World Reality

I hear this statement on a daily basis,

"Never believe what you see on the net"

Especially when I look at Facebook conversations on some topics I’ve covered on this site.

And that statement is followed up with "Only use reliable sources of information" or “Get your information from a credible source”

So what is that source?

What is considered credible or reliable?

How accurate is that statement?

Is EVERYTHING on the internet unreliable?

I'm rarely this blunt but I' would have to say..............No

THAT IS NOT ACCURATE !

There is a lot of information floating around in cyber space.

Personally I'm happy to admit I couldn't even begin to comprehend how much information.

This could be dangerous, I'm taking a leap of faith here but but I thought I would try and ask the internet how much.

Again I'm rarely this blunt but I'm just going to come out and say considering just how much information is out there the idea that EVERYTHING you read on the internet, just by the odds alone is an impossibility.

Unfortunately the definition of Good or bad , Reliable or Unreliable is subjective.

I'll attempt to explain this with a few concepts so again i ask please read to the end.

Over the recent years the increase in data has exploded and is attributed to social media.

The thing I love about Facebook is you get to join groups which interest you and can chat with people who are like minded or you can converse with people who are your polar opposite from all around the world.

Combine this with other platforms an we have the collaborative knowledge of our entire world at our finger tips.

But how often do you hear someone ask a question and the other says "google it". This happens all too often and many don't realize the potential, dismiss it or "don't have time".

I actually prefer having conversations with people who disagree with my view and I find I learn far more from them than people who agree with me.

Imagine how boring life would be if everyone just agreed. And as ill attempt to explain this would be detrimental to the information.

More important to me is not just the "facts" but more about how people work, who they are, where they come from and how they got there.

I am willing to hear what someone has to say about anything, No subject is off limits.

I don't get offended or angry, I don't start name calling , I don't ignore them and I certainly don't think that I am any more intelligent than they are.

Its a choice we all have.

All i expect is they pay me the same courtesy.

There is nothing wrong with debate and I'm sure we are all aware that 99% of the time no one is going to change their mind.

I consider trying to force someone to change their mind is an argument not a conversation.

I now think of this as a good thing in most cases. All any one can do is lay out their information and hope the other looks at it before dismissing it.

Can i ask, Do you think that happens on Social media?

Have you ever looked at the comments section and the things that are said? Especially over "Controversial" subjects. (key word for later)

Have you ever wondered why we are like this?

Think about what we are missing by acting this way.......

I have come to learn that

There Is No Such Thing As Credible Information, Reliable Sources Or Absolute Truth.

Anyone claiming to have the absolute truth should probably be avoided.

Did you notice the wording of the image for how much information is out there?

I'm not saying any of these sources are unreliable but I suggest reading the image again carefully.

I would like to also propose that there is also no such thing as bad information and it should be our goal to get the information from as many sources as possible.

Did you read the Image again like I asked?

"Who is responsible for the content"

WHILE IT MAY SEEM LIKE THE USER THE RESPONSIBILITY FALLS ON THE ENTERPRISE FOR THE SECURITY OF THE INFORMATION CREATED BY THE USER

The issues I have with some of the Enterprises above are things like the Privacy or security policy.

Have a read any of the Policies from the sources you rely on?

Have a read, It seems like a good policy doesn't it? We cant just have people creating "Controversial" , "Sexist" , "Racial" information.

But who decides what falls in those categories?

In many cases

It may seem like AND IT SHOULD BE the Users responsibility

Its your choice to be offended by, dismiss, accept or validate the content.

Obviously there are things that shouldn't be out there (Child pornography being a good example)

But giving total control to the "Enterprise" over the content may not be such a good idea.

The Enterprises policies need to be examined by the users (public).

Issues I see with this are things like the company agenda.

Others could be things like company ethics (click here to see an example of Wikipedia's)

YouTube is a good example.

Ever clicked on a video and seen this image

I Consider This Removing Freedom Of Both Information And Speech From The Public.

Google and Facebook are also leading the way.

The other issue I have with a source like YouTube is not their fault at all.

Its ours

If you say you to someone you got your information from a YouTube video people automatically assume its incorrect.

There are thousands of channels and most of the of ones I subscribe too are people with quality videos that are well thought out and contain well researched information or ideas.

How do I know its well researched?

Because I verify the information for myself using multiple sources.

That is what is know as Research.

I "Re"-----"search" ideas, opinions, statements etc.

Its a source for ideas I may not have ever considered

Did I say it is accurate?.........No I said it is well researched.

Do I always agree or come to the same outcome?...... No of course not.

And this is a good thing.

Why? keep reading

Now I consider that you might be thinking I have an agenda.

You'd be correct and i place it on the top of every page.

I feel the agenda is important.

The difference I see is that I personally will not get any benefit regardless of your perception of my information.

I'm also not limiting your ability to access or share information and I'm actually encouraging it.

You may have never considered this but perhaps the main stream news channels are a perfect example of this. Please take the time to visit the page if you are unsure of why I claim this.

As I've stated...... I'm doing this site for me. To gather and retain the information and to show people close to me. Not to convince anyone but simply to help explain my point of view on the subject matter, share the information, encourage them to do the same with the goal of improving knowledge.

So How do we get the facts?

What do you consider as a fact?

"A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience"

The word "fact" is just a word we associate with. The definition seems to be very open if you add the word "experience"

Have you ever heard of the Slingshot argument?

It states that all true statements stand for the same thing - the truth value. If the argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for then we reach the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact.

The Key Is With With Any Information Is

discernment.

What is discernment?

“the ability to obtain sharp perceptions or to judge well (or the activity of so doing). In the case of judgement, discernment can be psychological or moral in nature. In the sphere of judgement, discernment involves going past the mere perception of something and making nuanced judgments about its properties or qualities. Considered as a virtue, a discerning individual is considered to possess wisdom, and be of good judgement; especially so with regard to subject matter often overlooked by others”

I would like to shorten this and please ask that you

“Go Past The Mere Perception Of Something Avoid Making Nuanced Judgments About Its Properties Or Qualities, Especially So With Regard To Subject Matter Often Overlooked By Others And Then Make A Psychological And Moral Judgement”

Forget About Facts. Aim For The Virtue Of Wisdom

I Removed "Perception" As It Is Shaped Over Time And Influenced By Many Things

Perception is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but is shaped by learning, memory, expectation, and attention.

Perception can be split into two processes, Firstly processing sensory input

Secondly processing which is connected with person's concept and expectations (knowledge), and selective mechanisms (attention) that influence perception.

I would like you to consider the second process.

-Expectations.

Sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote that a person's expectation is directly linked to self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether or not such an expectation is truthful or not, has little or no effect on the outcome. If a person believes what they are told or convinces themselves of the fact, chances are this person will see the expectation to its inevitable conclusion.

-Attention

Is a behavioral and cognitive process of selectively concentrating on a discrete aspect of information, whether deemed subjective or objective, while ignoring other perceivable information.

Perception also depends on complex functions of the nervous system, which happen outside of our conscious awareness.

"The perceptual systems of the brain enable individuals to see the world around them as stable"

And we have a predisposition to perceive things in certain ways (called perceptual sets) which can be created by motivation or bias

A good example......spectator sports.

Think about how someone "perceives" what happened when an umpire makes a call on a play.

Thousands of people "Boooo" while thousands of people cheer.

Be honest with yourself now, If you strongly support the team that was penalized what do you automatically think?

I like sports but I don’t get into any of them enough to ever actually support a team but I know all of my friends who are mad supporters will scream

“OH COME ON, that umpire is blind, He has been picking on us all day and if we lose because of him I’m going to *!$#@ ”

So were the legs at the beach legs or hotdogs?

As an observer who couldn’t care less of the outcome of that decision a very large majority of the time I can see it was the right call to make.

I can’t help but wonder and when i wonder I always ask (say) “well he did do ____ dont you think?” and the response I get back…..well I think you know how it goes.

So we have an event (information) followed by an automatic response to a "perceived event" (perception of the information) that could be said to be only a correct or incorrect decision (information) yet we have a 50 / 50 split on what is the correct call in the crowd.

Now some people have the ability to recognize this and then think about why they reacted that way.

In this example some will leave it there and consider the other possibility while others will hold onto it and actually start to justify it

"That umpire is picking on us". I've literally seen fist fights over this.

Understanding the effect of our perception we may even be able to learn the ability to prevent the reaction in the first place.

A person’s individual personality traits can also create a perceptual set. A good example would be someone who has an aggressive personality will be quicker to identify aggressive words or situations. Have you ever had a mate that just always seems to get in fights no matter where you go?

I have. It was almost like they attract each other, perhaps because they are both perceiving the other as being hostile.

Philosophers say the purpose of perception is knowledge while evolutionary psychologists claim that its primary purpose is to guide action and based on problems faced by humans in our evolutionary past

Derren does a few examples of this on the streets of the UK.

People actually hand over items like their phones, watches, wallet with no consideration and he is a complete stranger..They take quite some time to realize what has occurred and chase him down.

Ok so we learnt a valuable lesson right? Wrong......

One subject gets his stuff back and then hands it back over instantly without any thought

So Perception Can Be Totally Subconscious And Could Literally Make You Give Someone The Clothes Off Your Back.

So you as an individual need to be aware of this when processing any decision.

But did you here what he said at around 2:45.

"one particularly suggestible guy"

Do you fall into the "particularly Suggestible".

To test this perhaps try watching Derrens subliminal /PWA test by clicking here. He used this on live TV in the UK.

I recommend clicking here and watching theentire feature Called "The Events 2, How to control a Nation"

All of Derrens episodes can be seen by clicking here or visit his site here. I highly recommend watching them all. Perception is one one of the subjects he covers.

S0 what can we do about this?

You MUST Posses Some Self Knowledge.

Self Knowledge is a term used in psychology to describe the information that an individual draws upon when finding an answer to the question.

Self knowledge is said to have 3 primary aspects which have have a relationship with things like memory.

We are said to have 3 primary motives that guide our search for self knowledge which is what I would like to consider here

.

1) Self-enhancement

Refers to the fact that people seem motivated to experience positive emotional states and to avoid experiencing negative emotional states.

2) Accuracy.

Our accuracy needs influence the way in which we search for self-knowledge.

We want to know the truth about ourselves without regard as to whether we learn something positive or negative

3) Consistency

Many theorists believe that we have a motive to protect the self-concept (and thus our self-knowledge) from change.

This leads people to look for and welcome information that is consistent with what they believe to be true about themselves; likewise, they will avoid and reject information which presents inconsistencies with their beliefs.

Not everyone has been shown to pursue a self-consistency motive. (I'll get to this further down)

This phenomenon is also known as self-verification theory which describes that once a person develops an idea about what they are like, they will strive to verify the accompanying self-views

Considerations thought to drive our self-view are that we feel more comfortable and secure when we believe that others see us in the same way that we see ourselves so we actively seek feedback that helps us avoid finding out that we are wrong about our self-views and assume that social interactions will proceed more smoothly when other people view us the same way as we view ourselves.

We draw on several sources for our Self Knowledge and the social world plays key aspect. Our need to feel good about ourselves affects how we assess information

so for example a scientist is considered by society to be well educated and posses all the facts so we may agree with the information they present not based on our assessment of it but our need to verify that we are well educated and know all the facts.

So while we are touching on this have you ever heard of the CIA using mind control?

Yep another "crazy conspiracy". What are these people thinking?

But have you ever heard of Operation MockingBird?

If your feeling a bit lazy then click here to see how Derren proves hypnosis can be used on individuals to perform immoral tasks such as throwing a bucket of "acid" at a strangers face and much worse. It is totally against better judgement and free will ,and done without any consideration. Worse yet, afterward they have no recollection of doing it.

This has been claimed by "Conspiracy Theorists" in the past.

One such individual , the motivation for Derrens experiment is said to be Sirhan Bishara Sirhan who was convicted for the assassination of Robert F Kennedy on June 5th 1968.

I've covered these topics in greater detail on my Mind control page and Robert F Kennedy Page so please check them out.

I also found it very interesting when i was trying to find "The Experiment- Assassin" video.

Why?

Because the first few I found "were not available in my country" but all of his other episodes were.

This just might be my conspiracy senses tingling but could you give me a reason why Australia or any country for that matter would have a policy lock on a video showing that mind control isn't just Sci-fi , futuristic or conspiracy but is actually a real thing?

Now I am always surprised when people wonder why there is a "conspiracy theory" for just about every subject like this.

I just wanted to do a basic skim of a few pages of Robert F Kennedy and Sirhan Bishara Sirhan to see if there is any stand outs to research further that may collaborate the hypnosis "Conspiracy Theory" in Derrens experiment.

So next time your having a discussion on Facebook or while your reading my information or any information for that matter first.........

Be Honest With Yourself, How Much Of What You Consider As Fact Is Actually Your Decision Based On Discernment Of Information From Multiple Sources, As Many Sources As You Can Find?

How Much Have You Actually Confirmed?

Do you just accept that everything your told is correct?

Think about it again, If Derren knows how to control your decisions do you think that your government, NASA, The Military, Media outlets, Food companies, product advertisers etc dont?

Do you BELIEVE or do you KNOW???????????

I only say this because i think this is the divide between the "conspiracy theorist" and the "accepted".

Now many people like me will know exactly what i mean by this example.

If I say the moon landings were faked. A very small percentage of people agree with me on a conversation like Facebook.

The page on this site has hundreds of examples of just the Moon landing issues but i generally only bring up one at a time. This is how question and answer should work.

Please understand anyone who thinks they faked it has heard all of the same things about the moon landing as people who believe it.

I got the same story from NASA, School, Science mags etc. I didn't just wake up one morning and say "no they faked it"

I must admit that until 6 months ago i hadn't dug as deep as i now know I should have but i had seen the evidence presented for photo manipulation, anomalies, shadows etc. Just like I'm sure everyone who still believes it has seen at least once so we have the same situation but in reverse, The only difference is I looked at it and actually gave it a bit more thought and kept looking regardless of how crazy it sounded.

I don't care if they actually went, I'm serious when I say that Id be very happy to be proven wrong.

That's a good thing if they didn't lie but i have seen enough to think "wait a minute the story isn't 100%."

Think about a time when someone was telling you a story and stumbled on it, left something out or you picked up something not quite right in the story. Im willing to bet that you would begin to question the whole story and probably treat everything they say from that point on as a bit suspicious.

So why not NASA? I would suggest you use that suspicion for every government statement.

Because "conspiracy theorists" question it and continued to be open minded they tend to looked into every clip, picture, documentary, website they see.

Yes there are points that have been brought up that I also dismissed outright as "evidence" of faking it and some have been clearly debunked. So if the "conspiracy theorist" is still going on about it then they are guilty of perception based evidence.

Some have been debunked but not all. In fact there is still a very big list.

I find most people supporting the landings will start their reasoning by sending me a link to the wiki page on the Lunar retroreflector as seen here.

Ok so lets give them some credit because at least they spent a few seconds actually looking something up. But the use of this subject as proof makes one of three things obvious right out of the gate.

1) They don't read the information at all. "Wiki have an article, NASA say they did so they did, case closed, I win"

2) They do read but have not exercised their ability to examine information critically or use discernment.

As we have covered, your perception is automatic. Based on your bias or expectations. Everyone is guilty of this but only some apply discernment.

or the worst of the group

3) They do read the article but for some reason they have the need to hold onto the fact that NASA did go to the moon, like it will crush their world if its proven wrong or its like they personally went to the moon I'm calling them a liar. I can see why maybe Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the below video. Its a clip from the full feature known as "Astronauts Gone wild" which is worth the watch

Exactly my experience. I would safely bet(i know my perception) that he watched this 1:46 clip only because it says in the title that Buzz punched someone and clearly thinks this behavior is appropriate towards "Conspiracy ?>$%@s " by both Buzz and himself.

Conspiracy theorist in green is being objective "to be fair", "Supposed", "not all"

to be fair go to the video and check the 115 comments. Nasty people on both sides. But 115 comments and i saw one link to any sort of "evidence" and the rest was basically just a nonsensical argument of "wheres your proof", Why should I provide proof" , "we have Pictures" , "they are fake", "NASA has all the files, evidence, records, logs"

Everyone is an expert and have all the facts. Ok so If they have all the logs lets see them.

And I sort of agree with comment 3 but watch the whole feature and decide for yourself and pay attention to what the astronauts say.

How many swear on the bible?

They are the only ones who can say with absolute Truth and certainty that they actually went to the moon.

These are men of science, most men of science like Neil deGrasse Tyson openly mock the idea of a creator and outright say your an idiot to think there is one.

So then whats the problem with just putting your hand on it and saying "yes i did"?.

Then People like me and MO would't have any reason to question these things.

So Ok if Buzz did go..... I could understand why he is upset and if this is all i had to go on I might even say Sibrel deserved it.

But its not all i have to go on and the information is right there for you as well if you want to check it out.

So why do I consider it important to question it?

firstly....

We should all question authority, especially Government because they are to represent us not control us and Tax funded organizations because its our money. If they didnt go we should ask for our money back. The trillions of dollars give to them could have been put to better use.

Secondly....

Because its not about the moon. Its bigger than that. If they lied about this then imagine what else they are hiding. If you question it and its proven correct then absolutely no harm was done and laugh away at Sibrel. On the other hand.........

I think this need to defend it is what is known in psychology as cognitive dissonance,

Cognitive Dissonance is" mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values"

"The theory developed by Leon Festinger focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it."

And Its clear this is the case if the person gets extremely angry immediately, starts abusing others and calling them every name under the sun.

No mater what evidence is presented not even a second of consideration is given to it.

I used to think it was a patriotic thing and maybe its just considered a personal attack or something but I am Australian and I get it with a majority of people here as well.

I had one guy bombard me with 50 messages and then say "ok so some of the images are fake".

When i asked "why they would fake even just 1 if they actually went" the reply was, and this is becoming more common every year

"They doctor the pictures because of the secret space program and there are alien bases are on the moon"

If I'm not mistaken that is a conspiracy theory? Well at least 10 years ago it was....

And one that is extremely difficult to provide credible evidence for other than Doctored pictures which could be evidence for either case.

How can I tell this for all 3 people?

Because in the article they sent it says

"The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from moon's surface"

So i bring this up and say "just wondering if you read the article". and wait for their response.

There is a big debate in the groups who discuss this regularly on who has the burden of proof in this argument.

I fell that yes i have to provide substantial evidence for a substantial claim Buuuutttt .

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson

“The Good Thing About Science Is That It's True Whether Or Not You Believe In It.”

So no mater what argument I have or evidence I provide it should be disproved beyond all shadow of doubt. This is what I consider to be a fact.

Unless your definition is what is called a Slingshot argument which claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing - the truth value If the argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then we reach the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact.

Neil also makes a substantial claim. But has all the Truths on his side so I would argue the burden of proof lies with science and the official story. I wonder what version of Truth Neil goes by.

Now in an ideal world this is how any person should break this down. No need to fact check anything further just yet. Just examine this one piece of information.

It say they did it 7 years before Apollo 11. lets just read some more before jumping to a conclusion or calling people names...

"Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser"

Ok so we have 2 independent countries / agencies saying the same thing...

"Greater accuracy was achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on July 21, 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11, and two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have also contributed to the experiment"

Ok so that means we did put them there right?

Could there possibly be another way to get better accuracy?

Perhaps if they could do it without the reflectors one could safely say the moons surface is reflective. We are told it reflects the sun so that's credible.

Is the surface perfectly consistent. There are craters and dark spots one can see so maybe they just found a better reflecting surface which resulted in improvement.

Possible??? ...Yes .... falsifiable?? ........No

Is there any other information that might stand out before one goes hunting through just the 15 links that stand out as being most beneficial from the possible 24 in only 2 paragraphs one has read so far to help understand the people, companies, missions and technology, possible motives etc.

One is using this as an argument and later going to use it call me, simply for having a different opinion "scum of the earth, a useless moron tin foil hatter and just do humanity a favor, never reproduce and die?

Hmm one should notice they missed that weird name they have never heard of before, Lunakhod 2 on just the second line of the article.

Maybe one shouldn't just glance over and look for what they recognize or proves their perception .....But there is plenty more to the article so maybe one should read it all first.

The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals were detected after 1971 until a team from University of California rediscovered the array in April 2010 using images from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.[3] Lunokhod 2's array continues to return signals to Earth.[4] The Lunokhod arrays suffer from decreased performance in direct sunlight, a factor which was considered in the reflectors placed during the Apollo missions.[5]

What..... Russia have reflectors?????

So one could safely say a manned mission is not required to Place them there if that is true. Its on the same article provided as evidence to back up ones belief that NASA have sent Men there. If at this point one considers that to be a false statement can one rely on any of this information?

One could conclude this doesn't prove that NASA sent men to the moon.

He asked me "have i read the article" so is this what he meant?.

one should see why it is at the very least questionable. At this point its best to say a polite "thanks for pointing that out and ill look into it further"

Now does one provide another proof to examine?

Or consider that one hasnt read as much about this as they should have. Perhaps rather than get upset ill ask for what further evidence they have and we can go through this process again.

Now i have had some conversations like this, Its highly enjoyable and refreshing as its extremely rare.

But (as my perception indicated at the start) most of the time I get a reply back

"We have Moon rocks "

Excellent evidence.

So I ask what i consider a logical question based on previously discussed information like

"If they can put things on the moon without Man going there don't you think its possible they could bring things back"

Have you looked into alternatives to explain "moon rocks". Have you seen one?