that all these surprising allusions will be waved and explained away later by the majority of people if they’re even aware of them.

When we accept that 9/11 was, in reality, a glorified exercise the fact that Brian Williams – and a whole host of others it seems – was “in on it” is not so surprising.

When we use the guidepost that all pieces of evidence will line up to support the correct hypothesis the tiny pieces of evidence so often easily ignored can be extremely significant.

Part 2: How those in power have influenced thinking with regard to both 9/11 and the moon landings

REFERENCES:
Debunkers of the moon hoax arguments
​Moon hoax: Debunked!, Paolo Attivissimo
Debunking of Dave McGowan's, Wagging the Moondoggie (incomplete).
Debunking of Massimo Mazzucco's, American Moon  (Part 1)
Debunking of Massimo Mazzucco's, American Moon (Part 2)
Apollo Hoax.net (shows links to other sites)
Debunking the Apollo Hoax

Analysts who recognise that 9/11 was a Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise
Olga and Slava Klimova (Earthly Fireflies) - their 1-hour film, 9/11 Fraud and Terror Agenda, is the single best source to understand 9/11
Miles Mathis
Fakeologist
John Le Bon
Simon Shack
Allan Weisbecker
Jon Revusky
Piece of mindful
Cutting through the fog
The Unexpected Cosmology - Noel Joshua Hadley