About the "believer", not the "theories"...

So the whole "When I look out my window, I see a flat earth" argument has no real place in any scientific debate, Tom?

How about the multiple, gear driven, counter-rotating star systems?

[satire]

That's is now called the multiple, layered, counter-rotating, disk-like star system theory:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.msg714995#msg714995

Do please try to stay abreast of the latest advances in Flat Earth Theory!

[/satirer]

The Soviets, US, UK, China, France and India have independent evidence that rockety works.

The US, UK, France, and India are not "independent". They got their rocket technology directly from NASA. NASA was the chief proprietor in the starting of those space agencies.

And China has a space conspiracy with production values so poor that it puts their entire image to shame.


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html

If The Flat earth society wishes to dispute / disprove this ...

Then they (you!) need to come up with some evidence of your own.

We've already presented evidence. See the above for example. That's only one piece of evidence against a single video released from a single space agency. I have a whole library of their fraudulent behavior.

If you are so keen on "the scientific method", where is your experimental evidence that rocketry doesn't work?

The evidence is in the fundamental dishonesty of NASA and Co. Nearly everything they show us has been tampered with, has obvious production flaws, or has been faked entirely. NASA also attempts to silence scientists when they speak about things that they don't like.

If you do not address my hypothesis directly, then a newbie in a month's time is going to read my thread and deduce that I have won the debate by your lack of response - you can't expect people to search through all of the threads in order to piece together your dis-jointed and erratic arguments.

I'm not in the business of repeating myself on commend. I've demonstrated your deficiencies here and that's well enough.

I'm not in the business of repeating myself on commend. I've demonstrated your deficiencies here and that's well enough.

It may be enough for you but is it enough for the newbie who will be reading the star-trails thread in a month's time?

Is it really too much to ask for you to post one short article putting forward your belief that all astronomical evidence is useless because it is 'only' an "observational science"?

You are coming across as being somewhat arrogant, disdainful and stubborn.

Edit: can you not summon up the grace and community-mindedness to do this one small thing? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 16, 2009, 02:39:12 AM

The Soviets, US, UK, China, France and India have independent evidence that rockety works.

The US, UK, France, and India are not "independent". They got their rocket technology directly from NASA. NASA was the chief proprietor in the starting of those space agencies.

And China has a space conspiracy with production values so poor that it puts their entire image to shame.


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html

Just spotted this one:

You haven't said anything negative about the Soviet space programme.

Are you agreeing with me, then, that the fact that The Soviet Union and The USA both put rockets into orbit independently of each other constitutes reasonable evidence that rocketry actually works?

Did you miss out The USSR by mistake - or were you trying to be devious like a politician and only answer half of my question?

So why is watching the heavens not an experiment?

It's not an experiment because none of the variables can be controlled. Observing something and then making a hypothesis or interpretation is not "science," so stop trying to pretend that it is. Anyone who does that is not a "scientist".

Isn't this what the Zetetic method is all about? You observe the local area being flat, and interpret that as meaning the entire planet is the flat.

Our observations are backed by experimental evidence (important!). We actually test out our ideas, unlike some. True scientists will always put their ideas to the test.

Please see the wealth of experimental evidence contained in the literature within my signature link.

Distant galaxies having higher than expected red-shift is not evidence?

That's an observation! "Distant" galaxies appearing red is an observation which could come under any number of different meanings. Only a controlled experiment with how a galaxy behaves under the hypothesized conditions will bring anyone to the truth of the matter.

Please cease from providing hypothesis as fact.

But you still can't say with absolute certainty that it is oxygen. Simply observing something that behaves like oxygen doesn't mean that it is oxygen. Don't jump onto the assumption that if something behaves similar to one thing, it must be that thing.

In the electrolysis experiment the oxygen produced by the water can be experimented with in any number of different ways to confirm that it is exactly identical to the oxygen found elsewhere. Experiments can be conducted and the Scientific Method can be applied to your hypothesis of "maybe it's not really oxygen". Anything you hypothesize can be put to the test to come to the truth of the matter. Unlike an astronomer, the chemist doesn't just observe and interpret. A chemist puts the hypothesis to the test. This is the fundamental difference between Astronomy and all other sciences.

It may be enough for you but is it enough for the newbie who will be reading the star-trails thread in a month's time?

Is it really too much to ask for you to post one short article putting forward your belief that all astronomical evidence is useless because it is 'only' an "observational science"?

You are coming across as being somewhat arrogant, disdainful and stubborn.

Edit: can you not summon up the grace and community-mindedness to do this one small thing? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

I don't have the time to answer every single thread and every single question. You're going to have to realize deficiencies for your own self.

Just spotted this one:

You haven't said anything negative about the Soviet space programme.

Are you agreeing with me, then, that the fact that The Soviet Union and The USA both put rockets into orbit independently of each other constitutes reasonable evidence that rocketry actually works?

Did you miss out The USSR by mistake - or were you trying to be devious like a politician and only answer half of my question?

Plenty of negative can be said about the Soviet Space Agency. There is some analysis of the Soviet Space Agency's fraudulent tactics in this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

You're going to have to watch the entire thing, because I don't have the exact time for when it gets into analysis of the Soviet hoax.

Also, NASA and the Soviets worked together on joint space projects during the Cold War.

Also, NASA and the Soviets worked together on joint space projects during the Cold War.

Do you have any proof of that?

I don't have the time to answer every single thread and every single question. You're just going to have to realize deficiencies for your own self.

Why do you have to be so disdainful?

Why do you have to be so arrogant?

Why do you have to be so anti-social?

Why do you have to be so snooty?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2009, 08:47:38 AM

Also, NASA and the Soviets worked together on joint space projects during the Cold War.

Do you have any proof of that?

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/space/Apollo-Soyuz%20Test%20Project.htm

Why do you have to be so disdainful?

Why do you have to be so arrogant?

Why do you have to be so anti-social?

Why do you have to be so snooty?

I've done nothing but share truth in a peaceful and civil manner.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 16, 2009, 08:53:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2009, 08:47:38 AM

Also, NASA and the Soviets worked together on joint space projects during the Cold War.

Do you have any proof of that?

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/space/Apollo-Soyuz%20Test%20Project.htm

Dude, the ASTP was in 1975 - a long time after Vostok 1 (1961) and Mercury 6 (1962).

Plus the techonologies used - Soyuz and Apollo - were most definitely not designed jointly.

Your arguments do nothing to decrease my belief in the veracity of manned space-flight, as evidenced by numerous sources down the years.

Wow.  So much effort.  So much time.  So much work.  What a waste.

What we see in this thread is the classic separation of motives (see "Tools of The Debate Imposter").  On the surface, it may seem that these debaters are here for the same thing.  If you look carefully, you will see that zero progress has been made in the discussion.  That is because Tom will not tolerate any.

Never mind that the topic has been completely off the subject so badly and for so long.  That fact is completely lost on the participants.  The believer is happy because he is getting the attention he needs so disparately.  The scientist is not really "happy", but he is still hoping that there is a chance for progress in the debate.  Sadly we can see there is not.  Tom is so firmly entrenched in his belief structure that he simply cannot ever allow any outside opinion to penetrate it.

The primary differences between the participants is that Tom is getting exactly what he wants; an endless back and forth that goes nowhere, but Tesla is not.  I just hope that Tesla can see that before he gets provoked by Tom into saying something he regrets.  That can be a real trophy for some.

Tesla, Tom's only goal at this stage is to anger and frustrate you.  If you can step back and look at things from the context of my OP, I think you may see that there is no possibility of anything productive coming from this debate.

What I've learned is to not even read Tom's posts.  His behavior is so predictable and inane, it gets to the point where reading becomes a terrible chore.  Tom is more willing than most (perhaps any) to dive in and have it out, but he's so unwilling to provide even the most basic foundations to his style that there's just no point in understanding his position any longer.  It's too much work and too painful coming from him.  There just must be someone here that can be an advocate for the RET without dancing the dance like Tom.  If there is, please post IN ANOTHER THREAD!

I am, however still thankful this thread is popular, so I encourage others to post about the actual topic as found in my OP.

Thanks to Tom for the great demonstration of a "True Believer."

I've done nothing but share truth in a peaceful and civil manner.

Your disdainful and haughty attitude towards my polite and simple requests for you to engage directly in my star-trails thread is not "civil" behaviour where I come from.

On the surface, it may seem that these debaters are here for the same thing.  If you look carefully, you will see that zero progress has been made in the discussion.  That is because Tom will not tolerate any.

The thought that I am helping to provide evidence for your behavioural studies is most comforting.

At least some scientific knoweldge and worth will come of it all!

Dude, the ASTP was in 1975 - a long time after Vostok 1 (1961) and Mercury 6 (1962).

The Cold War took place between 1945 and 1991, which means that the Apollo-Soyuz Project occurred during the Cold War. If you read the link I provided, it indicates that they had been planning it since 1970, one year after America's first moon trip.

Your arguments do nothing to decrease my belief in the veracity of manned space-flight, as evidenced by numerous sources down the years.

Did you look at the evidence or watch that video?

I have a torrent of specific evidence against the Apollo and Mars missions as well, in addition to examples of NASA's dishonesty as a scientific organization.

I have a torrent of evidence against the Apollo and Mars missions as well, in addition to examples of NASA's dishonesty as a scientific organization.

The TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") is worthless here.

The TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") is worthless here.

Plugging your ears and being unwilling to look at evidence is not the virtue of an open mind.

All roads lead to The Conspiracy.

Your definition of "evidence" has been made more than clear, and others have already rejected it.

Continuing to refer to your information as "evidence" despite the fact that other debaters have already rejected it is pointless and counter productive.  It is the very definition of unscientific in this context.

Besides.  This thread isn't about your definition of evidence.  It's about your behavior and it's effect on the debate.  By acting out even more, you are only reinforcing the position I've taken.

All roads lead to The Conspiracy.

That sums it up perfectly.  There's no need to bother going down any road provided by Tom.

Quote from: Skeptek on June 16, 2009, 09:46:00 AM

The TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") is worthless here.

Plugging your ears and being unwilling to look at evidence is not the virtue of an open mind.

Filtering out worthless evidence is a virtue of an good scientist.

Indeed.  We call it "deduction."

Some prefer "induction."  Which means of course, to suck.

Your definition of "evidence" has been made more than clear, and others have already rejected it.

Continuing to refer to your information as "evidence" despite the fact that other debaters have already rejected it is pointless and counter productive.

It doesn't matter if you reject it. The truth is there for all to see.

Besides.  This thread isn't about your definition of evidence.  It's about your behavior and it's effect on the debate.  By acting out even more, you are only reinforcing the position I've taken.

By refusing to account for evidence which contradicts your belief and wholehearted faith in NASA and Co, it's your behavior which is indicative of a closed mind.

Filtering out worthless evidence is a virtue of an good scientist.

You have not properly debated or accounted for the arguments presented in the video I provided. You are blindly rejecting anything which confronts your belief system. You have not accounted for the " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">deficiencies in China's production values.

All indications of a mind rusted shut so tight that it exists as an affront to all thinkers and rationalists.

It doesn't matter if you reject it. The truth is there for all to see.

Perhaps, but the debate is no longer a scientific one like you are pretending it is.

By refusing to account for evidence which contradicts your belief and wholehearted faith in NASA and Co, it's your behavior which is indicative of a closed mind.

Again, you use the word evidence where it does not apply.  The TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") does not prove the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy").

You have not properly debated or accounted for the arguments presented in the video I provided. You are blindly rejecting anything which confronts your belief system.

All indications of a mind rusted shut so tight that it exists as an affront to all thinkers and rationalists.

First, you are off topic and trying to encourage others to rejoin your trashing of this thread.  Second, no matter how many times you say it is, what you present is not evidence, or argument, or debate, or proper in any scientific discussion.

Quote

Dude, the ASTP was in 1975 - a long time after Vostok 1 (1961) and Mercury 6 (1962).

The Cold War took place between 1945 and 1991, which means that the Apollo-Soyuz Project occurred during the Cold War. If you read the link I provided, it indicates that they had been planning it since 1970, one year after America's first moon trip.

All of which was a long time after Gagarin and Glenn went into orbit.

Both of those orbital flights were carried out independently of each other.

There was no US-Soveit collusion at that stage,the height of The Cold war - that's whay they called it The Space Race.

Plus the cockpit radio tranmissions from both flights would have been monitored around the globe by scientists from many nations.

First, you are off topic and trying to encourage others to rejoin your trashing of this thread.  Second, no matter how many times you say it is, what you present is not evidence, or argument, or debate, or proper in any scientific discussion.

Actually it is. In the " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">China video for example the author is using the Scientific Method to demonstrate inadequacies and tell-tale signs of fakery. Video is slowed and areas of contention are displayed for all to see. That constitutes an experiment. The author is manipulating China's own videos to demonstrate that the space walk was faked. The author presents a sufficient conclusion with adequate evidence and background information. There is also an article on the subject matter which provides additional discrepancies.  Now the burden is on the believers to combat the works with evidence of their own.

In the moon video the author is very thorough, invoking the interviews of government contractors, analysis of NASA data (such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon), and many other topics of discussion. The soviet space agency is also analyzed. There are many pieces of supporting evidence - scientific, catalogical, temporal - to support the initial hypothesis.

Now the burden is on you to defend your beliefs.

Tesla, NOOOOOO!!!!  [reaches dramatically]

Come on, really.

Quote from: Skeptek on June 16, 2009, 10:10:24 AM

First, you are off topic and trying to encourage others to rejoin your trashing of this thread.  Second, no matter how many times you say it is, what you present is not evidence, or argument, or debate, or proper in any scientific discussion.

Actually it is. In the China video for example the author is using the Scientific Method to demonstrate inadequacies and tell-tale signs of fakery. Video is slowed and areas of contention are displayed for all to see. That constitutes an experiment. The author is manipulating China's own videos to demonstrate that the space walk was faked. The author presents a sufficient conclusion with adequate evidence and background information. Now the burden is on the believers to combat his work with evidence of their own.

In the moon video the author is very through, invoking the interviews of government contractors, analysis of NASA data (such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon), and many other topics of discussion. The soviet space agency is also analyzed. There are many pieces of supporting evidence - scientific, catalogical, temporal - to support the initial hypothesis.

Now the burden is on you to defend your beliefs.

Ok, now Tom, this is in no way meant as an insult.  Are you able to read properly?  I mean, do you have vision trouble or bad dyslexia perhaps?  I invite you to re-read the subject line of this thread.

I also invite you to read about the fact that the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") is worthless here and that using the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") to prove the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") is just one of the (now very tired) ways that you are trashing this thread.

Once again, your insistence on acting out in this particular thread only proves my point more perfectly.  Perhaps this is the actual goal?... hm....

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2009, 09:41:59 AM

Quote

Dude, the **** was in **** - a long time after **** and ****.

The **** took place between **** and ****, which means that the **** occurred during the ****. If you read the link I provided, it indicates that **** had been **** it since ****, one year after ****'s first ****.

All of which was a long time after **** and **** went into ****.

Both of those ****s were carried out independently of ****.

There was no **** at that stage,the height of The **** - that's whay they called it The ****.

Plus the **** from both **** would have been **** around the **** by **** from many ****.

Ok.  I'm asking REAL nice now.  Please don't feed the troll any more.

Ok, now Tom, this is in no way meant as an insult.  Are you able to read properly?  I mean, do you have vision trouble or bad dyslexia perhaps?  I invite you to re-read the subject line of this thread.

Look, if you are unable to justify or defend any part of your model or beliefs, that's perfectly fine. It's called a forfeit.

I've been perfectly willing to debate any part of the subject matter. You have not. You close your mind to discussion and refuse to participate in discourse.

FES has presented evidence. You have presented none. No rebuttal has been attempted. We're waiting on you.

You are not willing to debate anything in any scientific way regardless of your claim to be, and you have flat refused to address this particular debate in any way at all.

You have provided no evidence that has ever been accepted by anyone opposing you making it invalid (which has been pointed out to you countless times).

You are a liar and you are STILL off topic.

You are not willing to debate anything in any scientific way regardless of your claim to be, and you have flat refused to address this particular debate in any way at all.

All videos have appropriate supporting evidence. If you are unable to debate or provide supporting evidence for your own rebuttal, that's fine. You lose.

"I don't want to debate with you" is a diversionary tactic which has no place in discourse. It is neither an argument or a rebuttal. It is an admission of a closed mind unable to consider evidence which contradicts his belief system. Closed minds are not scientific, rational, or productive in any way or form.

The burden is on you RE'ers to defend your beliefs, and it has been for a long time.

Yes yes, Tom.  We all know.