The Sun is Not What we We Have Been Told....

[Monica]

my point was there is nothing hidden or new with respect to what we're talking about, and his opinions on the subject were quite public.

Then why not just say that? Why the jab "If you bothered to read Einstein" ?

Totally unnecessary.

I'm sure he's up for the Nobel Prize

Yes, in due time.

as opposed to deductive reasoning from first principles. I.e. you can basically start with inductive reasoning and create postulates from which to derive a system of physics (as Larson did) or you can continually create mechanisms, fields, forces, agencies in an ad hoc manner (free invention).

Ah, you mean relying solely on intuition and imagination as guidance? Putting intuition and imagination as 'more important than knowledge'?

Who gets to decide how much is too much? When is it acceptable to utilize the faculties of intuition/imagination and when does it become 'ad hoc'?

you've lost me with that. It sounds like you are somehow conflating use or non use of intuition with bias? And lip service? Free of distortions in their perceptions? What does that have to do with use of the intuition?

You missed (or ignored) the rest of what I said...it wasn't just about intuition but anything other than rational thinking.

The knowledge and intelligence of many scientists necessarily affords tremendous insight into the viability of so called "new" info.

That is their mistake. If it is truly new, it might not fit into their box. It might create a new box, or enlarge the old box. But if they are limited to the old box, they miss the new developments.

This has happened throughout history. Great pioneers in thinking often aren't recognized as such until after their deaths.

As a rule, most "new" info (I.e. from hand waving non scientists) is simply not new to them.

Right. And because of so many charlatans out there, the 'real' scientists often miss the genuine ones, because they lump them all in together.

That is bias, and it is particularly harmful to the scientific community, which is supposed to be free of bias and utterly scientific in their approach.

you're again conflating ridicule of the intuition with some kind of perception of bias and close mindedness.

No I'm not. You are ignoring what I just said, not once but twice:

if I broaden the request to include my original statement, which wasn't just about intuition but about anything outside their established box.

Just about all our probes use stars as fixed reference points to ensure accurate guidance. Our orbiting spacecraft routinely record stars - yes the same stars we see on earth. It's almost embarrassing to have to point this out.

OK now that is useful info. It sounds reasonable and makes perfect sense to a non-scientist like me.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, since I'm not a scientist I don't know anything about the site that posted the article. Is it mainstream? Or in the category of what you call 'hand-waving?'

My first thought was that it was some sort of disinfo, for the purpose of validating the black sky in the moon landing footage, which, as we all know, was used as evidence to support the belief that the moon landing was a hoax. Personally, I thought it was so ridiculous for them to leave out the stars, that I thought it was evidence for the opposite - the authenticity of the footage.

Knowing what we know from Ra about moon bases, my guess is that the footage was staged, but not for the reasons the conspiracy theorists think...it was staged because they were already going there and had been for quite some time.

"Ignorant masses" being intentionally confused by disinfo from websites which promote conspiracies such as bring4th.org.

Well first of all, this is just a discussion site. It doesn't claim to be an authority on anything. So anyone who takes something they read here as absolute, must be very gullible. Because they have to know that the participants here aren't claiming to be experts on anything. It should be obvious by now that one cannot believe everything they read on the internet.

Much more heinous are those who claim to be in positions of authority, with thousands of followers, and then make blatantly false statements.

...Such as the chem1 'professor' who says a piece of medical equipment used in the country ranking #1 in the world for health is 'snake oil' and then mixing up acid and alkaline in his explanation, along with other blatant errors, which are so ridiculous that either he isn't actually a chemistry professor and is really stupid, or the deception is intentional...he is playing on the ignorance of the masses to promote his propaganda.

...Such as the so-called scientists who promoted the lies of the 911 Commission, amidst concrete evidence and eyewitness accounts that were ignored.

...Such as Dr. Mercola, with whom I have a love-hate relationship. I love his exposing of the corruption in the drug industry, but his info on diet shows his obvious biases. He routinely misleads the public by ignoring certain studies and data, in favor of the ones he likes, he reviews products he obviously hasn't taken the time to investigate at all, to the point where his review is actually comical, he routinely makes outrageous statements with twisted words, again, so ridiculous that it's obvious he is biased, likely due to promoting his own products, etc.

...Such as the guy who wrote the 'blood type diet' book, and the company that does the continuing training classes for chiropractors and naturopaths, and all the doctors who attend those classes, and totally eat it all up, treating that blood type diet book as though some sort of bible, as though fact, when it's all just theory. How many thousands or even millions of people follow that diet and take their supplements according to this 'theory' presented as fact.

Those are examples of people/websites putting themselves into positions of authority. Bring4th doesn't do that.

yes Monica, some things can't be known for certain but there is a point where conspiracy purveyors get shamelessly absurd.

Very true! Then again, many of the so-called 'conspiracy theories' aren't theories at all but have more forensic evidence than the mainstream, official 'theory' which was presented as fact. A good example of this is 911.

That which is blatantly false, not feasible, untenable, nonviable. One recognizes bullshit as it runs contrary with known facts from experience.

Can you give some examples from Bring4th that you consider bullshit?