The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This

"As I said, anything I say will not help your cause."

I beg to differ: "because of... morale-boosting social benefits."

Quote from: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:12:47 PM

"As I said, anything I say will not help your cause."

I beg to differ: "because of... morale-boosting social benefits."

Nice conspiracy.

Where ever it is.


If you are going to pull a conspiracy card, do it properly.

2) go toward sending people into "space" for "morale boosting social benefits"?

If you are going to pull a conspiracy card, do it properly.

Quote from: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:23:44 PM

2) go toward sending people into "space" for "morale boosting social benefits"?

Nice to see you totally missed the other points of what space exploration can do.

Good job.

Again:

Quote from: flyingmonkey on January 04, 2010, 08:20:26 PM

If you are going to pull a conspiracy card, do it properly.

ED: Also, ofcourse it's 2

Evidence is everywhere

Well those pictures boosted my morale. Anyone else?   

(What font is sarcasm in again? I forgot.) 

Quote from: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:36:46 PM

Well those pictures boosted my morale. Anyone else?   

(What font is sarcasm in again? I forgot.) 

Ofcourse they didn't

You choose to believe we live of a piece of paper and anything astonishing must be made up from CGI.


If you're not taking back a bit by a rocket the size of a building going into space, you aren't paying much attention - and why should you if you believe it's all fiction.

So why are the US and Sovie.. I mean, Russians now working jointly on space projects?

Maybe because the USSR is gone? You do know we are allies with Britain now as well? After 2 wars? (GASP).

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 04, 2010, 08:45:47 PM

Maybe because the USSR is gone? You do know we are allies with Britain now as well? After 2 wars? (GASP).

But who WON the cold war? Why none of those "warheads" launched? You mean the Soviet Empire just GAVE UP? When else in history has an empire just GIVEN UP WITHOUT A FIGHT?

Quote from: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:49:18 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 04, 2010, 08:45:47 PM

Maybe because the USSR is gone? You do know we are allies with Britain now as well? After 2 wars? (GASP).

But who WON the cold war? Why none of those "warheads" launched? You mean the Soviet Empire just GAVE UP? When else in history has an empire just GIVEN UP WITHOUT A FIGHT?

Nobody 'WON' the cold war, it was a stalemate.

If they had of launched those warheads, we wouldn't be here right now.
Be thankful they are smarter than that.

USSR died because all the nations with it abandoned it to form their own countries, it had nothing to do with the Cold War.

We all know the USA is full of it, nothing new there.

The burden of proof is never on the skeptic.  The skeptic can doubt all he wants with impunity.

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim.

Being sceptical is claiming that something is not true.

In science, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim, be it a making a hypothesis or disproving an established theory.

In the Australian legal system the burden of proof is with the prosecuter. The prosecuter must prove the defendant murdered the victim. It is not the defendant's jobto prove he didn't.
By extension, the flat earth therory supporters are the prosecuters because you are accusing NASA (mainly) of a conspiracy. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. You must prove that the conspiracy is real. If you do not prove it and simply say 'well, it could exist', you have failed the burden of proof, just as saying 'well, he could have stabbed her' is not sufficent to jail a man for life.

Wait what was the full of it part? US won the cold war, USSR collapsed economically. Don't see whats so hard to understand there.

Quote

Being sceptical is claiming that something is not true.

It doesn't matter if I claim something is not true. In the ghosts example the skeptic is claiming that ghosts are not true. Yet the burden of proof is on the person who claims that ghosts exist.

Quote from: toothyp1cks on December 03, 2009, 11:48:32 PM

In the Australian legal system the burden of proof is with the prosecuter. The prosecuter must prove the defendant murdered the victim. It is not the defendant's jobto prove he didn't.
By extension, the flat earth therory supporters are the prosecuters because you are accusing NASA (mainly) of a conspiracy. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. You must prove that the conspiracy is real. If you do not prove it and simply say 'well, it could exist', you have failed the burden of proof, just as saying 'well, he could have stabbed her' is not sufficent to jail a man for life.

TA DA!!!
Dispute settled. You have accepted these terms because you didn't complain in your first post. They aren't going to change, and if you don't like it back out now and tell us. I'm going to copy-and-past this post until you all stop arguing about this because I HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH IT!
Back to the debate please.

I believe we were trying to find Chinese-NASA conspiracy links, the motives behind the faked spacewalk (RE lets just go with it this time and accpet it was faked), whether the stage-light photo was actually a stage light or lens flare (see my summary post in page 3-5).

The ghost example is misleading, because if ghosts *don't* exist then there are no ramifications (apart from people being branded "mistaken").  However there is still a buren on the sceptic to explain peoples' experiences using conversational science.

However, in order for NASA to fabricate space flights, there would have to be an enormous conspiracy.  That is why your claim has to be backed up.  I am convinced things are sent into space because I have seen satellites with my own eyes, and pictures by amateurs of the ISS and space-shuttle.

You cannot say "it didn't happen" without setting out how it could not happen (e.g. proving the conspiracy).  Unfortunately you have failed to do this.

Quote

The ghost example is misleading, because if ghosts *don't* exist then there are no ramifications (apart from people being branded "mistaken").  However there is still a buren on the sceptic to explain peoples' experiences using conversational science.

Uh, no it's not. The burden of proof is on the Ghost Believer to prove that the creek he heard in his house was a ghost.

It's no one's job to search his house up and down with a microscope for something which cannot be seen.

If you believe in ghosts you must provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE for your claim.

Quote

However, in order for NASA to fabricate space flights, there would have to be an enormous conspiracy.  That is why your claim has to be backed up.  I am convinced things are sent into space because I have seen satellites with my own eyes, and pictures by amateurs of the ISS and space-shuttle.

No. You have not seen communication satellites. That's a bold faced lie. If you think you can see something the size of a car in orbit you're sadly deluded.

You can't see a car in orbit any more than you could see a grizzly bear from the Concorde, no matter how illuminated its fur might be. It's simply too small and far away.

Quote

You cannot say "it didn't happen" without setting out how it could not happen (e.g. proving the conspiracy).  Unfortunately you have failed to do this.

I don't need to prove that NASA has not done the impossible by sending men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships to explore the solar system.

You need to prove that they have.

No. You have not seen communication satellites. That's a bold faced lie. If you think you can see something the size of a car in orbit you're sadly deluded.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2010, 02:55:55 AM

Quote

Being sceptical is claiming that something is not true.

It doesn't matter if I claim something is not true. In the ghosts example the skeptic is claiming that ghosts are not true. Yet the burden of proof is on the person who claims that ghosts exist.

The ghost example is misleading, because if ghosts *don't* exist then there are no ramifications (apart from people being branded "mistaken").  However there is still a buren on the sceptic to explain peoples' experiences using conversational science.

However, in order for NASA to fabricate space flights, there would have to be an enormous conspiracy.  That is why your claim has to be backed up.  I am convinced things are sent into space because I have seen satellites with my own eyes, and pictures by amateurs of the ISS and space-shuttle.

You cannot say "it didn't happen" without setting out how it could not happen (e.g. proving the conspiracy).  Unfortunately you have failed to do this.

The Burden of Proof Argument is an entirely separate and irrelevant issue.

This is basically the "You can't fire me, I quit" tactic of arguing, and it frustrates people. The point of debate is to examine facts and opinions on both sides, and weigh them against each other - NOT for one side to simply present evidence to the other for approval.

In a nutshell, You are not the Keeper of the Truth - The world isn't flat by default until such time as you choose to declare it spherical.

You can argue the burden of proof all you like, but neither you nor I nor anyone on this site is the Grand High Terrestrial Geometry Master.

This is not a court. There is no judge or jury. You cannot win or lose to anyone.

I posted this earlier, but everyone seemed to fly straight past it, so here it is again (abridged)

Quote from: Tristan on January 04, 2010, 07:27:05 AM

The Burden of Proof Argument is an entirely separate and irrelevant issue.

This is basically the "You can't fire me, I quit" tactic of arguing, and it frustrates people. The point of debate is to examine facts and opinions on both sides, and weigh them against each other - NOT for one side to simply present evidence to the other for approval.

In a nutshell, You are not the Keeper of the Truth - The world isn't flat by default until such time as you choose to declare it spherical.

You can argue the burden of proof all you like, but neither you nor I nor anyone on this site is the Grand High Terrestrial Geometry Master.

This is not a court. There is no judge or jury. You cannot win or lose to anyone.

So can we now stop arguing about the philosophy of debate (or at least start a new thread for it) and get back to the OP?

You have the prosecutor-defendant analogy backwards.

You're the prosecutor. You're the one claiming to the court that man has gone into space. You're the one who needs to provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE that your claim is correct.

The defendant is the skeptic who demands that facts be presented and evidence given. By pretense the judge and jury are on the defendant's side. Any claim given in a court is doubted by pretense. You must provide your own falsifiable evidence for your case.

You're the claimant. You're the one making the fantastic sci-fi claims of manned space travel. If you cannot prove your extraordinary claims, they are false by pretense and the court rules in the skeptic's favor.

I'm actually glad you brought that up again about the Ghosts.

The BoP is on the person who is making claims that are far from the realm of accepted facts.

Ghosts are not real as far as accepted facts go, so therefore, the BoP must rely on those who claim they exist.


NASA doing things in space is accepted fact, the BoP relies on you to disprove this.

The entire Earths government is part of a giant conspiracy is not accepted facts, the BoP is still on you to prove this.

Quote from: Tristan on January 05, 2010, 09:37:25 AM

So can we now stop arguing about the philosophy of debate (or at least start a new thread for it) and get back to the OP?

That's asking WAAAAY too much