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

Please let me know when you have a rebuttal for the evidence presented against your beliefs. I am willing to discuss the matter further when you do.

You mean in a thread that is about that, right?

Remember folks... it's about how many posts go back and forth.  It's like tennis!

You mean in a thread that is about that, right?

This thread has progressed naturally to this subject. RE'ers have made inquiries, and they have been answered with supporting evidence. Now the burden is on the believers to make a rebuttal.

You're a believer, so where's your rebuttal?

Dead horse.

Anyone on topic?

It's always great when you guys lack the ability to provide rebuttal and argument, and choose to ignore. It demonstrates that you really are the "believer" (keeping with the theme of the thread).

I've demonstrated tact willingness to consider all evidence and debate issues when confronted. You have not. You have demonstrated a closed mind and inability to see facts for what they are: A striking example of a mumbling RE'er who is unable to defend his beliefs at even a mediocre level.

By refusing, or being unable to, respond to confrontation it's evident that the RE'er is neither a debtor or a scientist. The RE'er cannot keep an open mind to facts and evidence. The RE'er displays no willingness to proceed by inquiry. He is an utterly pathetic form of fantasizer and a disgrace to free thinkers everywhere. He is not a "scientist" and he is not a "debator". He is not even a theorist. Theories usually have evidence to back them up.

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 " 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.

USA's Project Apollo and China's Project Shenzen both happened a long, long time after Gagarin and Glenn went into orbit.

Please provide me with evidence that the World's first two manned orbital missions were faked in any way or involved collusion between The USA and The USSR.

That is: please answer the question I actually asked, not a question for which you have an answer ready.

Or let's go back furter and make it even simpler:

Please give me proof that The USSR faked Sputnik One - the radio tranmission from which was tracked by keen amateurs the world over as it sped rapidly across the sky (far too fast to have been a plane).

Hmmm... I wonder...

You have not done what you say you have done, and I have not done what you say I have done.  You have done what you say you have not done and I have not done what I say I have not done.

What you claim is not real and what I claim is real.  Your methods are not valid and my methods are valid  You are not a scientist and I am a scientist.  You are a liar and I am not a liar.  You do not know how to debate and I do know how to debate.  You are wrong and I am not wrong.  You have a picture that makes you look like a televangelist-pedophile and I do not have a picture that makes me look like a televangelist-pedophile.  You are bald and I am not bald.  You were called Sybil as a child and I was not called Sybil as a child.

See?  When something is said as a statement of fact, that means you are not allowed to disagree.  Now stop breaking the rules!

USA's Project Apollo and China's Project Shenzen both happened a long, long time after Gagarin and Glenn went into orbit.

Please watch the video in its entirety. It does look at Gagarin. It catalogs how the soviets faked scenes within the capsule and pasted together footage from prior events.

Please provide me with evidence that the World's first two manned orbital missions were faked in any way or involved collusion between The USA and The USSR.

Watch the video and take in the evidence. It is apparent that you have not.

Or let's go back furter and make it even simpler:

Please give me proof that The USSR faked Sputnik One - the radio tranmission from which was tracked by keen amateurs the world over as it sped rapidly across the sky (far too fast to have been a plane).

No one saw Sputnick speed "rapidly across the sky". That's a myth. Sputnik was about the size of a basketball.

One has to be pretty naive if that think that people can see a basketball in orbit. This has been discussed before.

No one has "tuned in" to Sputnik either.

How do we explain the pervasive survival of creatures like COCK-Roaches and TOM BISHOP (if that's even his real name)?  People feed them.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL (or the "Debate Imposter")!

Pretty please?  See?  I asking REALLY nice now.

See?  When something is said as a statement of fact, that means you are not allowed to disagree.  Now stop breaking the rules!

Statements are only valid when demonstrated. I have demonstrated that there is evidence which contradicts space testimony, and you have not formed a contradiction to that evidence. You have provided no evidence that anything NASA says is true. The need for evidence is, as always, denied.

This thread has established two things:

- Astronomy does not use the scientific method (which you accused us of neglecting).

- When you do bring up your sole evidence "the space man said so," there is no rebuttal to the wealth of evidence demonstrating that space agencies are dishonest.

I've only provided a couple videos here so as not to overwhelm you. When you form a contradiction to the evidence we can proceed. Until then it is declared that you have none.

How do we explain the pervasive survival of creatures like COCK-Roaches and TOM BISHOP (if that's even his real name)?  People feed them.

DON'T FEED THE TROLL (or the "Debate Imposter")!

So now your stance is "don't bother debating guys". Great idea. It's not a good idea to debate when a kitten could bat away your arguments.

Tom, did you even read this?: 

You have not done what you say you have done, and I have not done what you say I have done.  You have done what you say you have not done and I have not done what I say I have not done.

What you claim is not real and what I claim is real.  Your methods are not valid and my methods are valid  You are not a scientist and I am a scientist.  You are a liar and I am not a liar.  You do not know how to debate and I do know how to debate.  You are wrong and I am not wrong.

See?  When something is said as a statement of fact, that means you are not allowed to disagree.  Now stop breaking the rules!

No, wait.  I mean did you read this?  (this version is much better)

Hmmm... I wonder...

You have not done what you say you have done, and I have not done what you say I have done.  You have done what you say you have not done and I have not done what I say I have not done.

What you claim is not real and what I claim is real.  Your methods are not valid and my methods are valid  You are not a scientist and I am a scientist.  You are a liar and I am not a liar.  You do not know how to debate and I do know how to debate.  You are wrong and I am not wrong.  You have a picture that makes you look like a televangelist-pedophile and I do not have a picture that makes me look like a televangelist-pedophile.  You are bald and I am not bald.  You were called Sybil as a child and I was not called Sybil as a child.

See?  When something is said as a statement of fact, that means you are not allowed to disagree.  Now stop breaking the rules!

Statements of fact are only valid when demonstrated.

When you can demonstrate that any of your "the space man said so" arguments have merit we can continue.

I have provided evidence that "the space man said so" is not a valid argument. I have demonstrated my claims. The space man lies, and he does so terribly. Once you can come up with contradicting evidence, your ideas will have merit. Until then I encourage you to peruse the couple videos I've provided over and over again until you can come up with a coherent rebuttal.

No, wait.  I mean did you read this?  (this version is much better)

Hmmm... I wonder...

[six-year-old]

Awww come on ...

If *you're* going to feed the trolls ...

Then *I* want to feed the trolls!

[/six-year-old]

Ok, then lets feed him the proper diet for this thread, eh?

Tom is wrong and we are right... right Tesla?

Statements are only valid when demonstrated. I have demonstrated that there is evidence which contradicts space testimony, and you have not formed a contradiction to that evidence. You have provided no evidence that anything NASA says is true. The need for evidence is, as always, denied.

Evidence does not imply absolute truth. I'm very sceptical about most of the evidence you provide anyway. For example, one thing that caught my eye:

(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)

'The dark side of the Moon' is a misnomer. Trying to pass it off as evidence that NASA is lying is daft. We can't argue your points if this is all they consist of.

- Astronomy does not use the scientific method (which you accused us of neglecting).

What do you feel needs to be done to make observing stars follow your scientific method?

I've only provided a couple videos here so as not to overwhelm you. When you form a contradiction to the evidence we can proceed. Until then it is declared that you have none.

I got about 5 minutes into one of the videos, and from what I've seen it consists of 'There's dangerous stuff in space, so we can't go through it'. Might as well say you can't walk through a zoo.

Ok, then lets feed him the proper diet for this thread, eh?

Tom is wrong and we are right... right Tesla?

Demonstration of claims is a fundamental tenet to all debate, and indeed, science.

By constantly refusing to demonstrate ideas, or even look at contradicting evidence, it is apparent that your debating skills are in need of dire improvement. Watch the videos and consume the evidence and let us know when you are ready to put fourth a coherent rebuttal. Once a coherent rebuttal is formed, I will be happy to discuss the matter further.

NTheGreat, please.

What Tom has taught us all here is that one needs only to state one's position as though it were accepted fact, and then the magic rules of "Nya-nya-nya-nya-nyaaaaa-nyaaa" apply.

Evidence does not imply absolute truth. I'm very sceptical about most of the evidence you provide anyway. For example, one thing that caught my eye:

Quote

(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)

'The dark side of the Moon' is a misnomer. Trying to pass it off as evidence that NASA is lying is daft. We can't argue your points if this is all they consist of.

Please watch the video. It goes into how astronauts made broadcasts of seeing features on the moon (the sea of tranquility, a feature on its front side) at times when NASA pinpointed their location as directly behind the moon.

What do you feel needs to be done to make observing stars follow your scientific method?

Nothing more can be done than the observation of stars, and nothing more has been done. No experimental evidence has been conducted to come to the truth of the matter. It's fundamental that you understand this very basic concept before you affront us with appeals to authority and challenges to contradict the work of your "pillars of science" who, as it turns out, are not conducting science in the first place.

I got about 5 minutes into one of the videos, and from what I've seen it consists of 'There's dangerous stuff in space, so we can't go through it'. Might as well say you can't walk through a zoo.

Watch the video in is entirety. Plenty of evidence is given to support each and every hypothesis. When you have a contradiction to that evidence we can proceed in discourse.

Watch the video in is entirety. Plenty of evidence is given to support each and every hypothesis. When you have a contradiction to that evidence we can proceed in discourse.

Perhaps you should create a new thread for each hypothesis, one at a time of course, then if you can manage to stay on topic, we might actually have a debate.

Why isn't Tom posting in any of the threads where they are actually waiting for him to respond?

He's off topic here and taking grief from all sides.

Why not take his enthusiasm for the debate into a thread where they have actually asked for it?

Cuz he's an...

IMPOSTOR!!  See:  "Tools of The Debate Imposter"

Perhaps you should create a new thread for each hypothesis, one at a time of course, then if you can manage to stay on topic, we might actually have a debate.

I have created threads for many of these topics. Other FE'ers have also made threads discussing such maters. Each and every one of these areas of contention have been discussed throughout the half million posts on these forums. Never once has an RE'er succeeded in presenting contradicting evidence.

NTheGreat, please.

What Tom has taught us all here is that one needs only to state one's position as though it were accepted fact, and then the magic rules of "Nya-nya-nya-nya-nyaaaaa-nyaaa" apply.

I'm just seeing how far I can go. Just stating my position as fact doesn't feel very substantial for me, I'll rather weave around and see what confusing structure Tom cooks up.

Please watch the video. it goes into how Astronauts made broadcasts of seeing features on the moon (the sea of tranquility) at times when NASA pinpointed their location as directly behind the moon.

In time. Although most of what I've seen so far is drivel.

Nothing more can be done than the observation of stars, and nothing more has been done. No experimental evidence has been conducted to come to the truth of the matter.

So what, hypothetically, is needed to allow us to examine the stars with the scientific method, from your point of view? What's the difference between performing spectrometry on a sample inches away from you in a lab and a sample hundreds of light years away? Is there a certain distance when it stops being scientific?

Watch the video in is entirety. Plenty of evidence is given to support each and every hypothesis. When you have a contradiction to that evidence we can proceed in discourse.

Again, huge videos, all I've seen so far is nonsense.

I have created threads for many of these topics. Other FE'ers have also made threads discussing such maters. Each and every one of these areas of contention have been discussed throughout the half million posts on these forums. Never once has an RE'er succeeded in presenting contradicting evidence.

If they already have threads, then why are you trying to debate it here in an unrelated thread?

Yea, Tom... why?

In time. Although most of what I've seen so far is drivel.

Much of the evidence is far beyond your ability to contradict. I understand. In a whirlwind of NASA's inconsistency and delusion, it's virtually impossible to stand up for them.

So what, hypothetically, is needed to allow us to examine the stars with the scientific method, from your point of view? What's the difference between performing spectrometry on a sample inches away from you in a lab and a sample hundreds of light years away? Is there a certain distance when it stops being scientific?

Stars are not lab experiments. When you play with elements in the lab you are not playing with the stars. You may come to the hypothesis that because helium has a red spectrometry, that the red spectrometry of the stars may also be indicative of helium. But that it a hypothesis. There is no test to come to the truth of the matter. You have observed the stars and nothing more, coming to a "conclusion" with no test to back it up. There are may other things which have a similar color in their spectrometry, but helium is a "best guess" because current Nuclear Fusion theories invoke helium.

Real scientists do not hypothesize and conclude. Real scientists hypothesize, test, and then conclude. If there is no test, a conclusion cannot be reached. Astronomers must understand this, and hold it dear to the fundamental tenets of their ideas. They must realize that they are not scientists and that they do not conduct science. They conduct hypothesis and no more.

Again, huge videos, all I've seen so far is nonsense.

The length of the video is immaterial to the debate. If you cannot come up with an argument for "why" the wealth of evidence presented is "nonsense," or why the evidence is wrong, your argument has no merit. I've been encouraging REers to "demonstrate" opinions, and yet it seems to be an impossible task.

If you cannot demonstrate an idea, then it is just an idea. This is an important point to not only the subject matter of the video, but to astronomy as well.

...but seriously.

Tom,

At times, you've managed to keep a level head in the face of frustration, and I respect that.  However...

You pretend to be convinced that you are a scientific debater, but we (your opponents in this thread) do not agree and even suspect that you wouldn't know a scientific debater if one punched you in the face. 

At this stage, NOTHING you say (I assure you) is going to change our minds about this, and I suspect the same goes for you about us.

So what do you propose we do here?  Neither of us has anything that will ever be accepted by the other, so aren't we at a permanent impasse?  If a fundamental basis for fair debate is mutual respect, and considering that you have wiped your ass with everything scientific presented here (and everywhere else, I'm learning), how can anyone ever be expected to respect you?  We cannot, and I suspect you feel the same about us.

Listen.  We're on to your game and we don't want to play, except Tesla. He'll dance from dusk til dawn if you buy him a drink.  Even if I did tell you that I respected you in future, why would you believe me or anyone else you have done this to?

You've said specific things that make us feel you have no understanding of the most basic necessary techniques for fair and scientific debate.

If they already have threads, then why are you trying to debate it here in an unrelated thread?

This isn't an unrelated thread. The author of this thread is calling FE'ers "believers," when really it is the RE'er who is the believer. Please read over this entire thread and make notes of the following:

- Astronomy does not use the scientific method (which the author accused us of neglecting).

- When an RE'er brings up their sole and only evidence of "the space man said so," there is no rebuttal to the wealth of evidence demonstrating that space agencies are dishonest.

That alone makes the RE'er the "believer". An FE'er is always open to debate and discourse. The author of this thread is not willing to discuss his ideas, or respond to contradictions of his belief. That make him a "believer," and a terribly closed minded one at that.

Much of the evidence is far beyond your ability to contradict. I understand. In a whirlwind of NASA's inconsistency and delusion, it's virtually impossible to stand up for them.

The problem is there's too much drivel surrounding the evidence. There's no way I could carefully refute every point the videos bring up, simply because the amount of text would be a whole topic in itself, and by the time I had created it all the topic would have moved on. In essence, the shear size of the videos is defence against counter-evidence.

I'll analyse the first couple of minutes of one of these videos:

• Starts with solar particle events. Some figures are quoted, 130 rem and 70 rem. Where do these figures come from? They're essentially meaningless. Who says the astronauts are exposed to this, and who says this will be the effect?
• Talking about an unprotected astronauts passing through space, and the Van Allen belts. Talking about the radiation levels rising and varying, but no actual figures.
• More talking about belts. Still no figures. Who said NASA did Starfish prime?
• Apparently there little agreement on the size of the belts, yet only two sources are quoted. They also said the belts vary a while back anyway, so why should the figures match?
• Talking about flares. No evidence that such things are deadly to astronauts.
• Saying that the hull of the craft was not thick enough to protect the astronauts, yet they seem to neglect to mention all the other stuff being carried in the capsule which could act as a shield.

I could go on, but it would take too long.

Stars are not lab experiments. When you play with elements in the lab you are not playing with the stars. You may come to the hypothesis that because helium have a red spectrometry, that the red spectrometry of the stars may also be indicative of helium. But that it a hypothesis. There is no test to come to the truth of the matter.

So what has to be done to determine when you have 'the truth'? Why is a result collected in the lab considered the truth and one collected from the sky not? Is is simply the fact that you can perform more experiments on the one in the lab?