91

The Lounge / Re: The Best of Eric Bloedow!

« on: June 16, 2008, 12:00:54 PM »

Seems like Eric should change his last name to Cartman. His posts would make more sense.

92

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Amelia Earhart

« on: June 16, 2008, 11:52:25 AM »

looks like Sadaam has a pretty big package

not that I was looking

93

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 16, 2008, 06:05:42 AM »

Then how come I can't find the answers to the questions I listed?

The examples you listed are not what I am after.  These are not controlled, well-detailed experiments.  They give no mention of the procedures, conditions, and equipment specifications used in the experiment. These are no more convincing than accounts of sightings of UFOs and Bigfoot.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the equipment thing. Are you saying that different models of telescopes can see through a hill of water?

As far as terrestrial refraction goes, Rowbotham does take terrestrial refraction into account in his experiments. See Experiment 9, for instance:

...

The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.

Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy

You have to do your own experiments and tests and show us the results.

See how dumb you sound when you say that Tom?

94

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle Launch

« on: June 15, 2008, 07:45:44 AM »

I am starting to see more and more where you are coming from Divito.  Having been here so long you have to admit it is very hard sometimes to see someones position right away. I mean, I have even argued for FE as a joke to new members. Fair is fair.


You are the first veteran of this site to admit to me that the BoP lies on the FEr due to them claiming NASA is part of the conspiracy. Most either say stupid shit (Tom) or just ignore me.


-Are not all the space programs part of their respective governments?  I see them as one in the same.

Either way, those claiming that the earth is flat and that we have all been deceived need to start showing some proof. It goes back to my thread on "it's a conspiracy" is not a valid argument it is just a claim and one that needs to be proven.


Alright I have a golf tournament to attend to. (no not the US Open) lol

95

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle Launch

« on: June 15, 2008, 07:24:00 AM »

-Fine he shares it. Still doesnt change the fact that NASA is the one who has to be proven wrong. Proving Wardogg wrong would mean nothing. Especially if he started stepping out of line with NASA.

-FErs are the ones making these outrageous claims of NASA and the government being part of a conspiracy. That is common knowledge on here and one that can be proven by the FAQ.  The BoP lies on FErs to prove NASA wrong as I have continually stated. I dont really know what you are trying argue here. Seems like you are proving my point which is ok with me.

-By claiming that all space agencies are involved it would mean that three countries that hate each other would have had to agree they were going to let the US win. Laughable but if you have any PROOF that this meeting and or agreement took place I would love to read it. Just show me the detractors.

96

Flat Earth Debate / Re: This world is not real

« on: June 15, 2008, 07:13:54 AM »

I have used a similar argument to prove any unjust and far fetched claim can be argued or debated.

97

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle Launch

« on: June 15, 2008, 07:12:22 AM »

None of this changes the fact that the BoP lies on the FE to prove NASA is lying. Which still has not been done. Not only has it not been done, no one has even come close.

98

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle Launch

« on: June 15, 2008, 07:09:39 AM »

How does that showcase it being taken out of context?

You implied that I have used "appeal to authority" in which I proved that I have not and then you denied that you said I had.

That is all.

99

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle Launch

« on: June 15, 2008, 07:08:19 AM »

And Wardogg made the claim because of NASA. He does not have to prove it himself.

What do you want him to do?  He can show you videos of the space shuttle in orbit. He can show you pictures of it launching and landing. No FEr is going to believe it anyway.

My point is, as always, is you have to prove these things did not take place. There is plenty of evidence given by the leading source in the world that these things did happen. They have proved it over and over and over again. If you or anyone else believes they are full of shit and purposely deceiving the human population then it is up to the skeptic to prove them wrong.

I also think it is funny that no one brings up the fact that the losers in the space wars (china and russia) would not do everything in their power to prove this hoax to be true if it was. Yet they havent. But that is for another thread.

100

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle Launch

« on: June 15, 2008, 07:02:25 AM »

O'rly DIVITO ORLY!??? Fucking ownage right here

I have never invoked one single fallacy that I know of.

I can't imagine that you've avoided appealing to authority. Negative proof fallacy and argument from ignorance are very popular around here. Appeal to ridicule is also one that shows up, as well as wishful thinking. Whether you've invoked any of these can't really be determined from my point of view. Probabilistically though, you've at least invoked one to claim some type of knowledge set you have.

101

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle Launch

« on: June 15, 2008, 06:50:37 AM »

It gets old that you guys tell people to prove things when the burden of proof lied upon you to prove it didnt happen.

BoP is on the one who makes claims.

Wardogg claimed the shuttle orbits the Earth. The BoP is on him.

Wrong again.

NASA claims the shuttle orbits the earth. They have eye witness accounts, photos and videos, and the physics to back up their claim. Wardogg is just acknowledging this fact.

People on this forum claim NASA is lying thus they claim Wardogg is lying and needs to prove himself correct.

Please dont take "appeal to authority is a fallacy" out of context again. I already showed you the error of your ways in the other thread.

102

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle Launch

« on: June 15, 2008, 06:47:19 AM »

No, it's on you. Zeteticism, our territory et cetera so you have to prove it.

False

Why would you throw Zeteticism in there? It just proves my point. You are the critical skeptic and must prove your skepticism to be correct.

This is not the same as proving or disproving a universal negative where an unknown answer is the end result. This is something that can be proven and has been proven by experts in the field of astrophysics.

If you claim they are wrong and are liars then it is up to you to come up with the proof they are lying, not for them to come up with proof your claims are false. They have proven their points, you have failed to prove yours. Thus the burden lies on you.

It just amazes me that so many smart people hang out here and argue for a FE, whether they believe it or not, but yet dont even understand the basic rules of logical debate.

103

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle Launch

« on: June 15, 2008, 06:32:56 AM »

Prove it.

Prove it doesnt


It gets old that you guys tell people to prove things when the burden of proof lied upon you to prove it didnt happen.

Another ignorant FE way of denying the truth and not taking responsibility for far fetched claims of a flat earth.

104

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 14, 2008, 02:23:04 PM »

lived, the idiots amoung us don't get phd's in astrophysics.

Have more education does not make you smarter, but only the smart people get that far.  When you get a phd you don't suddenly become smarter, but only people of above average intelligence get phd's.

Thanks. If I had to respond I may have thrown my keyboard through the wall.

He is a troll

105

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 14, 2008, 12:39:32 PM »

Hahaha...  I know you want to make out with him but seriously.  Just bring him on and he can have a good laugh at all the nonsense you spew.

So how much does he make at georgia tech?

If you can make over $200k as a rig pig, or with many other tradesman, how smart could one really be to hole up on campus and spend your days "teaching" undergrads (basically the equivalent of feeding slop to cattle) for about $100k?


Please stop bragging about your friend if you aren't going to bring him on.

Oh, so now money is the driving force for intelligence. The more you have the smarter you are. And here all these years I thought Mike Tyson was an idiot.

You should stop posting because you make yourself look more and more like a douche bag with each post.

106

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 14, 2008, 10:26:39 AM »

And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart.

What about Ted Kaczynski?  You need to hang out with more Phd's if you don't think any of them are downright stupid.  Especially when programmers, accountants, managers, investors and almost everyone else makes at least double the salary of the most prestigious researchers

We dangle our three magic letters before the eyes of these predestined victims, and they swarm to us like moths to an electric light.

Another idiotic saying. For one, the unibomber was intelligent, he was just mentally troubled. Do you even know anything about him? Obviously not.

AGAIN, I have known this guy since I was a child. I have been in classes with him since elementary school. You dont get recruited by NASA to work with them on JP if they dont think you are brilliant. And if he was a phony I am 100% that NASA, the California Institute of Technology, and Georgia Tech would have found him out by now.

I would link you to his bio and accomplishments but you are a fucking douche bag.

107

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 14, 2008, 06:57:16 AM »

You guys misplace the appeal to the authority fallacy. I have pointed that out to Tom Bishop in this thread. And if you are not misusing it then you are hypocritical because I have seen FErs do the exact same including Tom who I have seen refer to books by FErs.

Well, even the FAQ says to ignore Tom. He invokes a few fallacies and gets some things wrong.

Still, appealing to NASA is not a fallacy. They are a legitimate authority on the subject of astrophysics and they are not one single person, they are a collective group of experts which is even more legit.

So again, NASA has legitimate claims of space travel, eye witness accounts, and credible photos and videos to back their expert claims. It is not their job to prove to you they are correct, it is your job to prove they are incorrect and are maliciously deceiving the human population. The ball lies in the court of the person claiming conspiracy not the other way around.

108

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 14, 2008, 06:24:52 AM »

I have never invoked one single fallacy that I know of.

I can't imagine that you've avoided appealing to authority. Negative proof fallacy and argument from ignorance are very popular around here. Appeal to ridicule is also one that shows up, as well as wishful thinking. Whether you've invoked any of these can't really be determined from my point of view. Probabilistically though, you've at least invoked one to claim some type of knowledge set you have.

My only fear is the people who really think they know their shit on here dont have the educactional background and knowledge to even comprehend what he is explaining. That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.

Well, thinking that educational background translates into intelligence would be somewhat illogical. Personally, my friends and neighbors who haven't done certain schooling or achieved high GPAs, are more intelligent and successful than those who did go to school. I suppose it depends on what type of intelligence and success you're trying to establish though, I digress.

It would be interesting to see any such debate that arises from your friend's involvement though.

You guys misplace the appeal to the authority fallacy. I have pointed that out to Tom Bishop in this thread. And if you are not misusing it then you are hypocritical because I have seen FErs do the exact same including Tom who I have seen refer to books by FErs.

Appeal to authority from my understanding is this:

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

   1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
   2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
   3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I have watched you guys pull that fallacy out of context way too much on here. NASA is known to be a legitimate authority on the subject of astrophysics. Whether you believe that is a different story because the first rule of logic is belief does not equal truth. So next time you want to use that against someone try keeping it in context.

And as for my friend not being intelligent just because he has an education does not really play here. Sorry, but there is not one person on the planet who could fake their way through a doctorate in Astrophysics without being smart. And NASA and the California Institute of Technology did not seek him out because they thought he might know what he is talking about.

I dont mind PMing you the link to his bio if you want to read up a little bit on him. Like I said earlier in this thread, I have been friends with him since elementary school and to this day I have not met a more intelligent person. He made a great egg drop contest partner in Junior High as well. Of course he wouldnt let me help but I got to watch and still got the A.

109

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 14, 2008, 05:38:04 AM »

LOL at divito saying you are a REr but you arguing the other way. He is another idiot here anyway from what I have read. Hey Divito, you think you have the knowledge and proof to argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about? I will happily have my friend debate you on FET. You would be a waste of time though from everything I have read.

If you're into being an ignorant asshat (who thinks he's tough on the internet), who can only invoke fallacies to claim knowledge, than you're just a waste of space and time. Really not surprising.

I am actually tough in real life but that is besides the point.  I have never invoked one single fallacy that I know of. And I was talking about you debating my friend. I sent Roundy the link and I will PM it to you as well. I already have an email sent to him and a link to this site. More then likely I will try and get the debate set up with TheEngineer or Narc. They seem to understand their positions the best from a physics perspective. I dont want to bore my buddy with dumb bullshit or he wont do it.

My only fear is the people who really think they know their shit on here dont have the educactional background and knowledge to even comprehend what he is explaining. That is speculation though because I dont know who all has their doctorate in Astrophysics on here and who has been a consultant for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory like my friend.

110

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 13, 2008, 04:01:33 PM »

I think Shaydog has a crush on me. 

I do

Cant lie

111

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I challenge FE

« on: June 13, 2008, 03:33:20 PM »

with a ruler

112

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 13, 2008, 03:09:22 PM »

At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently

I'm glad we're agreed.  Bring on your friend so that he can laugh with us at your postings.

Spoken like a true FEr. Taking a half truth and then posting it for the forum to laugh at your ignorance. I would not expect someone of your integrity to ever post the complete sentence found above.

At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently on the subject with someone who has a doctorate in the field of astrophysics

113

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 13, 2008, 02:37:11 PM »

It would be nice to have an astrophysicist on here.

Trust me, they dont really want that. They enjoy living in denial.

Roundy for one has had every opportunity to man up but even pushed it off on TheEngineer because he knew he does not know shit. Just like he does not know shit about religion.

I can forward you the PM he sent me if you like.

114

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 13, 2008, 02:35:43 PM »

Yes, please do.  He can laugh at all of shaydawg's posts, and then join is in developing FET.

Maybe you should know what is going on before you comment dipshit. He is one of my close friends.

You really should find somewhere else to go play because everything you say is full of fail.

115

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 13, 2008, 02:34:34 PM »

Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html

I'm disappointed.  I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying.  Should've known better. 

Just like your FE theory you are going to not believe anything because your reasoning skills are sub par. And if you spent anytime whatsoever on that site like I have you would know that there is plenty of evidence. I know now that you just looked at it and then clicked out. Pretty ignorant and closed minded but I am talking to a FEr so I am not surprised.

Nothing there convinces me.  What, the early church fathers say they're authentic, so they must be authentic?  They were written during the apostles' lifetimes, so they must have been written by the apostles?  Please.

And just so you know I already sent an email to my friend about the debate. But you have failed so far on your end. To be honest I think you are scared to have a real authentic astrophysicist come here because it would ruin your little bullshit FE theory.

You're right, I'm terrified, please stop sending me PMs.

I sent you two keyboard warrior. I am sure you are really tough in person by the way. Keep hiding behind the internet and man up.

 They were apostles you dumbass. That site , since you did not read it gives references from NON CHRISTIAN sources. But like I said, if you read that you would know but you did not. Just like all the other bullshit claims on here you glance and ignore.

LOL at divito saying you are a REr but you arguing the other way. He is another idiot here anyway from what I have read. Hey Divito, you think you have the knowledge and proof to argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about? I will happily have my friend debate you on FET. You would be a waste of time though from everything I have read.

Anyone that would like to really challenge their idiot FE beliefs please PM me and I will set it up. Until then keep acting like ignorant fucking douche bags who think it is cool to argue both ways and have absolutely zero knowledge on the subject at hand. At least I am able to admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to argue and debate intelligently on the subject with someone who has a doctorate in the field of astrophysics. Unlike Roundy who thinks he knows the issues well enough to even speak on it. Just like he says he studies religion and the authenticity of the scriptures but makes some of the most ignorant statements on the subject I have ever read.

Let me know Roundy if you ever decide to grow a fucking set of balls and man up. If not shut the fuck up.

I know you are terrified just like all the other morons on this site. I know no one here is man enough to take the challenge and I even stated that in my email today. I knew if there was a possibility of it ever happening then the pussies here would back down.

116

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 13, 2008, 02:10:38 PM »

Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html

I'm disappointed.  I thought there might be actual evidence there for what you're saying.  Should've known better. 

Just like your FE theory you are going to not believe anything because your reasoning skills are sub par. And if you spent anytime whatsoever on that site like I have you would know that there is plenty of evidence. I know now that you just looked at it and then clicked out. Pretty ignorant and closed minded but I am talking to a FEr so I am not surprised.

And just so you know I already sent an email to my friend about the debate. But you have failed so far on your end. To be honest I think you are scared to have a real authentic astrophysicist come here because it would ruin your little bullshit FE theory.

117

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 13, 2008, 05:11:14 AM »

Propaganda? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why would anyone write and do the things they did, putting their life on the line, and being under some of serious religious persecution just to spread propaganda? There was no need for another religion. I cant even tell you how dumb of a statement that is. If you had one ounce of knowledge of what the apostles went through you would never have said such a thing. Try reading one chapter in Foxes Book of Martyrs and then we can continue this conversation. Until then Im done.

It was propaganda, by definition.  And as pointed out, the apostles did not write the Gospels, so I don't see what bearing what they went through has to do with this discussion.  To be honest, I also find it somewhat damning that there is no record of what the apostles went through either, until long after the events took place.  History is silent about Jesus, and his cult, prior to the writing of the Gospels.  And about Herod's atrocities, although it seems to delight in revealing the atrocities committed by the various emperors of the time.  Can you point me to a single contemporary reference outside of the Bible that even mentions the Massacre of the Innocents?

You seem to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about; in fact, religion has been an interest of mine for years, and I've read quite a bit on the subject, running the gamut from theological to philosophical to historical.  I have yet to encounter anything that has led me to consider the Gospels to be a legitimate historical record.

Fox's Book of Martyrs reads like scripture.  Thanks, but I'd rather not.  We can be done with this if you like; arguing with fundies gets tiresome because you tend to be so rigid and unyielding in your commitment to dogma.  Nothing I say will change your mind anymore than anything you say will change my mind, so it's ultimately pointless.  I will point out that what you say about the persecution of Christians can just as easily be said about the early Muslims; does that mean that we should treat the Koran as historical fact?

I did get your PM, by the way.  I'm just not sure what you want me to do with it.

For one, three of the apostles DID write the gospels. I dont even know how you could dispute it. Either way though you are not as informed as you think you are.

Here is some evidence for you. There are many things we could debate thus why I have somewhat avoided doing this and will more then likely continue considering it is off topic.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/ntdocs.html

118

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ice walls

« on: June 12, 2008, 05:56:10 PM »

I dont believe in ice.

The government has tricked all of you into thinking ice exists. fact

119

Flat Earth Debate / Re: well then

« on: June 12, 2008, 05:46:59 PM »

It is not that hard to believe the earth is flat when you live in west texas.

I know someone who lives in Texas. How does desert= ice wall? Fail.

It is not a desert you moron, it is a plain.

You may want to brush up on your geography if you are going to debate here.

Every FEr here acknowledges that west texas is a full proof sign the earth is flat.

Go choke to death on Tom Hank's organ. You're fucking boring and not worth existing.

how original

And dont talk about Tom Hanks like that. What if he was an organ donor? Bet you would feel bad then.

HAHAHHAHAHAHA Are you Autistic or something? Enjoy your altered existance due to brain abnormalities, no wonder you're a flat earther.

PROTIP: He made a dick joke, lulz.

Im not a FEr moron. You may want to try reading some of the threads I have started before you look like even more of a jackass.

120

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

« on: June 12, 2008, 05:27:20 PM »

And if you knew how the scriptures we have today came to be then you would not use their authenticity as an argument.

What, you mean the ones that were written decades after the events supposedly took place? 

Decades? lol

Decades, that's correct.  The earliest Gospel (Mark) is dated AD 65-70, about 30-40 years after Jesus' death.

I understand. For some reason I thought "century" when you wrote decade. I do that sometimes. 

Three of them were still written by eye witnesses. If you discredit them then you would have to discredit anyone who has ever written a biography if you think writing something well after it happens means it is not valid.

I hope that is not your argument.

I think most people would discredit such a biography if it included the kinds of fantastic details included in the Gospels, but that's beside the point.  It's actually more generally accepted that Mark, Matthew, and Luke did not write the Gospels themselves anymore than John did.  In fact, Matthew and Luke are purported to borrow elements from Mark.  They are not literally eye-witness accounts, that's just how they were presented (the better to gain legitimacy among the people).

In addition, the Gospels were written as propaganda.  Their specific intent was to influence the beliefs of people.  Personally, I don't consider propaganda to have the same level of legitimacy that I consider an authentic historical work to have.

For one, stop reading Wiki for information.

Two, Mathew Luke and John were disciples. They were eye witnesses.

Propaganda? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Why would anyone write and do the things they did, putting their life on the line, and being under some of serious religious persecution just to spread propaganda? There was no need for another religion. I cant even tell you how dumb of a statement that is. If you had one ounce of knowledge of what the apostles went through you would never have said such a thing. Try reading one chapter in Foxes Book of Martyrs and then we can continue this conversation. Until then Im done.

And thanks for answering my question about the PM. I only asked twice and it was a simple yes or no answer.