There is a world of insane conspiracy theories out there with people who believe in all sorts of loony things, like a flat Earth, the universe is spinning around a stationary Earth, all of the moon landings are faked, NASA is some huge spider-like agency feeding lies to the public, the contrails we see from airplanes are actually mists of chemicals being sprayed on us, the World Trade Center buildings were brought down with explosives by our own government, etc., etc. It is closer to us than we think.

I accidentally engaged one since she is a former liberal arts student from about five years ago who took one of my courses. I did not realize that she was like this until a few days ago, when I saw this post to which she responded. At first, I was not sure if she was just being sarcastic, but then I asked her if she was serious. Below is the feed, edited to hide identities of her (“CT2”) and the original poster (“CT1”) on the conversation. I tried to just give clear answers. Instead of helping them see reality, I evidently became part of the conspiracy….

Ok, from here on, it is just straight from the thread, with formatting, etc. for a Word document and hiding identities. Also, all of the figures somehow can’t make it into Ricochet. Enjoy, or weep for our nation. Your choice.

{Figure caption} But that’s ok because “science” and computer animations. XD

Image file described below here Whole Earth

[ Image, A photograph of the Earth with the overlay text “2016 And Still No Video Footage of the Whole Earth Continually Spinning in Space”]

CT1: I’ve learned so much since 2005, when I started discovering the truth about various things. I now know too much. I can see things for what they are without trying. We are under attack in every conceivable way, yet most people don’t recognize this clear…

CT2: Reality is pretty clear to me as well. I likewise feel like i know too much. The elite don’t even bother to cover their tracks anymore. So many things are so obvious now i can’t believe more people don’t have their eyes open.

Me: You think that the Earth is not spinning on its north/south axis?

CT2: I’m not saying it’s one way or the other. All I’m saying is that there is no proof that we are spinning. NASA has a way of leaving much to our imagination.

‪Me: Do you remember our discussions of the Earth-Moon-Sun system and things such as the reason for the seasons, solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, etc? There is so much proof that the Earth is a big ball whose surface we live on, which rotates on its axis approximately once every 24 hours, orbits the Sun approximately once per year, etc. The fact that you can’t recall the evidence, which we discussed in detail, even in such an elementary course, does not mean that “there is no proof.” This kind of intellectual laziness, to just reject as a conspiracy, things that you don’t study, won’t serve you well. As far as I can recall, you are capable of much better than this. If you are really interested in learning about the evidence for this, I will be happy to go over it with you in detail after the semester is over. (but be forewarned, this will come at some cost to you — you will be assigned homework!)

;) )

CT2: Out of respect for my former professor, I will not argue this with you, however, I do not appreciate being called intellectually lazy. NASA has been a prime target of my personal studies for some time and what I have found is they seem to be far from honest with us about the so called “science” they conduct. No pictures of Earth released by them are real/undoctored pictures. They disclaim that the pictures are composites or based off of artist interpretation. Seems fishy that they can produce no authentic images when they are in control of hundreds of satellites and high powered telescopes. We could be stationary and the universe may revolve around us and what you said would still make sense. I know i have seen videos of NASA astronauts filming from inside giant water tanks and pass it off as filming from space. In others the women permed their hair so it would stand straight up to give the effect of zero gravity. I do not shrug off information out of laziness. I just have questions that there seems to no answers for besides they are trying to hide the true state of things from the general public. NASA controls all the space intelligence agencies. It would not be hard for them to devise a plan like this and carry it out all over the Earth and remain unnoticed by the masses. It’s not like that many of us have seen Earth or space with our own eyes.

‪Me: Ok

CT1: Never seen a video of the spinning earth from space is all that’s being said. Can you provide one or an explanation as to why one doesn’t exist? Do you believe we went to the moon in 1969?

Me: If you really want to explore the evidence, then one factoid spoon fed to you, will never satisfy you, if you just want to say “it is all made up!” Hence my offer to CT1, who is still local, I believe. People want to believe that anything which is true is immediately apprehended from one photograph and a few words, but understanding how the world works takes patient study. I can recommend an elementary astronomy text, if you really want to read about this. Remind me on Thursday, when I am relatively free and I will look in my office and find a good text to recommend.

Until then, just look at the night sky. Look how all of the stars and the moon and the planets appear to rotate from East to west: That is what a relatively fixed universe looks like to a creature who lives on a ball and looks away from the center of the ball (“up”). You can do this two ways. Look up every half hour and follow, say, the Orion constellation or Jupiter tonight. You will see it advancing in “snapshots of time.” If you are a bit patient, just sit outside for one hour looking at a star near a tree or a building. If you keep staring, you will see the getting either farther and farther away from the tree, or closer and closer, depending upon if the tree is on the east horizon or west horizon. That is in principle the same thing philosophically, but comes closest to “seeing a video of spinning.”

As to the moon landing, I remember it vividly, since I watched it as a young boy. One of my few memories from childhood. It somehow entered my mind that this way my birthday present, since it happened two days before my birthday.

CT1: You thought you watched it on TV, what you saw was a show put on by NASA. A TV show, written, directed and filmed here on Earth. Do you know what the Van Allen Radiation Belts are? What you watched on TV was impossible to have transpired on the moon with the technology we had, it was a propaganda show, no man could traverse the VA belts and live. Houston, we have a problem. If they are faking the moon landings, what else are they faking…hint, it’s a lot

Me: ok.

CT1: Dismissive and arrogant deserves no respect. Answer the questions or do some research. He clearly has an interest in perpetuating the nasa lies since he’s employed to indoctrinate young minds to universal lies. He must be aware of the VA belts and chooses to ignore any argument that pokes holes in the junk science portrayal of propagandized events presented as real. This type of academic negligence destroys ones faith in the institutions of “higher learning”

CT1: Explain the VA belts professor

Me: It is a region of space filled with temporarily trapped charged particles, mostly protons and electrons boiled off by the Sun, but also from cosmic rays from outside our solar system. They are trapped by the magnetic field of the Earth.

CT1: now explain how a human in a tin can can pass through this radioactive field safely

Me: What biological effects there are on a person from such an environment depends upon factors including: 1)what the flux happens to be at that time 2) How much time one spends in that region. 3) The amount of shielding provided by the spacecraft. ….and probably other things that I have not come up with on the fly. Thus, living in the van allen belts might be very bad in terms of long term exposure, but passing through, say on the way to the moon or mars might be ok, depending upon the above factors. It is kind of like aircrews. The crews who fly at high altitude are exposed to cosmic rays with greater intensity than those of us on the Earth who are protected by ~20km of air. So the airlines limit the amount of time these crews spend at high altitude. Does this help?‪

Me: BTW, I have a class to teach in 45 minutes, so I will look at any further questions later.

‪CT1: the effects of passing through the VA belts are fatal if not shielded from the radiation, nasa admits in their new ORION preparations as much in their testing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE I’ll look for your reply later tonight, enjoy your class professor

‪NASA engineer admits they can’t get past the…

‪YOUTUBE.COM

CT1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZzFemBUJQ…

‪Moon Landing 1969 vs Scientific Evidence

‪YOUTUBE.COM

CT1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYETGJ3OGE…

‪Moon Landing 1969 vs Scientific Evidence II

‪YOUTUBE.COM

Me: Hi YYYY: OK, so I watched the (edited) NASA movie you pointed me to. There is nothing inconsistent with what I said. How dangerous that region is, biologically, depends upon how much time you have people spend there. The more time the more radiation damage to people. The Apollo craft moved through this region very quickly to limit this, but I would also not be too surprised if they were more cavalier about the long-term cancer threats back then (doctors on TV still recommended some brands of cigarettes over others, I think…). In any case, I think they were much more focused on the whole ship exploding or just not working at some stage, killing the astronauts much more quickly than cancer. This is one of the reasons that astronauts then were chosen from the ranks of test pilots with “the right stuff,” who were used to taking calculated risks.

‪But biological danger just going through the VA belt is not all you have to worry about. There is solar wind throughout the (1 year?) trip which will cause some amount of ionizing radiation when you are not protected by Earth’s magnetic field or its atmosphere. So the problem they will have to solve is not just getting through the VA belt, but also minimizing the radiation during the entire trip.

‪Also, Mars does not have a strong magnetic field, so even when the astronauts are on Mars, they will probably (I am guessing at this since this is all outside my area of expertise) suffer from enhanced cosmic ray exposure for their entire stay on Mars. (Another year?) Also, since there is very little atmosphere on the planet, they will be exposed to enhanced UV radiation exposure during their stay since the planet has no Ozone layer.

‪Finally, on their trip back (another year?), they would be exposed to the same biological toll as on the way to Mars.

‪But, there is another risk, which I thought about, based upon the question of the conspiracy theorist who edited the film: Why are they testing these regions if they already tested with Apollo. I think the main reason is that technology today – especially circuits are tiny surface mounted components and integrated circuits. A single highly ionizing particle going through the wrong component in the wrong place could kill an entire chip or circuit. So, they probably have to build in a lot of redundancy to see if today’s extremely compact and light (important for traveling long distances using reasonable amounts of fuel) but more fragile electronics can survive large integrated exposures. This is something which would not have been a problem with the relatively humongous electronic components used in the 1960s.

‪I hope this helps.

‪I am not going to bother with the films on faked moon landings. These tend to be basically debunked notions based purely on “I don’t trust them” mentality. I have never seen any even slightly convincing evidence that this was faked. So, I don’t want to sink hours into watching such films. But if you have a specific question you want to ask, please feel free. Cheers, Ilan Levine

CT1: Thank you for a fantastic response, and by fantastic, I mean based in fantasy. Of course, if one is not willing to view the evidence of the fraud, they can confidently declare that they’ve never seen anything convincing to the contrary of their position. Fact is that you cannot debunk the documentaries made by committed researchers who have uncovered the fraud, without seriously looking at their findings. If you want to be taken seriously, you must confront their findings head on, not skirt evasively around them. Do yourself a favor in restoring any credibility you seek to maintain by looking at the evidence presented by those who have concluded the moon landings were a propaganda hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4. Bart obtained unedited raw footage of the video fakery from inside the capsule, it cannot be disputed, only avoided.

‪A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

‪YOUTUBE.COM

Me: ok.

*Or, “When I learned that grading is not the least rewarding activity I do”

If anyone thinks that there was a more productive way to have engaged them, I would like to hear it. Signing off for the night, but will read suggestions tomorrow, he said hopefully.

Long time member. First time messenger. I am writing because of a metastasizing mass hysteria of the mob around Trump that is now personally felt. Are we descending into a Civil War?  One option is to pack a Sig Sauer P229 and hunker down, but instead, I am turning to the Ricochet community to at least ventilate my fears. This anxiety all came to a head yesterday when I received an email from a friend with a similar political persuasion who asked for solace after receiving an email from a longstanding friend. It was a crazy fanatical ranting, and my friend was frightened and sad. She thinks that friendship is over.  I feel it in the distancing of neighbors. I cannot talk politics with my liberal family.

And one of my very best friends sent me an email asking me to comment on her sense that there may be a “Final Solution” after reading an article consistent with her liberal views. She is Israeli. I am sending a copy of both her email and my response that I sent to her. Forgive me if it is long winded, but I need to get it out.

Here is the email from my good friend:

Hi Peter,

I know you feel different about Trump, but I needed to send this to you to see what you think.

• Step One for Hitler was to discredit the media.
• Step Two was to silence scientists and government employees.
• Hate crimes against minorities grew to the highest in their country’s history. Clashes between parties became so extensive that Hitler ended civil liberties (Step Three), giving “law and order” as the cause. Those who opposed Hitler were ridiculed and threatened.
• In Step Four wealthy supporters purchased media outlets, employing only those faithful to the ruling party.
• In his final step (Step Five) Hitler declared that the only way the country could be unified was to restore traditional values. Minorities including gays, the disabled, Jews, Roma, and people of color were considered “inferior” and sent to death camps for slaughter.

We’re between Steps 2-4.

This is in case you were always confused by how so many people could go along with Hitler’s Final Solution, this is exactly how it happened. Cannot even believe that this [expletive] is happening in this country, in our time.

For me, this is appalling scary and sad very dark week….

Xxxx
Rachel

And here is my response:

Hi Rachel,

First of all, thank you for asking what my thoughts are regarding your concerns. It is an opportunity to voice different views respectfully, and I am sure that our deep friendship will endure those differences.

I am sorry to hear that you are frightened about this week, but it is understandable given your fear that we are headed towards the “Final Solution.” My sense is that conclusion is quite a stretch to make.

The steps outlined may or may not have been a part of how Hitler achieved the final solution, but it is not “exactly” the only elements that led to such a tragedy. My recollection of history is that central to the rise of Hitler was a severe economic depression with hyperinflation such that money was worthless and unemployment was rampant. Severe reparations imposed by the Versailles Treaty of WWI where Germany had an even more difficult time recovering from a worldwide depression exacerbated it. The constitution of the Weimar Republic was also weak leading to a greater avenue to centralized power. Such destitution, resentment, and lack of a tradition of checks and balances led to profound social unrest and the rise of a charismatic despot.

Defining some of our political differences may address some of your fears. Forgive me for repeating what I have said before. Liberals and progressives believe in power from the top down with a strong centralized authority while conservatives and libertarians believe in decentralized power from the ground up with an emphasis on individual freedom and states rights. Examples are too numerous to enumerate here, but the pattern is very consistent. Additionally, liberals and progressives assume the moral high ground of equality and social justice above individual freedom. Conservatives and libertarians would prefer to be free to do what is best for them and their loved ones so long as it does not hurt others. It would be less command and control, a higher tolerance of uncertainly, and an emphasis on individual responsibility, but I think that it would lead to greater prosperity for all including the poor if we adhered more to the economic philosophy of the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith, and we would avoid “The Road to Serfdom” as warned of by Frederick Hayek.

I would suggest that there is a greater chance for a Hitler to arise when moral righteousness is aligned with a strong centralized power, especially if some conditions are present such as economic despair. As government is given more power, it only wants more; there is never enough. And power corrupts. The Founding Fathers knew this when they formed a Constitution that was designed to decentralize power through an elaborate form of checks and balances. All politics is confrontation that hopefully leads to compromise, but I would submit that liberal politics, even if well intentioned, is the politics of coercion and force. (“I am smarter and know what is right for you, and we will use our power to force you to give something up for the good of others”). Centralized power leads to greater conformity (e.g., political correctness) and force. Decentralized power curbs the tyranny of the majority. In the conservative desire for smaller government and individual freedom that dovetails with capitalism, there is more of an emphasis on voluntary cooperation and persuasion. There is a patience and tolerance for evolution (versus the liberal’s bent towards revolution), where many local communities and families and institutions such as religions and cultures evolve into a consensus of what is best. The assumption is that there is greater wisdom in the many than in the few and that innovation through greater freedom leads to greater and lasting social change.

I also share your concern about Trump’s temperament, and we will all be subjected to a roller coaster of emotions with his actions. As you know, I was in the Never Trump camp, but in the end, I am more relieved that Hilary is not in power. His ideology is unclear, and I think that liberals and conservatives alike will disagree with many of his decisions. But to me, I think that he is imperfectly committed to smaller government (e.g., “drain the swamp”), greater individual choice and competition (e.g., school choice) and a stronger Constitution (Supreme Court). I am also more optimistic about emerging from this economic quagmire to have greater prosperity for all (reduced taxes and regulation). All of these factors mitigate against him becoming a Hitler. I actually think that Obama had a greater likelihood of becoming a dictator if it were not for the checks and balances of the Constitution. It is his lack of compromise regarding his singular piece of legislation in Obamacare and his sweeping dictatorial executive actions with pen and phone that will lead to the unraveling of his legacy to a footnote. Time will tell if Trump will also do the same. I, for one, will give him time and try to judge him more by his actions than his rhetoric.

Regarding the LBGT rights, I heard Trump say on election night that the issue of gay rights has been legally settled. However, your implied concern about being a victim of “the Final Solution” raises a question for me that perhaps you can help me understand. I cannot understand how you think that Trump is anti-Semitic? He is the most pro-Israel president we have had in a long time. His son-in-law is an Orthodox Jew. Ivanka Trump converted to Judaism. The Republican Party has been decidedly pro-Israel since its beginnings. Yet what perplexes me is why American Jews are at least 70 percent liberal? It is obvious that Obama is anti-Israel: the UN abstention establishes that any Israeli occupying the West Bank or worships at the Wall is a war criminal, and it takes away any need for the Palestinians to negotiate with Israel; he gave $221 million to the Palestinians who have repeatedly walked away from the table despite concessions from Israel. Alan Dershowitz has not only said that Steve Bannon is not anti-Semitic, but he also says that if you want to experience that bigotry, just join him when he goes on any liberal campus. I just don’t get it.

Finally, I will tell you my thoughts regarding each of the quoted steps:

•  Step One for Hitler was to discredit the media.

I have no problem with discrediting the media. With the exception of Fox and the WSJ, every major outlet has been liberally biased: NYT, Washington Post, CNN, NPR. Whether directly or subtlety, consciously or unconsciously, Americans have been forced fed this pabulum for a very long time.

•  Step Two was to silence scientists and government employees.

I actually think that it is the liberals who are silencing the scientists, whether through the withholding of federal grants, the withholding of tenure, or the oppression of group think of liberal institutions that do not tolerate dissenting views. It is my contention that the debate over climate change may be another example of this and that there may now be a more open debate. Academicians are now starting to voice their concerns. (Just to clarify, I have no doubt that human beings are affecting the climate. The question is can we measure the effect, does man truly have the ability to alter nature on such a scale, or is it hubris, and is it then fair to the poor that mammoth resources be diverted? So far, all the modeling has come up well short of predictions. I am inclined to put my government resources towards the basic sciences for cleaner energy and let the market develop technology. You can export new technology to other polluting countries; exporting regulations makes no sense. Finally, when you talk about silencing, read The Silencing by Kirsten Powers. She portrays the rampant oppression of political correctness on liberal campuses today with its use of micro-aggressions, safe spaces, trigger points, etc. Oberlin is the poster child for it. (One of her sons went there. I am a graduate) One example is that the classic Antigone was banned from the curriculum because a student complained that it traumatized him. Get real. And if by silencing government employees, we are talking about the “Deep State” or putting a curb on federal departments such as the EPA dictating regulation rather than following Congress, I am ok with that.

• Hate crimes against minorities grew to the highest in their country’s history. Clashes between parties became so extensive that Hitler ended civil liberties (Step Three), giving “law and order” as the cause. Those who opposed Hitler were ridiculed and threatened.

There is greater racial divide now than before Obama because of his divisiveness, but I do not believe that there are greater hate crimes today. And just an example of media bias: when that white developmentally disabled kid was systematically abused by those four black kids, the media was very challenged to call it a hate crime. As for “law and order,” I can understand that it does not make sense to the progressives when violence often accompanies the demonstrations of liberals. I think that reflects the revolutionary psyche of progressives in that the end justifies the means. There was not one unlawful violent behavior that occurred during the many demonstrations of the Tea Party.

•. In Step Four wealthy supporters purchased media outlets, employing only those faithful to the ruling party.

By definition, those who purchase media outlets need to be wealthy, and again, those outlets are predominantly liberal. I suppose this author may be referring to Steve Bannon, but there was certainly no outrage over Al Sharpton being at the side of Obama. I would put Bannon’s character up against Sharpton anytime.

•. In his final step (Step Five) Hitler declared that the only way the country could be unified was to restore traditional values. Minorities including gays, the disabled, Jews, Roma, and people of color were considered “inferior” and sent to death camps for slaughter.

We’re between Step 2-4.

This is in case you were always confused by how so many people could go along with Hitler’s Final Solution, this is exactly how it happened. Cannot even believe that this [expletive] is happening in this country, in our time.

Traditional values include the rule of law and respect for family and religion. Liberal progressive philosophy is rooted in Marxism, which is focused on the destruction of the family and religion so that the state takes over. People went along with the Final Solution where they were deprived of their voice because the government had taken over.

So when you have time, let me tell you what I really think.

Xxxx,

Peter

To the Ricochet community, thank you for listening. Do you feel me? I feel better already. But do you guys know the address of the closest local gun shop?

Sincerely,
A San Francisco Resident

Nancy Pelosi took a day off Wednesday to posture, hopefully things got done while she was away. VDH effectively positioned himself as the conservative Prof. GOAT. How in the hell did Governor Geriatric Brown not complete the reservoirs in California and collect some of this runoff water? Droughts are a real and solvable problem. Flesh and blood people!

Trump is a necessary reset regardless of what you think. Rahm Emanuel is not a stupid man by any stretch. His recent talk at Stanford included the phrase “life is trade-offs” his words not mine. He espouses some fundamental government tenants that all of us Ricochet folk would respect. Problem is, he doesn’t practice what he preaches. He’s resting on extending the school day laurels, which I will admit was winning the 2014 NBA Championship … but it’s 2017. For innocent citizens like many of us are, getting shot is not fun. I’m speaking from experience on this one.

Immigration is a white people problem. I don’t believe this, but unfortunately lots of folks do. Chicago has long had a laissez faire approach toward illegal immigration. Fine by me until I asked if some of these occupied unskilled labor jobs could be occupied by the some 50 percent of young unemployed Black men that only have unskilled labor to provide.

I regret outing myself as a Trump voter everyday, mostly because it alienates me from lots of women my own age. “Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain.” I’m still a liberaltarian and a registered Democrat in the three states where I’m registered to vote. Sacrifices have to be made though and I got six years by my estimation before girls really have to matter in my life.

I’m really against infrastructure spending for obvious reasons but I’ll be damned if that doesn’t have to be challenged. Are those reservoirs not infrastructure? Spending money on things that would legitimately improve quality of life, like maybe an extra lane on a highway might deserve a few dollars.

If that’s the infrastructure Trump is talking about then his overall Madden player rating goes from like a 69 to 78. He’s still getting knocked for his views on NAFTA and tweeting too damn much but he’s got potential considering he’s the only QB we got.

Tom “pick your own” Cotton is the hero the city deserves but not the one it needs right now.

Free Markets.

There are events that happen that clear away all pretense. Something removes all posturing and by simple virtue of its starkness reveals something for what it is. The Itamar massacre is just such an event. And on its anniversary I raise it as a issue, because people cannot forget.

The event happened six years ago on March 11. A family of five was murdered in their beds. Set all things aside: that they were an Israeli family in a West Bank settlement, that the West Bank is contested territory, that the attackers were Palestinian, and that there is an ancient grievance between Muslims and Jews.

Set all of that aside. Read the Wikipedia article. There are four words that tell you everything you need to know. Four words that remove all pretense, all posturing, all excuses, all politics, all religion, all culture. Four words that remove all things and allows you to see something plainly for what it is.

“The infant was decapitated.”

Monsters. Simply monsters.

A 40 percent drop in illegal immigrants crossing at the southern border is being widely reported this morning. In my humble opinion, it has to do with the fact that we now have a president who has clearly stated that:

1. we do not condone illegal entry, and
2. we do not intend to tolerate it.

Yes, I know Obama was called (by the even-farther Left?) the “Deporter-in-Chief,” but what he communicated about the issue was very clearly: If you get in, you can stay. Especially if you’re a “child” (under 40) or if you’re trying to get reunited with a family (uh, how did those yearning family members get in here?). The swarm in reaction to DACA clearly demonstrated that Obama’s real message, or at least his fundamental ambivalence, was coming through loud and clear.

And guess what? It now turns out that a clear statement by our new president, which actually is backed up by action consistent with that statement, can have a real, measurable effect as well!

No, Trump isn’t the “President of the World”– but, as he acknowledged in his inaugural address, the world is listening in every time he speaks.

And they believe him.

And because they believe him, they’ll consider their plans in light of what he has said.

This comes as a tremendous relief to me. It had come to seem, during the last eight years and even before, that the purpose of speech by our presidents was obfuscation and/or self-preservation.

Speak up, Mr. President! To paraphrase GWB: I hear you, the world hears you, and the people responsible for this {destruction, invasion} will hear from all of us soon!