Truth Goes Both Ways
Why asking someone to question their beliefs means being willing to question your own.
There's something I've experienced repeatedly in conversations with people who believe conspiracy theories.
They send videos.
Lots of videos.
A YouTube link. A Facebook reel. A short clip supposedly exposing something that scientists, historians, or governments don't want us to know.
The expectation often seems straightforward.
Watch this. See what I see. Understand what I've been trying to tell you.
And perhaps most importantly, agree with me.
But here's where things get interesting.
When someone sends me something they consider evidence, I actually try to investigate it.
I look for the original footage. I examine the context. I search for historical documents or independent research that might explain what I'm seeing.
Sometimes the evidence supports what was claimed.
Sometimes it doesn't.
And when it doesn't, I want to know why.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the person who sent the video isn't always interested in finding out.
The Video That Supposedly Proves Everything
Take the claim that certain people are actually reptilian shapeshifters.
I've encountered videos showing a public figure's eyes supposedly changing, their facial features becoming reptilian, or their appearance briefly transforming before returning to normal.
The clips can look unusual.
But rather than accepting the version someone sends me, I try to locate the original recording.
Not the version with ominous music, exaggerated zooms, or a narrator telling me what I'm supposed to see.
The actual recording.
And when I've been able to find the original, I've sometimes discovered that the viral version was altered, distorted, or presented without important context.
Video compression, lighting, digital artifacts, and deliberate editing can all create misleading appearances. Determining which explanation applies requires examining the particular recording.
But here's the part I find frustrating.
Someone sends me a video expecting me to accept it as evidence of an extraordinary claim.
I take it seriously enough to investigate.
Then I return with information showing why the original claim is questionable.
And suddenly, there's little interest in examining what I've found.
Why was the viral clip credible enough to challenge everything I've learned, but the original recording isn't credible enough to challenge what someone else believes?
That seems like a fundamental contradiction.
When NASA Supposedly Admitted the Moon Landings Were Faked
Here's another example I've personally encountered.
In September 2025, NASA held a news conference with the Artemis II crew.
A short clip from that event circulated online, accompanied by claims suggesting NASA had admitted the Apollo Moon landings never happened.
The clip featured Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman discussing the mission as a first in human spaceflight.
But when the surrounding context is examined, the meaning changes.
Wiseman was discussing the distinction between the upcoming Artemis mission and previous Moon missions, including the fact that astronauts would be traveling toward the Moon while other people remained in low Earth orbit.
Earlier in that same news conference, he explicitly acknowledged the Apollo missions, stating:
"We have been to the moon in Apollo."
That is hardly an admission that the Moon landings were fabricated.
NASA preserves the original September 24, 2025, crew news conference in its media archive. [1]
And this illustrates exactly why locating an original source matters.
A short excerpt can be authentic footage and still be misleading.
The words may have been spoken.
But the conclusion attached to those words may be completely unsupported.
In my experience, showing the original recording didn't necessarily change the other person's belief.
The edited presentation had been convincing enough to share.
The fuller context wasn't convincing enough to reconsider.
If the original recording contradicts what the viral clip claims, shouldn't that matter?
The Astronaut's Footprints That Didn't Match His Boots
Another example involves photographs of footprints left on the Moon during the Apollo missions.
Some viral posts compare an astronaut's footprint with the soles visible on a preserved Apollo spacesuit.
The tread patterns don't match.
And the conclusion?
The Moon landings must have been staged.
Except there's a straightforward explanation that can be independently investigated.
Apollo astronauts wore specialized protective overshoes over the boots integrated into their spacesuits while walking on the lunar surface.
Those overshoes had distinctive tread patterns.
The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum has preserved examples, including overshoes worn by Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan.
The museum even addresses the frequent question about why the famous lunar footprints don't match the boots visible on Neil Armstrong's preserved spacesuit. [2]
And here's something important.
The historical evidence doesn't require accepting someone's interpretation of a blurry internet photograph.
The actual equipment exists.
We can examine its construction, documented purpose, and connection to the missions.
The original claim depends on comparing two things without acknowledging a third piece of equipment.
Once that missing information is introduced, the supposed contradiction disappears.
But again, what happens when someone doesn't want to hear the explanation?
Contrails and the Evidence That Was Always There
Consider another familiar claim.
"Those trails behind airplanes didn't exist when we were kids."
Someone sends a video insisting that persistent contrails are a modern phenomenon and evidence of chemical spraying.
But where is the historical research?
In January 1953, meteorologist H. Appleman published a paper titled The Formation of Exhaust Condensation Trails by Jet Aircraft.
It examined the atmospheric conditions that produce contrails, including factors affecting whether they remain visible. [3]
That's more than seventy years ago.
The Federal Aviation Administration also explains how temperature and humidity at aircraft altitude determine whether contrails disappear quickly or persist for extended periods. [4]
Now, perhaps someone genuinely doesn't remember seeing contrails decades ago.
But were they paying attention to them?
Were they looking at the sky and recording which trails remained visible and which disappeared?
Or did those trails simply not attract their attention until someone introduced the idea that they were suspicious?
Our memories aren't a complete record of everything we've observed.
And not remembering something doesn't establish that it didn't exist.
The fact that you only recently started noticing something doesn't mean it only recently started happening.
But when a historical scientific paper is presented to someone who believes contrails are a recent invention, how do they respond?
Are they interested in reading it?
Do they investigate the research?
Or do they dismiss it because it contradicts the explanation they've already accepted?
When the Truth Isn't the Answer They Want
Here's what I've found most frustrating about these conversations.
Someone sends me a video supposedly proving something extraordinary. Maybe it's an astronaut's footprint that doesn't match the boot in a photograph. Maybe it's a claim that contrails never existed when we were younger. Maybe it's footage of someone's face supposedly transforming into something reptilian.
And I'm expected to watch it, be amazed, and agree.
But instead, I investigate.
I look for the original footage. I search for the historical documentation. I try to understand what actually happened.
Sometimes the explanation is remarkably simple.
The astronaut wore protective overshoes that aren't shown in the photograph.
Contrails were being scientifically documented more than seventy years ago.
The supposedly extraordinary moment in a video can look very different when the original footage or missing context is examined.
But here's where the real problem begins.
They don't necessarily want to hear the explanation.
They wanted me to watch the video and say, "Wow, I can't believe it!"
They didn't necessarily want me to investigate whether it was true.
And when I return with evidence contradicting the claim, suddenly the rules change.
The video they sent was credible enough to challenge everything I've learned.
But the original footage, scientific research, historical documentation, or independent research I found is somehow not credible enough to challenge what they believe.
How does that make sense?
If you genuinely want me to reconsider what I believe, I should be able to expect the same willingness from you.
You cannot demand that I question my beliefs while insisting that yours remain beyond question.
And if your reaction to contradictory evidence is to refuse to examine it, what exactly are we trying to accomplish?
Are we searching for the truth?
Or are we simply searching for agreement?
Because those are not the same thing.
Truth goes both ways. And if we aren't willing to follow the evidence in both directions, we're not investigating. We're looking for validation.
Why Some Evidence Gets Accepted and Other Evidence Gets Rejected
Psychologists have studied how people's existing beliefs can influence the way they evaluate new information.
In a 1979 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, researchers Charles Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark Lepper examined how people with opposing views assessed evidence concerning capital punishment.
Participants tended to view evidence supporting their existing positions as more convincing while evaluating contradictory evidence more critically. [5]
This is one example of biased assimilation, a process closely related to confirmation bias.
It doesn't mean everyone who believes a conspiracy theory responds the same way.
And it certainly doesn't mean anyone is immune to the tendency.
But it offers a possible explanation for something I've observed.
A video supporting an existing belief may be accepted with very little scrutiny.
A historical document contradicting that belief may be examined with extreme suspicion, or rejected without examination at all.
One source receives the benefit of the doubt.
The other is expected to satisfy an almost impossible standard.
And that's not a consistent way to evaluate evidence.
If we're genuinely committed to discovering the truth, our standards shouldn't change depending on whether we like the conclusion.
The Same Rules Should Apply to Everyone
I'm not suggesting that anyone should automatically trust NASA, the FAA, a university, or a historical institution.
Those organizations can make mistakes.
Their explanations can and should be examined.
The same is true of the research I cite and the articles I write.
But if someone wants to challenge an established explanation, they need evidence that actually supports the alternative.
A sensational video isn't automatically more trustworthy because it contradicts a government agency.
And an original scientific paper isn't automatically false because it supports an explanation the viewer dislikes.
The reasonable standard is the same for both.
Where did the claim originate?
Can we inspect the original evidence?
Has the material been edited or presented without context?
Can the explanation be independently tested?
And what information would cause us to reconsider our conclusion?
Those questions should apply equally to the person sending the video and the person receiving it.
The Difference Between Understanding and Agreement
This becomes particularly important in personal relationships.
When someone shares a video with me, I don't automatically assume they're trying to deceive me.
They may sincerely believe it.
They may genuinely want to share something they find fascinating.
And I'm willing to consider it.
But being willing to consider a claim isn't the same as agreeing with it.
If I investigate and discover contradictory evidence, that shouldn't automatically turn the conversation into an argument.
It should be an opportunity for both people to learn something.
I don't need another person to agree with everything I believe.
But I do want my willingness to investigate their claims to be met with some willingness to investigate what I find.
Otherwise, what is the point of sharing evidence?
If the only acceptable outcome is agreement, then the conversation was never really about discovering the truth.
It was about obtaining validation.
And there's a significant difference between wanting someone to understand why you believe something and requiring them to believe it themselves.
Truth Goes Both Ways
There's nothing wrong with being mistaken.
I've been wrong about things before, and I'm certain I'll be wrong about things again.
That's part of learning.
What matters is what we do when new information challenges our understanding.
Do we investigate?
Do we reconsider?
Are we willing to acknowledge that something we believed might not be true?
Or do we dismiss the information simply because we don't like where it leads?
I believe we should question scientific explanations, historical accounts, photographs, videos, and the institutions that publish them.
But that skepticism must be applied consistently.
If you send me evidence, I'll examine it. But if I find evidence that contradicts yours, are you willing to examine that, too?
Because the purpose of sharing evidence shouldn't be to win an argument.
It should be to discover what's true.
And if we aren't willing to follow the evidence in both directions, we're not investigating. We're looking for validation.
Truth goes both ways.
Sources and Further Reading
[1] NASA, Artemis II Crew News Conference, September 24, 2025. Original video of the crew news conference, allowing viewers to examine Commander Reid Wiseman's remarks in context. https://images.nasa.gov/details/jsc2025m000167-Artemis_Media_Days-Artemis_Crew_News_Conference
[2] Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, "Overshoes from the Last Man on the Moon," December 12, 2022. Museum explanation of the protective lunar overshoes worn by Apollo astronauts, including preserved Apollo 17 equipment. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/overshoes-last-man-moon
[3] Appleman, H. (1953), "The Formation of Exhaust Condensation Trails by Jet Aircraft." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 34(1), 14-20. Original scientific research on contrail formation. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-34.1.14
[4] Federal Aviation Administration, "Contrails." Explanation of contrail formation, humidity, atmospheric conditions, and why some trails persist. https://www.faa.gov/contrails
[5] Lord, C. G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R. (1979), "Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109. Independent experimental research examining how existing beliefs influence the evaluation of conflicting evidence. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098