"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

  • 320 Replies
  • 75945 Views
?

dyno

  • 562
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #120 on: June 12, 2008, 12:14:42 AM »
Quote
Nope.  Time Travel is far beyond IBM computers.  Boring through the Earth's crust is way beyond pyrmaids.  The technology used on the Apollo Missions is less advanced than a cell phone of a flat screen TV.

Rocket technologies, space suits, heat shields, space alloys, and oxygen recyclers are all entirely different technologies than cell phones and flat screen TV's. You must prove that these space technologies exist as NASA advertises. None the technologies NASA claims exist are within human experience as cell phones and flat screen TV's are.

It's not my responsibility to prove that the technologies do not exist. I don't need to prove that a man can't travel through time,  that God doesn't talk to people, or a man can't bore through the earth's crust. The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim.

Claiming that the technologies are "physically possible" and therefore real isn't proof. I don't know what that is. That's just stupid.

Time Travel is also "physically possible" in many theories of physics. Does that mean we should believe John Titor when he claims to have a device which can travel through time?

Quote
his isn't a blip floating in the sky. This is a clearly and unquestionably a video of an obviously man-made object extremely high up and moving very quickly. This object must be above the bulk of the atmosphere (because of it's unaerodynamic shape). This tells us quite a lot. This tells us that mankind has indeed sent objects into space.

Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:

- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.

If you cannot prove any of the above, all we can really say on the matter is that we see a man-made object moving through the sky. The existence of this object says nothing on the honesty of NASA, their videos, their testimonies, their press releases or claims.




I don't care much about the rest of this thread but there are some points to make here.

Oxygen recyclers
There are a number of ways to do this. I'm not sure which method NASA uses but for underground mining operations, miners are equipped with personal rebreathers. These are essentially an inflatable bag with potassium superoxide in them. You breath out CO2 and it reacts (in presence of moisture i believe) with the superoxide to create a potassium carbonate and oxygen which you then inhale). This is simple chemistry. I've used these for safety inductions, they are real and work.

SCUBA Rebreathers
These scrub out CO2 so you don't poison yourself breathing the same air and add small amounts of O2 to keep levels correct.

This stuff isn't fantasy.

Heat Shields
Ever work with refractory materials in kilns or furnaces? I've touched the outside of a kiln at 1200 celcius and it hasn't cooked my hand. Sure it was warm but it wasn't glowing. This was through ~100mm of wall.

Space suit?
We have pressure suits that allow humans to work in the black depths of the ocean at tremendous pressures. How is this any more difficult than building a suit to protect from a vacuum?

Rocket Technology
What specific rocket tech are you talking about? The principle itself is simple. Combustion producing heat which expands a gas forcing it out a nozzle to produce thrust. The Nazi's with the V-1 managed this half a century ago. Or are you talking something more complicated like the turbo pumps and cryogenic fuels in use on the orbiter?

I don't really know what you mean by space alloys.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #121 on: June 12, 2008, 12:32:14 AM »
He's probably talking about superalloys used for their high resistance to deformation under thermal and mechanical stresses, although there is nothing really high tech about those either.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #122 on: June 12, 2008, 04:31:57 AM »
Rocket technologies, space suits, heat shields, space alloys, and oxygen recyclers are all entirely different technologies than cell phones and flat screen TV's. You must prove that these space technologies exist as NASA advertises. None the technologies NASA claims exist are within human experience as cell phones and flat screen TV's are.

As I've said, I've provided proof in the form of videos, photos and testimonies among other things. You refuse to accept them, claiming that everyone (not just NASA) is lying. If we allowed this, then none of Rowbotham's evidence would be admittable either, because all we have is his word, and in fact we don't even have photo or video proof.

We have provided evidence. You refuse to accept it. You must now explain why.

Also, dyno has explained that these technologies are not so far beyond common experience as you claim.

Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:

- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.

This object is clearly moving very fast, because it travels around the world in 90 minutes (visit any satellite tracking website). If we transform the ISS's orbit onto a FE map we get this:


The yellow ellipse is the ISS's orbit.

If we estimate its size, it's roughly a circle 20,000km across, which means it travels 20,000*Pi km in 90mins which gives a speed of about 40 kms/s.

We can clearly see through a telescope that the object is not aerodynamic and it is not glowing due to atmospheric friction. Therefore, it must be above the atmsphere.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 07:40:52 AM by ghazwozza »

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #123 on: June 12, 2008, 07:09:26 AM »

I don't see how a blip in the sky proves NASA's honesty in all matters mentioned. What does looking at a blip float by in the sky tell us about the moon missions, sustained space travel, the technologies NASA has claimed to have invented, whether NASA is a fraudulent entity, or whether their video portrayal of earth and space are untainted?
I'm sorry but this is not a "blip." 

It tells us quite a lot in fact, it tells us whether or not "sustained space travel" (aka orbiting) is possible because the only way to find the blip is by predicting when and where it will show up in the sky based on its orbital information.  If it was not in orbit it would not show up in the right place in the sky to amateur observers all over the world.
Quote

The mirrors were deliberately left in an attempt to prove to the world that NASA really did go to the moon. NASA works directly with professional astronomers to build the high power military-grade lasers necessary for the moon-bounce.
How dare they try to prove that they really went to the moon lol.  So now the story is that the observatories aren't "evil conspirators," it's just that the laser is bouncing off the moon without any help?  Why do they have to aim it precisely at the landing site then to get it to work?  Honestly Tom, I think you were better off asserting that anyone claiming to have bounced a laser off the moon is lying.  If moon bounces are real (yet not being aided by retroreflectors), then that puts the moon much farther away and makes it much larger than FE predicts (based on the >2 second time for the light bounce to occur).  But there are other amateurs who have listened to radio signals coming from moon during apollo missions and even picked up the voice transmissions.  No longer can you claim that other governments who claimed to have picked up Apollo's signals were just in on the FE conspiracy and lying to the public:

"On December 10, 1972 we picked up our first signals on S-band. The main carrier was 45 dB over noise and the voice subcarrier was 25 dB over noise. Apollo 17 passed. over the lunar disc between 1722 and 1819.10 local time (2222-2319 UT), and we measured a total Doppler frequency shift of 43 kHz. The next day the lunar module landed on the Moon and at 1518 local time we picked up main carrier and telemetry from the surface of the moon some 80 minutes after touchdown. Unfortunately the astronauts soon changed to low power which prevented us from getting voice signals because of the too low signal-to-noise ratio. The lunar module transmitted on 2282.5 MHz, but we decided to shift back to the frequency of the command module in lunar orbit, i.e. 2287.5 MHz. The lone astronaut Evans was not very talkative except when he just appeared in front of the Moon or just before he disappeared behind it. At such times he changed to high power and on December 11 we could pick up our first voice signals from the Moon. At 1722.00 local time (2222 UT) Ron Evans said: "'Standby three zero" and at l722.30, i.e. 30 seconds later, we abruptly lost the signal as the spacecraft swung, around the edge of the Moon.

The following day, December12, we concentrated on the command module and received strong voice signals on several occasions (Here [10 kB, mp3][http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/sounds/AP17SB.mp3] you can hear Ron Evans say: "The barber pole it is grey", referring to a barber pole-shaped control panel indicator). We also had an opportunity to test different FM detectors. To our great surprise slope detection worked amazingly well. When using this mode the receiver is slightly detuned so that the FM signal is placed on one of the slopes of the a selectivity curve of the receiver. In this way FM is converted to AM which is heard in the loudspeaker. When using slope detection the R-390 was operated with 16 kHz bandwidth to avoid resetting the main tuning too often because of Doppler shift.

On December 14, 1972 I left Gainesville for Sweden. At Kennedy Airport I watched the astronauts leave the moon on a little pay-TV which you could find on many seats in the air terminal. So-the Apollo program was all over. "
-Sven Grahn
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

He also tracked the radio signals of the Russian lander Luna 20 here:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/luna20/LUNA20.htm
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 07:22:28 AM by messierhunter »

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #124 on: June 12, 2008, 07:35:22 AM »

Plenty of man made devices move through the sky. You must prove:

- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.

If you cannot prove any of the above, all we can really say on the matter is that we see a man-made object moving through the sky. The existence of this object says nothing on the honesty of NASA, their videos, their testimonies, their press releases or claims.


All of the above can be proven simultaneously.  Compute the predicting sightings of a spacecraft for your location, take a computerized telescope and feed it the predicted path the spacecraft will take at precisely the right time (even a tenth of a second can be the difference between success and failure), see if the spacecraft is there (you should be able to see it even before you look through the telescope).  If it is and if you can get your telescope to track it properly, then it is moving at the predicted speed and in the predicted place.  Since those predictions were derived only from the orbital information of the object and your location, the only way it could appear to you at the right place and time is if it really is at the published velocity and location.  The exact place and time it should appear in the sky isn't just determined by the orbital info, which is why they can't fake it; it's equally determined by your location, so knowing exactly where you are to within a few dozen feet is also critical.

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #125 on: June 12, 2008, 01:33:17 PM »

You must prove:

- That what you see is a space ship.
- That what you see is sitting beyond the atmosphere of the earth.
- That the device is moving at the speeds claimed by NASA.
Here's one more nail in the coffin of FE, don't know why I didn't think of this before now.  Amateur observers have witnessed events in space caused by spacecraft.  Back in september of '06 the SMART-1 ESA probe was intentionally crashed into the moon at the end of its mission at a pre-determined location on the night side of the moon.  An amateur with an LX90 (very similar to my scope) set up for the event and caught the flash of impact on the moon with his webcam:

The moon is most definately outside the atmosphere.

Another thing definately outside the atmosphere are comets.  The Deep Impact mission hit comet tempel 1 on July 4th 2005.  Amateur telescopes were able to see this impact happen exactly as predicted as well:
Before:

After:

The comet's nucleus has increased in size between images, just as predicted.

This time-lapse movie from another amateur shows the same event:
http://www.oldstarlight.com/All%20page%20content%20consolidation/Deep_Impact_1.5%20hours_5_arc_minute_field.avi
Definately outside the atmosphere and definately impacted by a spaceship.

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #126 on: June 12, 2008, 01:54:25 PM »
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.

I know that was not the intention of my thread but it was just as satisfying to read.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #127 on: June 12, 2008, 01:56:39 PM »
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.


When?  ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

lindelof

  • 422
  • DADA IS NOT DEAD. WATCH YOUR OVERCOAT.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #128 on: June 12, 2008, 02:04:54 PM »
When didn't he?

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #129 on: June 12, 2008, 02:05:46 PM »
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.


When?  ???

It takes minor comprehension skills.

I really need to come up with my own conspiracy theory so I can draw in all the morons that will believe anything they are told as long as the word conspiracy is tied to it.  Just look what it did for the Loose Change idiots. The problem is they both believed their own bullshit and got completely ass raped by Popular Mechanics.

All I know now is that they should have come back with the lame and out of context argument "appeal to authority is a fallacy".

*goes to work on conspiracy

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #130 on: June 12, 2008, 02:06:47 PM »
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.


When?  ???

It takes minor comprehension skills.


Surely you're capable of pointing these instances out then.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #131 on: June 12, 2008, 02:11:56 PM »
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.


When?  ???

It takes minor comprehension skills.


Surely you're capable of pointing these instances out then.

Try reading his fucking posts. I dont need to quote them so you can read them do I?

Or wait, do you put all people who prove him wrong on ignore?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 02:14:09 PM by Shaydawg »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #132 on: June 12, 2008, 02:16:07 PM »
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.


When?  ???

It takes minor comprehension skills.


Surely you're capable of pointing these instances out then.

Try reading his fucking posts. I dont need to quote them so you can read them do I?


Hey, plenty of people have made Tom look like a fool, myself included, but I did read messierhunter's posts and saw nothing that made Tom look like a fool.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #133 on: June 12, 2008, 03:05:32 PM »
Tom Bishop should probably retire from ever trying to argue against RE because messierhunter has made him look like a fool.


When?  ???

It takes minor comprehension skills.


Surely you're capable of pointing these instances out then.

Try reading his fucking posts. I dont need to quote them so you can read them do I?


Hey, plenty of people have made Tom look like a fool, myself included, but I did read messierhunter's posts and saw nothing that made Tom look like a fool.

Besides the fact that the FAQ claims only the top 2-3 people at NASA are in on the conspiracy and yet there are tons of amateur's who have discovered and proven that there are satellite's orbiting our planet.

As I have said since the beginning of this thread, I dont really give a shit if people believe the earth is flat or round. Believing it is flat and claiming that it is in public and especially in intellectual circles does enough damage to ones reputation assuming they had one in the first place.

I just want to talk about the conspiracy because I think people who believe in such outlandish things such as 3 governments and their space programs pulling off something this elaborate when they hate each other is something that they need to be called out on.

Seriously, if your research and studies in life ever come to the conclusion of "it must be a conspiracy" then you may want to go back to the drawing board. There is no doubt that claiming such things draws the curiosity out of people but playing on the weak is not something anyone should be proud of.

I have come to understand that no one on here who believes in a FE is ever going to admit they are wrong at this point because of all the crow they would have to eat. You could take Tom Bishop up in a space shuttle and show him that the earth was round and he would say it was all simulated, he was drugged, and none of it really happened.

Thus why all I ask is for proof of the government lying to us. Proof of the detractors testimonies. Proof of at least one astronaut who could not live with himself. The conscious of every single person who has ever been on a space shuttle and traveled to space would be on the line. Not only that but our government would be guilty of killing those whom we have lost on failed missions. The effort it would take to cover up something of this magnitude is so unbelievable that it alone is a case for a RE. You can scare people into doing many things. You can brainwash many people. But you cant control the delicate conscious of every single person that is involved.

Believe it or not there are good people in this world who, if they knew, would never let this go. Not to mention the money one would make for proving such a conspiracy to be true.

None of it makes sense to those with one ounce of critical thinking skills.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #134 on: June 12, 2008, 03:17:05 PM »
Besides the fact that the FAQ claims only the top 2-3 people at NASA are in on the conspiracy

LOL.  It says nothing of the sort.  ::)

Quote
and yet there are tons of amateur's who have discovered and proven that there are satellite's orbiting our planet.

Obviously they're seeing something; it's just not satellites.  Tom certainly doesn't claim that all amateur astronomers are in on the conspiracy.

Quote
As I have said since the beginning of this thread, I dont really give a shit if people believe the earth is flat or round. Believing it is flat and claiming that it is in public and especially in intellectual circles does enough damage to ones reputation assuming they had one in the first place.

I just want to talk about the conspiracy because I think people who believe in such outlandish things such as 3 governments and their space programs pulling off something this elaborate when they hate each other is something that they need to be called out on.

Okay...

Quote
Seriously, if your research and studies in life ever come to the conclusion of "it must be a conspiracy" then you may want to go back to the drawing board. There is no doubt that claiming such things draws the curiosity out of people but playing on the weak is not something anyone should be proud of.

All right...

Quote
I have come to understand that no one on here who believes in a FE is ever going to admit they are wrong at this point because of all the crow they would have to eat. You could take Tom Bishop up in a space shuttle and show him that the earth was round and he would say it was all simulated, he was drugged, and none of it really happened.

That's not what he would say, but whatever...

Quote
Thus why all I ask is for proof of the government lying to us. Proof of the detractors testimonies. Proof of at least one astronaut who could not live with himself. The conscious of every single person who has ever been on a space shuttle and traveled to space would be on the line. Not only that but our government would be guilty of killing those whom we have lost on failed missions. The effort it would take to cover up something of this magnitude is so unbelievable that it alone is a case for a RE. You can scare people into doing many things. You can brainwash many people. But you cant control the delicate conscious of every single person that is involved.

I think you mean "conscience", but at any rate, do you have anything besides conjecture supporting your position that there is no conspiracy?

Quote
Believe it or not there are good people in this world who, if they knew, would never let this go. Not to mention the money one would make for proving such a conspiracy to be true.

None of it makes sense to those with one ounce of critical thinking skills.

It depends on how much power the conspiracy wields.  I'd also like to point out the old axiom that power corrupts; this has been demonstrated time and again throughout history.  People who start out with the best of intentions often end up committing the worst of atrocities.  "People have consciences" is a startlingly weak argument against the conspiracy.

And you forgot to show where messierhunter made Tom look like a fool.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #135 on: June 12, 2008, 03:39:13 PM »
You really are a jackass duuuh.

It may not be the FAQ where I read about the top two or three people in NASA but I know for a fact I read it and it was by one of the hardcore FErs on here. I will look for it another time.

The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.

So the exact same pictures that NASA has of the space station which look identical to the amateur photo's messierhunter posted dont mean there would have to be a conspiracy there? Ok bro, keep telling yourself stupid shit.

I also read the outlandish claims in the FAQ about how an ice wall could be guarded by a few hundred people and some "equipment". Really? The US has this equipment but cant even guard the US Border from Mexican immigrants? Again, keep telling yourself this ignorant bullshit makes any sense.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely is the axiom but it would not apply if 3 governments were in on it. And dont even say money would bond them. Good job taking it out of context though.


Let me just say this. I have a close friend of mine. I have known him since I was a child and he is one of the smartest men I have ever been around. He was top of his class at Texas A & M in astro physics. He went on to get his masters degree in astro physics from the University of Houston and the University of Texas. His work in the fields of astro physics was noticed by NASA and he went to work for them on special projects while working on his doctorate. He wrote his doctorate thesis on orbital paths to Mars in an attempt to help then find the exact timing it would take to send a human piloted space craft to Mars and have it return within the shortest amount of time.

He then went on to work in the private sector and is now a professor at Georgia Tech. He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.

Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.

But see, you and Tom would just call that an appeal to authority. I dont. It is an appeal to the credibility of someone I have known first hand my entire life.

I have thought about emailing him this website and asking him to give some insight in which I may still do but I have a feeling it would be a waste of his time. 



*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #136 on: June 12, 2008, 03:42:20 PM »
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.

No doubt, but wouldn't you say that the quality seems to elude those in power throughout history?


Quote
Let me just say this. I have a close friend of mine. I have known him since I was a child and he is one of the smartest men I have ever been around. He was top of his class at Texas A & M in astro physics. He went on to get his masters degree in astro physics from the University of Houston and the University of Texas. His work in the fields of astro physics was noticed by NASA and he went to work for them on special projects while working on his doctorate. He wrote his doctorate thesis on orbital paths to Mars in an attempt to help then find the exact timing it would take to send a human piloted space craft to Mars and have it return within the shortest amount of time.

He then went on to work in the private sector and is now a professor at Georgia Tech. He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.

Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.

Tom might very well say that; I'm not so quick to pass judgment.  I think it at least equally likely that your friend has been fooled, just like the rest of us, and unwittingly recruited to spread RE propaganda.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #137 on: June 12, 2008, 03:45:52 PM »
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.

Really?  And it works flawlessly, there have been zero problems?

So how do you explain religion?  They all have solid evidence that whatever god they believe in exists?  Maybe you think they all believe, but then how do you explain Peter Popoff and the like?

I also read the outlandish claims in the FAQ about how an ice wall could be guarded by a few hundred people and some "equipment". Really? The US has this equipment but cant even guard the US Border from Mexican immigrants? Again, keep telling yourself this ignorant bullshit makes any sense.

Not even close to the same thing.  The problem with borders is letting the legitimate traffic pass.

The Antarctic region is a vast desert.  Even without any protection almost nobody can get anywhere without massive effort.

He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.

Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.

I will call him a liar right now.  Or can he prove god exists?

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #138 on: June 12, 2008, 03:59:09 PM »
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.

No doubt, but wouldn't you say that the quality seems to elude those in power throughout history?


Quote
Let me just say this. I have a close friend of mine. I have known him since I was a child and he is one of the smartest men I have ever been around. He was top of his class at Texas A & M in astro physics. He went on to get his masters degree in astro physics from the University of Houston and the University of Texas. His work in the fields of astro physics was noticed by NASA and he went to work for them on special projects while working on his doctorate. He wrote his doctorate thesis on orbital paths to Mars in an attempt to help then find the exact timing it would take to send a human piloted space craft to Mars and have it return within the shortest amount of time.

He then went on to work in the private sector and is now a professor at Georgia Tech. He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.

Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.

Tom might very well say that; I'm not so quick to pass judgment.  I think it at least equally likely that your friend has been fooled, just like the rest of us, and unwittingly recruited to spread RE propaganda.



No way. If the physics and math were not there he would have found it and he would admit it.

He is more educated than anyone I have ever read on this board. It would actually be quit funny to watch some of you with your limited knowledge debate with someone of his caliber. It would more then likely be like watching myself discuss philosophy with a 6 year old but still fun.
Quote
Brief Bio

 

Prior to coming to Georgia Tech, R.P.R. served as a member of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and was involved as mission designer and orbit determination analyst for projects such as JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter), Chandra, Spitzer, Ulysses, TPF (Terrestrial Planet Finder), and limited roles on Cassini and Dawn. He also worked on proposals and advanced concepts for space missions to Earth, the Moon, Mars, comets, asteroids, and the moons around Jupiter and Saturn. He further supported internal research on developing technologies such as low-thrust trajectory optimization and science orbit design at planetary moons.

 

R.P.R. has authored or co-authored dozens of journal, conference, and other technical publications; and has been a recipient of several NASA, JPL, AIAA, AAS, and other awards.  He received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and his graduate degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. 

I got this from his website at GT. I am not going to post the link without his permission though. I am sure any one with the internet could find it with minimal effort.

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #139 on: June 12, 2008, 04:01:44 PM »
I really have no idea what you are trying to assert with this.  You know smart people?  Ooh la la.

Bring him on this site, and either he will laugh at every single post that you ever made, or he is not so smart after all.

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #140 on: June 12, 2008, 04:02:30 PM »
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.

Really?  And it works flawlessly, there have been zero problems?

So how do you explain religion?  They all have solid evidence that whatever god they believe in exists?  Maybe you think they all believe, but then how do you explain Peter Popoff and the like?

I also read the outlandish claims in the FAQ about how an ice wall could be guarded by a few hundred people and some "equipment". Really? The US has this equipment but cant even guard the US Border from Mexican immigrants? Again, keep telling yourself this ignorant bullshit makes any sense.

Not even close to the same thing.  The problem with borders is letting the legitimate traffic pass.

The Antarctic region is a vast desert.  Even without any protection almost nobody can get anywhere without massive effort.

He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.

Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.

I will call him a liar right now.  Or can he prove god exists?


Call him a liar all you want. I never said he could prove the existence of God. He is not an idiot like you who would even bring up the assertion that one could prove a universal negative.

And you really are a fucking retard if you think the problem with protecting the borders has to do with letting the legit traffic through. 99% of the fucking people who cross illegally do it away from the border control. Fuck you are dumb.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 04:06:23 PM by Shaydawg »

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #141 on: June 12, 2008, 04:05:55 PM »
I really have no idea what you are trying to assert with this.  You know smart people?  Ooh la la.

Bring him on this site, and either he will laugh at every single post that you ever made, or he is not so smart after all.

How come every time you post it is full of fucking ignorance. I did not just say I knew a smart person. I know someone who is an expert in the field. Something you are not and have proved with every stroke of your fingers on the keyboard.


Who the fuck do you know who is an expert on any of this? You are just a fucking keyboard warrior with a small pebble brain who believes anything that is told to you as long as it is a "conspiracy".

Sorry that you take your anger and aggression of being beat up in high school out on people who come here. I would just like to once see you act and talk the way you do to people here in real life. You are epitome of what the world calls a coward.

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #142 on: June 12, 2008, 04:07:06 PM »
Call him a liar all you want. I never said he could prove the existence of God. He is not and idiot like you who would even bring up the assertion that one could prove a universal negative.

Then I guess he is a liar.  Since there is no Jebus.

And you really are a fucking retard if you think the problem with protecting the borders has to do with letting the legit traffic through. 99% of the fucking people who cross illegally do it away from the border control. Fuck you are dumb.

Umm... no I think you are the fucking idiot if you think the mexican border is the same as the antarctic.

The problem is legitimate traffic.  Most of the people on this side of the border are bogus targets.  If you first shot everyone in the US side, and the entire US side was an empty desert wasteland without wildlife, vegetation, or hiding places- no problems protecting the border.  You can spot a human being for hundreds of miles.

And as I said, you hardly need to protect it.  If you think you can get to the rim and back, be my guest.

*

lindelof

  • 422
  • DADA IS NOT DEAD. WATCH YOUR OVERCOAT.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #143 on: June 12, 2008, 04:09:09 PM »

You can spot a human being for hundreds of miles.

wtf?

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #144 on: June 12, 2008, 04:10:32 PM »
Call him a liar all you want. I never said he could prove the existence of God. He is not and idiot like you who would even bring up the assertion that one could prove a universal negative.

Then I guess he is a liar.  Since there is no Jebus.

And you really are a fucking retard if you think the problem with protecting the borders has to do with letting the legit traffic through. 99% of the fucking people who cross illegally do it away from the border control. Fuck you are dumb.

Umm... no I think you are the fucking idiot if you think the mexican border is the same as the antarctic.

The problem is legitimate traffic.  Most of the people on this side of the border are bogey targets.  If you first shot everyone in the US side, and the entire US side was an empty desert wasteland without wildlife, vegetation, or hiding places- no problems protecting the border.  You can spot a human being for hundreds of miles.

And as I said, you hardly need to protect it.  If you think you can get to the rim and back, be my guest.

You know how fucking long the US/Mexico border is? Obviously not.

And I have no desire to set sail for something that does not exist. I am not as much of a douche bag moron as you are. I would love for you to get on a ship and try though. I would love even more for it to be documented. We could stick it in the comedy section at Blockbuster.

Funny that someone could actually call me an idiot and say something as stupid as Jesus did not exist. It is one thing to say he is not God or the son of God but to deny his existence on this planet takes a really mental disability. Thanks for pointing that out to me not that I already had not figured it out.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #145 on: June 12, 2008, 04:13:45 PM »
No way. If the physics and math were not there he would have found it and he would admit it.

He is more educated than anyone I have ever read on this board. It would actually be quit funny to watch some of you with your limited knowledge debate with someone of his caliber. It would more then likely be like watching myself discuss philosophy with a 6 year old but still fun.
Quote
Brief Bio

 

Prior to coming to Georgia Tech, R.P.R. served as a member of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and was involved as mission designer and orbit determination analyst for projects such as JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter), Chandra, Spitzer, Ulysses, TPF (Terrestrial Planet Finder), and limited roles on Cassini and Dawn. He also worked on proposals and advanced concepts for space missions to Earth, the Moon, Mars, comets, asteroids, and the moons around Jupiter and Saturn. He further supported internal research on developing technologies such as low-thrust trajectory optimization and science orbit design at planetary moons.

 

R.P.R. has authored or co-authored dozens of journal, conference, and other technical publications; and has been a recipient of several NASA, JPL, AIAA, AAS, and other awards.  He received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and his graduate degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. 

I think the physics and math are there, he's just interpreting it incorrectly, from his RE bias.  Do you really think intelligent people can't be gullible?  You don't think we're claiming to be more intelligent than well over 99% of the planet, do you?  No matter how intelligent someone is, he will still put full faith in the dogma taught by those in authority.  Look at the Church for confirmation of this.  Many intelligent people put faith in Jesus despite a profound lack of evidence that he was the son of God.  Your friend would appear to be one of them.

But if he's that involved in NASA, maybe he is a liar.  I don't know.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 04:15:35 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

lindelof

  • 422
  • DADA IS NOT DEAD. WATCH YOUR OVERCOAT.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #146 on: June 12, 2008, 04:17:46 PM »
I think the physics and math are there, he's just interpreting it incorrectly, from his RE bias.

That's like saying that if you thought that you had a car in your garage and you looked in your garage and saw a rhino you would think that the rhino was a car because of your car bias.  Really.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #147 on: June 12, 2008, 04:20:52 PM »
Bring him on this site, and either he will laugh at every single post that you ever made, or he is not so smart after all.

I actually like the idea of having a conspirator onboard. It would give our claims legitimacy. And if he was half honest he would end some of the RE madness...
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #148 on: June 12, 2008, 04:25:24 PM »
I think the physics and math are there, he's just interpreting it incorrectly, from his RE bias.

That's like saying that if you thought that you had a car in your garage and you looked in your garage and saw a rhino you would think that the rhino was a car because of your car bias.  Really.

Not at all.  When scientists try to present a physical model for their math, they are taking a lot of abstract concepts and trying to make something concrete out of them.  That's why Newton was wrong about gravity, even though (for the problems of the time) the math was perfectly cromulent and matched the phenomena observed.  When scientists make something concrete out of subjects about which the shape of the earth has a bearing, they are building off an initial assumption that the earth is round.  That doesn't mean that the math itself isn't cromulent as it applies to a flat earth; just that the possibility was never considered.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« Reply #149 on: June 12, 2008, 04:25:29 PM »
The power of the human conscience has been running the planet since the beginning of humanity. But I am not here to get into a philosophical debate on ethics or morals.

No doubt, but wouldn't you say that the quality seems to elude those in power throughout history?


Quote
Let me just say this. I have a close friend of mine. I have known him since I was a child and he is one of the smartest men I have ever been around. He was top of his class at Texas A & M in astro physics. He went on to get his masters degree in astro physics from the University of Houston and the University of Texas. His work in the fields of astro physics was noticed by NASA and he went to work for them on special projects while working on his doctorate. He wrote his doctorate thesis on orbital paths to Mars in an attempt to help then find the exact timing it would take to send a human piloted space craft to Mars and have it return within the shortest amount of time.

He then went on to work in the private sector and is now a professor at Georgia Tech. He is a Christian and a man of principle in which I have seen through his actions and words since a child.

Tom Bishop would call him a liar. And he would make Tom Bishop look like an imbecile in any debate on this subject.

Tom might very well say that; I'm not so quick to pass judgment.  I think it at least equally likely that your friend has been fooled, just like the rest of us, and unwittingly recruited to spread RE propaganda.



No way. If the physics and math were not there he would have found it and he would admit it.

He is more educated than anyone I have ever read on this board. It would actually be quit funny to watch some of you with your limited knowledge debate with someone of his caliber. It would more then likely be like watching myself discuss philosophy with a 6 year old but still fun.
Quote
Brief Bio

 

Prior to coming to Georgia Tech, R.P.R. served as a member of the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Section at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and was involved as mission designer and orbit determination analyst for projects such as JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter), Chandra, Spitzer, Ulysses, TPF (Terrestrial Planet Finder), and limited roles on Cassini and Dawn. He also worked on proposals and advanced concepts for space missions to Earth, the Moon, Mars, comets, asteroids, and the moons around Jupiter and Saturn. He further supported internal research on developing technologies such as low-thrust trajectory optimization and science orbit design at planetary moons.

 

R.P.R. has authored or co-authored dozens of journal, conference, and other technical publications; and has been a recipient of several NASA, JPL, AIAA, AAS, and other awards.  He received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and his graduate degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. 

I think the physics and math are there, he's just interpreting it incorrectly, from his RE bias.  Do you really think intelligent people can't be gullible?  You don't think we're claiming to be more intelligent than well over 99% of the planet, do you?  No matter how intelligent someone is, he will still put full faith in the dogma taught by those in authority.  Look at the Church for confirmation of this.  Many intelligent people put faith in Jesus despite a profound lack of evidence that he was the son of God.

But if he's that involved in NASA, maybe he is a liar.  I don't know.

No, I know him personally and he is probably the least gullible person I have ever met. Besides you are not misinterpreting math and physics. Pretty ignorant statement. Sorry but 1 +1 = 2 and there is no other way to interpret that.

Also, saying there is lack of evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, which was not the son of God but actually God himself is there. I am not here to debate his authenticity with you though. I have plenty of forums I can go to and find intelligent debate on the subject. You may want to look into the amount of prophecies he filled to the exact tee before you say such things. Such a statement in an intellectual debate on the subject would discredit you.

Here is just a partial list of fullfilled prophecies. http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html

Again, I am not trying to get you to believe his authenticity, just wanted to show you there is intellectual debate to be had.

Further more saying my friend is deceived is not a valid argument against his claims. You would have to disprove his finding and be knowledgeable enough in Astrophysics to even have a discussion with him of any merit which I doubt you or anyone else on here is capable based solely education and accomplishments. But that is just a guess from seeing what I have seen so far.