Could it be that sundialsvcs is giving us an example of how a MYTH with no real association with reality than an error filled human memory could start?

I still say this isn't a myth, this is a conspiracy theory. Myths, like dreams, deal with archetypes.

Lay off poor sundialsvcs - he's often the only sane and reasonable one contributing. But I agree that moon ladings heppened, etc. And you, Hazel. have raised an interesting point, as we can't get back to myths.

I would argue they can do great damage. They are like an unarmed insurrection. I don't care, because I reckon the whole mess is going down in the near future, while still a going concern. But people who believe in this system might care.

While I do agree that some even started out as archetypes, even the WhiteHat/Good vs/ BlacxkHat/Evil level of archetypes, others became archetypes through repetition over long stretches of time. Since time was required to reach large numbers of people, ultimately it is, I think, ultimately due to enough instances, enough people, to reach a tipping point where the story will not likely die out. If we agree that for example, Gilgamesh, Thor, and Quetzalcoatl are mythical stories what came before them for which they became archetypes after? Whether it is Powerful Leader, Warrior Deities or Angry but Wise Gods, it seems to me they still depend totally on the numbers of individuals who were aware of the stories and revered the primary as important world concepts, to be passed on.

I suppose it must again be noted that I've not participated in nor seen in others any attempts to denigrate sundialsvcs, quite the opposite. As much as it is possible with just raw text to go on, I like and respect the man (and it is an assumption sundialsvcs is male, so if not, my apologies assuming that matters to anyone) and just as the most common cliches of "Only a true friend will tell you when your face is dirty" or "Friends don't let friends drive drunk' or "Spare the rod and spoil the child" it is not good practice to let anyone we care about to continue on dangerous paths without at least assessing the risks vs/ benefits. If a young boy starts out accepting as fact that it's wise to distrust everything equally that shapes a person's outlook on people and Life in general, and more fundamental than that, one's critical thinking in evaluating evidence to settle on solid conclusions.

I, for one, would prefer that someone as smart, educated, and personable as sundialsvcs not continue to carry around weak beliefs that can cause others to dismiss him as a rigidly gullible conspiracy theorist. I think he deserves the effort to try to get him to argue the other side for a change to seek where the balance lies.... or where "the lies" balance.

The most-brilliant propaganda move was to couple the word conspiracy with the word theory, thereby immediately trying to discredit the notion that "conspiracies" actually exist. Fact is, the world is full of legitimate "conspiracies." And, people who find and report them.

"Yes, I'm a guy." And I would strongly encourage everyone, as a rule of thumb, to recognize that it is perfectly all right to disagree with what someone else is saying, but that should never extend to an attack or disparagement of the person, himself. You're just as entitled to say that I am "full of mud" concerning Apollo, as I am to say otherwise. Just don't cross that line of civility. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to convince you.

I should disclose here that I have a son who accepts some of what I think are conspiracy theories. He has studied the subjects, and could give you a much better defense of the anti moon landing, anti-9/11 viewpoints than you've had to date.

To my mind, it comes down to a different problem - credibility. Let me put some questions, with the default answers in square brackets

• Do you trust the Government 100% [No]
• Do you trust the Press, TV or Social Media 100%? [No]
• Do you trust the major Religions 100%? [No]
• Do you trust Scientists, Doctors,or Drug companies 100% [No]
• Who do you trust 100%? [Silence]

So, as everything is passed to us second hand, there is a huge credibility gap. In Ireland, the Catholic Church was on a pedestal and trusted 100% until all the child abuse they hads been lying about & covering up came out. No more!

So, whose "lies" do you believe? We have chosen to give credit to the "lies" on tv and in the Press, even though we don't trust them 100%. Sundialsvcs has chosen otherwise. My son also rejects events concerning 9/11. He (along with numerous vaccine experts) rejected the vaccination policy adopted by Governments, particularly vaccinating in mid-pandemic. But he had a reasonable and balanced approach.
These anti-vax medical experts were painted as nutcases, had their videos taken down, their posts removed, accounts closed and have given a body-blow to their careers. I see the Government angle - vaccination got the economies moving. A couple % of injuries/deaths among folks was a small price to pay. So much for your 1st Amendment!

I trust Science. If I read that there has been scientific research indicating the truth of some assertation I know that I can, as a scientist, recreate the research myself and collect my own data and verify or refute the conclusions. I also know that scientists all over the world will be doing the same thing and publishing their results (for or against) if they appear significant. i also know that there is little most scientists like better than to catch another scientists in an error or invalid conclusion, allowing us to correct the error.

I distrust research that has NOT been tested, and some "research" is really the attempt by some industry to subvert scientific publications to make people believe that a point has been "proven" when real data does not support the conclusion. There are a few rather odious examples of such behavior, and the results were challenged by objective scientists. ( I think in most of those cases they did not think we would actually READ the methods used and verify the data. They were wrong!) Results supported by multiple independent studies carry more weight than some one-off study that has not been challenged.

LOL I don't even trust myself 100% !! I've seen too many magic shows and optical illusions, not to mention eye-witness accounts that fail even honestly to imagine my senses and analyses are infallible. Human brains are easily confused by simple line drawings. It's one of the reasons measuring and other objective analyses are so valuable. However caution and analysis are not the same as blanket offhand dismissal. I also don't distrust myself or Government, Press, TV, Social Media, Religion, Scientists, Doctors or drug companies 100%. Each must be examined, measured and analyzed individually or really it's just lazy pulling answers out of your nethers.

Regarding the Covid issues. There is plenty to doubt about the origin of Sars Covid. There is evidence that drug companies were not completely open and honest about all concerns, but to dismiss the vaccines as completely about economy stimulus is absurd and also lazy, in my view. I had a nasty viral infection a few years ago that was previously only treatable with chemotherapy which had numerous awful side-effects and only about 40% success rate. I participated in a test for an mRNA vaccine that had evidence of 90+% success with little or no side-effects. The trials involving several hundred participants proved over 94% effective with the worst side effects apparently a sense of malaise for a week. I was one of the 94%, was tested and found 100% free of the virus by 3 sources. So I didn't have the misgivings some had (or still have) about modern vaccines.

Not only is it highly likely that millions were protected by the Covid vaccines, they served as a huge precedent to improve ongoing healthcare for a host of many other conditions. That we will need such quick and effective treatments in the modern Global Village is absolutely assured. I have zero problem with anyone choosing to not be vaccinated but I have big problems with those who try to take a personal choice and attempt to make it universal.

Yes, that's why I was hoping you might point to a longer video that you considered "original". But you never did.

By the way, I don't think the pause "proves" anything about whether the moon-landing happened or not. I would however, assert that if they faked it, NASA also correctly faked the delays (which would be pretty easy to do).

P.S. have you ever wondered why on news broadcasts foreign correspondents have a delay before answering, even though the news anchor doesn't wait before talking to them? It's the same principle, although the delay in that case is more due to network equipment and buffering than raw distance. (Seems hard to find a straight example of this, but here are several parodies of the well-known thing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5gIM3CzszWo https://youtube.com/watch?v=XNgB-NIHIN4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=fHeF1c2-2wE)

You're seriously still questioning me about "Tranquility Base?" C'mon, here it is – complete with Walter Cronkite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjNClixr1s0

Every newscaster on this planet eagerly carried the same footage. And here is the problem, between 0:38 and 0:41. It's staring you straight in the eye, if you choose to see it. Which of course "Uncle Walter" never did.

0:39 "Tranquility base here."
0:41 "Roger, Tranquility, we copy you on the ground ..."

Yes, it was exactly what "America, at that time, wanted to hear." Unfortunately, it was provably not true.

Unfortunately for them, NASA didn't "fake the delays." Probably they never thought of it. In any case, they're not there.

There. See. There are at least 3 possibilities for

including "Roger..." was not in direct response to "Tranquility" but to a signal strength meter or a "squelch" squawk

BUT

despite numerous hard, objective, repeatable evidence still repeatable 50 years later AND zero challenge from anyone, including "We will bury you" enemies with the sophisticated instrumentation to reveal the fraud, THAT'S the one you entertain 100%

I hope you realize this demonstrates severe confirmation bias, but apparently as is common, you don't. I sincerely hope you become more circumspect in time.

Faith is in the surrender to all the presumptions in the question, especially when decisions are made. Even the "absolute certainty" example, has presumptions of separatenesses that can be aggregated. Without this presumed separateness, 1 + 1 = 1, because one infinity plus one infinity is still just one infinity.

Sorry slac-in-the-box but that doesn't compute. Your presumption is like dividing by zero. 1 + 1 = 2 is a definition of terms in the abstract. Anything you choose to view as One, even if it in itself is a collection of other items, as long as that designation is applied consistently, 1 + 1 is ALWAYS 2, no exceptions within the consistent framework. From that fundamental all Mathematics stems. If you set that concept up as any other kind of progression or illustration, say a Venn Diagram or a Syllogism, because it is an abstract construct it never fails. Nothing does or can falsify it. Zero and Infinity in Mathematics are not real. They are abstractions, a kind of placeholder. Check your premises.

That reminds me of a story I heard about how once you admit a contradiction, you can prove just about anything!
https://everything2.com/title/If+0%2...+I+am+the+Pope