So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed

Scepti: I can't believe in your disbelief. I teach American History to college students and it is an insult to me and to my institutions (I was educated in two places and work at a third) to say these things.

Not that we HAD to have bombed Japan with nuclear bombs, but we DID.

Not that Al Qaeda HAD to send planes to our buildings, but they DID.

Get over yourself, man! I suspect that you're not American, so don't have the same sentiments about these things.

You're probably overseas (not that there's anything wrong with being a foreigner, but...) babbling on about OUR history.

So...are you even American?

If you are, you're a lousy one--not a bad person, but a bad historian of OUR recent history. You're probably a nice person but man are you daft!

I recommend you guys lighten up on scepti.  Personal attacks are the worst way to win a debate.

He was intentionally lying to make a point.  By making a ludicrous claim he puts the validity of my claim in question; anyone can say anything on the internet and present it as fact.  While I assert that my story is true, it could very well be fabricated and that was scepti's intention.

One man's testimony doth not truth bring.

Your uncalled for attack will only likely prevent my counter argument, that millions of claims exist, from being addressed.

Yes, of course you are.  It's more than obvious as we've called your bluff numerous times and left you floundering with a lack of any evidence for any/all of your bizarre claims.

According to you, you've travelled all over the entire planet—even Antarctica—and have friends and relatives in nearly every country, and who've witness nearly every man-made disaster in history.

You've also made up a preposterous story about possessing THIRTEEN academic qualifications, but can't provide any evidence to prove even one.  Not even Stephen Hawking claims that many LOL.

Every single post you make on these forums is simply an imaginative fairy story invented deep in your own mind, and which has absolutely no bearing on the truth or the real world.

  You've made literally dozens of bizarre claims about your alleged expertise in nearly every endeavour known to mankind, but not once have you ever been able to provide any viable evidence to support any of them.

Your entire, every day life seems to represent one lived in a fantasy world of self-delusion and deception.  You also appear to be suffering from Delusions of Grandeur in that you truly believe that you have greater intellectual capabilities than anybody else on these forums.

  Plus you never seem to comprehend that time and again, people are taking the piss out of you, and continually laughing at you behind your back.

Anyway, please continue to carry on in your own inimitable way; we can all of us do with a good laugh in these times of doom and gloom.

Quote from: macrohard on September 23, 2014, 08:20:44 PM

I recommend you guys lighten up on scepti.  Personal attacks are the worst way to win a debate.

He is a pathological liar and his credibility here is zero. For example, calling him an idiot is not personal attack, it is a compliment.

I'm well aware that globalites will absolutely reject anything I say and I'm quite happy with that

Quote from: blnjms on September 23, 2014, 07:21:31 AM

Scepti: I can't believe in your disbelief. I teach American History to college students and it is an insult to me and to my institutions (I was educated in two places and work at a third) to say these things.

You teach American history from what was taught to you from the very same books you now use to teach American history. You can only go on that and your very own recent history, observed by you.
If you prefer to learn more stuff, PM me and I can teach you about the Booboo tribe who inhabited the land known today as Europe but was once known as Wooroop back in 261 wbc, which is well before christ. Let me know and I can make it....I mean, I can teach it to you.
Easy isn't it?

 

Quote from: blnjms on September 23, 2014, 07:21:31 AM

Not that we HAD to have bombed Japan with nuclear bombs, but we DID.

I don't doubt it was bombed. It just wasn't ATOMIC bombed.

Quote from: blnjms on September 23, 2014, 07:21:31 AM

Not that Al Qaeda HAD to send planes to our buildings, but they DID.

You don't know what happened. All you can go on is the news media and the word of mouth of people that believe what they are told.

Quote from: blnjms on September 23, 2014, 07:21:31 AM

Get over yourself, man! I suspect that you're not American, so don't have the same sentiments about these things.

You're not the only ones to have the wool pulled over your eyes, it happens to us all, just in different ways.

Quote from: blnjms on September 23, 2014, 07:21:31 AM

You're probably overseas (not that there's anything wrong with being a foreigner, but...) babbling on about OUR history.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

Quote from: blnjms on September 23, 2014, 07:21:31 AM

So...are you even American?

I think you've already answered your own question.

Quote from: blnjms on September 23, 2014, 07:21:31 AM

If you are, you're a lousy one--not a bad person, but a bad historian of OUR recent history. You're probably a nice person but man are you daft!

A bad historian, maybe. It all depends on how it's classed. If you mean not following the history told to us, I'd say, yes I am a bad historian, because I reject quite a lot of it.
Real history can only be best guess by ALL of us, or it can be suppressed by the few.

Quote from: ausGeoff on September 23, 2014, 04:42:02 PM

You've also made up a preposterous story about possessing THIRTEEN academic qualifications, but can't provide any evidence to prove even one.  Not even Stephen Hawking claims that many LOL.

I have made up no story about possessing 13 academic qualifications. No need to make stuff up, Geoffrey.

Quote from: ausGeoff on September 22, 2014, 08:13:21 AM and then Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2014, 07:40:52 AM...     

Can you tell me then what academic qualifications make you suitable for carrying out this research?  As I said earlier, I'd presume a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences considering you're talking about geophysics?

I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar.

How does this conversation have anything to do with Buzz Aldrin being brainwashed?

Quote from: jroa on September 25, 2014, 06:29:20 AM

How does this conversation have anything to do with Buzz Aldrin being brainwashed?

You are about 22 pages too late for this.

How does this conversation have anything to do with Buzz Aldrin being brainwashed?

Quote from: jroa on September 25, 2014, 06:29:20 AM

How does this conversation have anything to do with Buzz Aldrin being brainwashed?

Commenting on sceptimatic's alleged scientific qualifications is relevant in deciding whether or not his acceptance that Buzz Aldrin is a "brainwashed", senile, old man is valid or not.

Only if he's citing any of those qualifications as evidence to support his argument.  He isn't.

Quote from: markjo on September 26, 2014, 01:13:34 PM

Only if he's citing any of those qualifications as evidence to support his argument.  He isn't.

If you check back through the forums, you'll find that sceptimatic consistently refers to his alleged academic status and vocation as a research scientist.

Claiming academic superiority—but without viable evidence to support that implication—is worthless from my point of view.  Any accredited scientist posting on a forum will be more than happy to state his credentials if asked to do so.  Why would they hide them?

Incidentally, sceptimatic hasn't technically "cited" his purported academic qualifications—he's only made vague suggestions as to their existence.  And until he does cite them formally, I'm calling his bluff and claiming he's lying.

Quote from: ausGeoff on September 26, 2014, 01:56:12 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 26, 2014, 01:13:34 PM

Only if he's citing any of those qualifications as evidence to support his argument.  He isn't.

If you check back through the forums, you'll find that sceptimatic consistently refers to his alleged academic status and vocation as a research scientist.

Claiming academic superiority—but without viable evidence to support that implication—is worthless from my point of view.  Any accredited scientist posting on a forum will be more than happy to state his credentials if asked to do so.  Why would they hide them?

Incidentally, sceptimatic hasn't technically "cited" his purported academic qualifications—he's only made vague suggestions as to their existence.  And until he does cite them formally, I'm calling his bluff and claiming he's lying.

Yeah, he (and I can't picture a "she") bothers me too. No one is THAT "skeptical" without a gig. He must be pulling our legs.

Quote from: blnjms on September 26, 2014, 04:15:01 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on September 26, 2014, 01:56:12 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 26, 2014, 01:13:34 PM

Only if he's citing any of those qualifications as evidence to support his argument.  He isn't.

If you check back through the forums, you'll find that sceptimatic consistently refers to his alleged academic status and vocation as a research scientist.

Claiming academic superiority—but without viable evidence to support that implication—is worthless from my point of view.  Any accredited scientist posting on a forum will be more than happy to state his credentials if asked to do so.  Why would they hide them?

Incidentally, sceptimatic hasn't technically "cited" his purported academic qualifications—he's only made vague suggestions as to their existence.  And until he does cite them formally, I'm calling his bluff and claiming he's lying.

Yeah, he (and I can't picture a "she") bothers me too. No one is THAT "skeptical" without a gig. He must be pulling our legs.

Or, more than likely, one of his own other bodily organs.  But we won't go there LOL.

As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.

This isn't a case of globe v flat Earth arguments among ourselves, it's literally about using your own perceptive mind and actually applying simple logic to the situation.

Simply arguing for Aldrin's case for no other reason than to keep the space exploit ruse alive is pointless if it's been done by simple unconditional acceptance that he did what we were told he did, as well as others.

I'm quite sure that most, if not all of you have watched the body language of people, even friends and acquaintances, then walked away with a pretty good idea that they are telling you the truth or basically spinning lies.

Buzz Aldrin shows; time and time again that he's having extreme difficulty keeping his part in shenanigans at bay. It shows on his face and in his speech, plus his body language as a whole.
All three of those so called astronauts, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, when displayed to the media in those days, showed a variation of all kinds of emotions, from guilt to fear, to shame and duress, etc.
Armstrong showed the greatest emotions, followed by Aldrin, then Collins, in that order.

Although this does not constitute absolute concrete proof, let me explain something.
If these 3 people were being questioned for a big crime and acted the way they did, they would be kept in custody for the maximum length of time for questioning further -plus, they would be under surveillance if they were allowed to go.

It's fine that people argue the case for it happening, but it's not telling the whole story, whatever that real story is.

It can be argued in a number of ways by people. It can be argued that they show emotion because they are hiding the fact that aliens were on the moon, or they saw structures on the moon, or any other pile of absolute bull shit, and the issue is about who is sensible, logical, clear minded or gullible enough to take any story as is said.

My guess is, if you put any so called astronaut under a controlled lie detector test, fully tested by sceptics as well as so called scientists, my guess is, the lie detectors would not only show up lies but they would overload and blow up due to the severity of them. 

It's easy to go along with all kinds of brainwashing techniques as well, from hypnosis to LSD or some other mind altering drug to make them believe they did what they tell us they did.
The rabbit hole is probably very deep where this stuff is concerned and all we can do is guess. Nobody can factually state it happened or not, because the simple truth is, none of us can physically prove anything. All we can do is use a logical mind.
The problem with this is, people are different and arrogant, who believe their mind is logical, yet can come to totally different conclusions. There's also logical liars that can make absurdities appear logical to the gullible who actually believe they are logical.

It's like a game of chess in it's latter stages where checkmate looks unlikely for either side and stalemate offers a better outcome, yet both sides still believe that the other will make the error and allow the winning move to take place.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2014, 07:33:09 AM

As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.

This isn't a case of globe v flat Earth arguments among ourselves, it's literally about using your own perceptive mind and actually applying simple logic to the situation.

Simply arguing for Aldrin's case for no other reason than to keep the space exploit ruse alive is pointless if it's been done by simple unconditional acceptance that he did what we were told he did, as well as others.

I'm quite sure that most, if not all of you have watched the body language of people, even friends and acquaintances, then walked away with a pretty good idea that they are telling you the truth or basically spinning lies.

Buzz Aldrin shows; time and time again that he's having extreme difficulty keeping his part in shenanigans at bay. It shows on his face and in his speech, plus his body language as a whole.
All three of those so called astronauts, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, when displayed to the media in those days, showed a variation of all kinds of emotions, from guilt to fear, to shame and duress, etc.
Armstrong showed the greatest emotions, followed by Aldrin, then Collins, in that order.

Although this does not constitute absolute concrete proof, let me explain something.
If these 3 people were being questioned for a big crime and acted the way they did, they would be kept in custody for the maximum length of time for questioning further -plus, they would be under surveillance if they were allowed to go.

It's fine that people argue the case for it happening, but it's not telling the whole story, whatever that real story is.

It can be argued in a number of ways by people. It can be argued that they show emotion because they are hiding the fact that aliens were on the moon, or they saw structures on the moon, or any other pile of absolute bull shit, and the issue is about who is sensible, logical, clear minded or gullible enough to take any story as is said.

My guess is, if you put any so called astronaut under a controlled lie detector test, fully tested by sceptics as well as so called scientists, my guess is, the lie detectors would not only show up lies but they would overload and blow up due to the severity of them. 

It's easy to go along with all kinds of brainwashing techniques as well, from hypnosis to LSD or some other mind altering drug to make them believe they did what they tell us they did.
The rabbit hole is probably very deep where this stuff is concerned and all we can do is guess. Nobody can factually state it happened or not, because the simple truth is, none of us can physically prove anything. All we can do is use a logical mind.
The problem with this is, people are different and arrogant, who believe their mind is logical, yet can come to totally different conclusions. There's also logical liars that can make absurdities appear logical to the gullible who actually believe they are logical.

It's like a game of chess in it's latter stages where checkmate looks unlikely for either side and stalemate offers a better outcome, yet both sides still believe that the other will make the error and allow the winning move to take place.

Statements like this make me wish I was a god, and I could just take all the conspiracy theorists, AA believers and crackpots and shove their faces DEEP into the truth and just make them look at it for all eternity.

Quote from: The Ellimist on September 27, 2014, 09:23:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2014, 07:33:09 AM

As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.

This isn't a case of globe v flat Earth arguments among ourselves, it's literally about using your own perceptive mind and actually applying simple logic to the situation.

Simply arguing for Aldrin's case for no other reason than to keep the space exploit ruse alive is pointless if it's been done by simple unconditional acceptance that he did what we were told he did, as well as others.

I'm quite sure that most, if not all of you have watched the body language of people, even friends and acquaintances, then walked away with a pretty good idea that they are telling you the truth or basically spinning lies.

Buzz Aldrin shows; time and time again that he's having extreme difficulty keeping his part in shenanigans at bay. It shows on his face and in his speech, plus his body language as a whole.
All three of those so called astronauts, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, when displayed to the media in those days, showed a variation of all kinds of emotions, from guilt to fear, to shame and duress, etc.
Armstrong showed the greatest emotions, followed by Aldrin, then Collins, in that order.

Although this does not constitute absolute concrete proof, let me explain something.
If these 3 people were being questioned for a big crime and acted the way they did, they would be kept in custody for the maximum length of time for questioning further -plus, they would be under surveillance if they were allowed to go.

It's fine that people argue the case for it happening, but it's not telling the whole story, whatever that real story is.

It can be argued in a number of ways by people. It can be argued that they show emotion because they are hiding the fact that aliens were on the moon, or they saw structures on the moon, or any other pile of absolute bull shit, and the issue is about who is sensible, logical, clear minded or gullible enough to take any story as is said.

My guess is, if you put any so called astronaut under a controlled lie detector test, fully tested by sceptics as well as so called scientists, my guess is, the lie detectors would not only show up lies but they would overload and blow up due to the severity of them. 

It's easy to go along with all kinds of brainwashing techniques as well, from hypnosis to LSD or some other mind altering drug to make them believe they did what they tell us they did.
The rabbit hole is probably very deep where this stuff is concerned and all we can do is guess. Nobody can factually state it happened or not, because the simple truth is, none of us can physically prove anything. All we can do is use a logical mind.
The problem with this is, people are different and arrogant, who believe their mind is logical, yet can come to totally different conclusions. There's also logical liars that can make absurdities appear logical to the gullible who actually believe they are logical.

It's like a game of chess in it's latter stages where checkmate looks unlikely for either side and stalemate offers a better outcome, yet both sides still believe that the other will make the error and allow the winning move to take place.

Statements like this make me wish I was a god, and I could just take all the conspiracy theorists, AA believers and crackpots and shove their faces DEEP into the truth and just make them look at it for all eternity.

I wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist if people told the truth. Anyway, maybe you can help me with the truth. What evidence do you have that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon?

Let me try and make this easier.
What I mean is, evidence that is not media controlled or by books.

Here's an instance.  A God exists to some people but in reality it's all based on faith to those who have not seen a God and only have churches or books/bibles and word of mouth that a God exists.

Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.

As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.

As the best researchers can tell, and in my own experience as an FBI Special Agent (now retired), detecting deception is very difficult. Every study conducted since 1986, when the famed researcher Paul Ekman first wrote about this, has demonstrated that we humans are no better than chance at detecting deception (Ekman & O'Sullivan 1991, 913-920; Granhag & Strömwall, 2004, 169; Mann & Vrij 2004). That means that if you toss a coin in the air you will be as likely to detect deception as the truth. And while it is true that a very few people are better at detecting deception than others, they are barely above chance. In fact, those that are really good are only correct somewhere around 60% of the time; that means that 40% of the time they are wrong and you would not like them sitting on a jury judging you.

Unfortunately many people have come along and declared themselves deception experts over the years and that has influenced professionals and society in significant ways. I have listened to jurors post trial comment that they thought a witness was lying because they had "heard somewhere that if you touch your nose you are lying." Likewise I have talked to many a law enforcement officer who is convinced that they are experts at detecting deception. They have deluded themselves that they are, as have judges and other professionals. In fact, every time I hear Judge Judy (of TV fame) say, "I know you are lying," I cringe (unlike us she is covered by judicial privilege in saying what she wishes, the rest of us would be sued for slander). What she and others don't realize is that as Ekman, De Paulo, Frank, Mann, O'Sullivan, Vrij and others have stated, there is no single behavior indicative of deception (Ekman 1985 et.al., infra.)

Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2014, 09:35:56 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on September 27, 2014, 09:23:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2014, 07:33:09 AM

As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.

This isn't a case of globe v flat Earth arguments among ourselves, it's literally about using your own perceptive mind and actually applying simple logic to the situation.

Simply arguing for Aldrin's case for no other reason than to keep the space exploit ruse alive is pointless if it's been done by simple unconditional acceptance that he did what we were told he did, as well as others.

I'm quite sure that most, if not all of you have watched the body language of people, even friends and acquaintances, then walked away with a pretty good idea that they are telling you the truth or basically spinning lies.

Buzz Aldrin shows; time and time again that he's having extreme difficulty keeping his part in shenanigans at bay. It shows on his face and in his speech, plus his body language as a whole.
All three of those so called astronauts, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, when displayed to the media in those days, showed a variation of all kinds of emotions, from guilt to fear, to shame and duress, etc.
Armstrong showed the greatest emotions, followed by Aldrin, then Collins, in that order.

Although this does not constitute absolute concrete proof, let me explain something.
If these 3 people were being questioned for a big crime and acted the way they did, they would be kept in custody for the maximum length of time for questioning further -plus, they would be under surveillance if they were allowed to go.

It's fine that people argue the case for it happening, but it's not telling the whole story, whatever that real story is.

It can be argued in a number of ways by people. It can be argued that they show emotion because they are hiding the fact that aliens were on the moon, or they saw structures on the moon, or any other pile of absolute bull shit, and the issue is about who is sensible, logical, clear minded or gullible enough to take any story as is said.

My guess is, if you put any so called astronaut under a controlled lie detector test, fully tested by sceptics as well as so called scientists, my guess is, the lie detectors would not only show up lies but they would overload and blow up due to the severity of them. 

It's easy to go along with all kinds of brainwashing techniques as well, from hypnosis to LSD or some other mind altering drug to make them believe they did what they tell us they did.
The rabbit hole is probably very deep where this stuff is concerned and all we can do is guess. Nobody can factually state it happened or not, because the simple truth is, none of us can physically prove anything. All we can do is use a logical mind.
The problem with this is, people are different and arrogant, who believe their mind is logical, yet can come to totally different conclusions. There's also logical liars that can make absurdities appear logical to the gullible who actually believe they are logical.

It's like a game of chess in it's latter stages where checkmate looks unlikely for either side and stalemate offers a better outcome, yet both sides still believe that the other will make the error and allow the winning move to take place.

Statements like this make me wish I was a god, and I could just take all the conspiracy theorists, AA believers and crackpots and shove their faces DEEP into the truth and just make them look at it for all eternity.

I wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist if people told the truth. Anyway, maybe you can help me with the truth. What evidence do you have that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon?

Let me try and make this easier.
What I mean is, evidence that is not media controlled or by books.

Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.

Why are no mainstream sources more valid than regular sources? If minority sources were valid, they wouldn't be minority sources. So basically you're asking for anything other than a valid source. What determines whether a source is media controlled? And then you say that you have to be satisfied with my evidence. We both know you will not be satisfied. That above all is what makes your challenge unfalsifiable.

Skepti, you'll never be satisfied because I think that your "gig" is to be skeptical for the sake of being skeptical because you're bored or something.

Whatever you're skeptical about, except God, there's abundant proof to the contrary. The reason I exclude God from the burden of proof is that it is a matter of faith and personal experience.

No one can "show" you God unless you are ready to "see" God but ultimately it's a matter of faith.

No, I haven't seen the round earth personally, but the burden of proof is sufficient for me to believe that it is round.

In fact, the current, mainstream model is the best we've got and no conspiracy theorist can dismantle that or space travel since it's been proven time and again enough for the average person like me.

Sorry, scepti, but you're just spinning your wheels. I mean, an ice dome over a flat earth??? Why should I ever believe that in this day and age?

And all that trouble going into space and it turns out to be a fraud??? It's easier to believe that it happened than that it's a conspiracy.

Don't you understand, Scepti, that your gig is over?

Now, other FE'ers are humbler and try to build their case because they're Biblical fundamentalists or zetecisists or want to experience "science" first hand--that is, going only by what they see.

They don't spout elaborate conspiracy theories for stuff beyond RE and space (though conspiracy theories about those are annoying enough).

Also, this acceleration of the earth proposed by FE...what in the heck is that and why in the heck should I believe it??? I mean come ON!

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2014, 07:33:09 AM

As well as figuring out whether Buzz went to the moon or not with the science and technology of that time, it's also much more clearer to note his body language and the body language of those who also were purported to have been.

No, body language is a terrible way to tell if someone is telling the truth, even if you're an expert, which you aren't.

Quote

As the best researchers can tell, and in my own experience as an FBI Special Agent (now retired), detecting deception is very difficult. Every study conducted since 1986, when the famed researcher Paul Ekman first wrote about this, has demonstrated that we humans are no better than chance at detecting deception (Ekman & O'Sullivan 1991, 913-920; Granhag & Strömwall, 2004, 169; Mann & Vrij 2004). That means that if you toss a coin in the air you will be as likely to detect deception as the truth. And while it is true that a very few people are better at detecting deception than others, they are barely above chance. In fact, those that are really good are only correct somewhere around 60% of the time; that means that 40% of the time they are wrong and you would not like them sitting on a jury judging you.

Unfortunately many people have come along and declared themselves deception experts over the years and that has influenced professionals and society in significant ways. I have listened to jurors post trial comment that they thought a witness was lying because they had "heard somewhere that if you touch your nose you are lying." Likewise I have talked to many a law enforcement officer who is convinced that they are experts at detecting deception. They have deluded themselves that they are, as have judges and other professionals. In fact, every time I hear Judge Judy (of TV fame) say, "I know you are lying," I cringe (unlike us she is covered by judicial privilege in saying what she wishes, the rest of us would be sued for slander). What she and others don't realize is that as Ekman, De Paulo, Frank, Mann, O'Sullivan, Vrij and others have stated, there is no single behavior indicative of deception (Ekman 1985 et.al., infra.)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201203/the-truth-about-lie-detection

Read the whole article - that guy interrogated people for a living for decades, and he doesn't think body language means shit.

Study after study show that you cannot tell if someone is lying by their body language.  What makes it even worse in your case is that you have already decided that Aldrin is lying, therefore every single gesture he makes will be construed as evidence he's lying.

If you've got some actual some actual evidence he's lying then bring it to the table, but all you've got is that you think he looks dodgy....which is bollocks.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 27, 2014, 09:35:56 AM

Now, if you can prove to me that Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon and even that God exists, I will seriously change my stance...as long as I'm satisfied with your evidence.

What evidence would satisfy you?  Would you need a TARDIS so that you could go back in time and travel to the moon so that you could see it with your own eyes?