The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This

  • 164 Replies
  • 26200 Views
?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #120 on: January 04, 2010, 08:20:26 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.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #121 on: January 04, 2010, 08:23:44 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.

Which seems more likely? 100s of billions of dollars spent by the government to:

1) go directly into the pockets of Wall Street firms; or
2) go toward sending people into "space" for "morale boosting social benefits"?



?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #122 on: January 04, 2010, 08:27:20 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:

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



ED: Also, ofcourse it's 2

Evidence is everywhere
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 08:30:32 PM by flyingmonkey »

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #123 on: January 04, 2010, 08:36:46 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:

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.) 

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #124 on: January 04, 2010, 08:43:21 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.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #125 on: January 04, 2010, 08:44:58 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?

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #126 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).

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #127 on: January 04, 2010, 08:48:47 PM »
So why are the US and Sovie.. I mean, Russians now working jointly on space projects?


Maybe because we all want to get away from people like you.

Maybe because if they work together, they can achieve more?

Pretty easy question, if you couldn't think of the answer you're pretty blinded.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #128 on: January 04, 2010, 08:49:18 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?

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #129 on: January 04, 2010, 08:51:35 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.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #130 on: January 04, 2010, 08:57:23 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.

A stalemate? The USA is willing to admit it was a stalemate?

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #131 on: January 04, 2010, 08:59:12 PM »
We all know the USA is full of it, nothing new there.

Doesn't mean it wasn't.

Both sides backed down

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #132 on: January 04, 2010, 09:03:13 PM »
We all know the USA is full of it, nothing new there.


So you agree the USA was full of it about the cold war, but not about the space program?

 

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #133 on: January 04, 2010, 09:14:11 PM »
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.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #134 on: January 05, 2010, 01:02:26 AM »
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.

With scepticism comes responsibility, I'm afraid.  To say that a sceptic requires no proof is pseudo-science piffle.  Please don't be taken in by Tom's misguided philosophical rantings.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #135 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 skeptic doubts with impunity.

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

Nope. The skeptics are the ones saying that it's not true. The claimants are the ones saying that it is true.

You can say "hurr hurr, saying is something is not true is a claim" all you like, but the burden of proof remains on you. You're the one claiming that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, land men on the moon, and send robot geologists to mars. All of these extraordinary claims are yours.

The burden of proof is on you.

« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 04:16:40 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #136 on: January 05, 2010, 03:13:38 AM »
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).
When I was 5 years old my mum always told me that happiness was the key to life.
When I went to school they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up.
I wrote down "happy."
They told me I didn't understand the assignment.

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #137 on: January 05, 2010, 03:20:24 AM »
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.
Dino, please read this.
Warheads weren't launched because of MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) which says if you launch nukes at someone you had better hope to God they don't have any to launch back. The USA knew the USSR did and the USSR knew the USA did. Neither side wanted a nuclear war, so neither launched. Wall Street is a strip of asphalt used by vehicles to accelerate travel.
The thing you are reffering to is doubtlessly some giant complicated economics thing but i THINK it lets people invest in companies. The government pours money in to keep companies afloat and stabilize the economy.
When I was 5 years old my mum always told me that happiness was the key to life.
When I went to school they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up.
I wrote down "happy."
They told me I didn't understand the assignment.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #138 on: January 05, 2010, 04:52:08 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.


I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #139 on: January 05, 2010, 06:02:22 AM »
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).

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.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 06:04:45 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #140 on: January 05, 2010, 06:12:12 AM »
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 mistaken.

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.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2020, 09:42:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #141 on: January 05, 2010, 07:00:22 AM »
 ??? :-[ ???

YOU are the one putting NASA on trial Tom. It's crystal clear. You are claiming that the mountains upon mountains of data/evidence they have for/from their space travels is completely made up.

Conventional wisdom is that ghosts don't exist. Conventional wisdom is that sustained space travel exists. There is no way you can deny that.

Man, I have never in my life come in contact with someone who so completely misunderstands the most basic tenants of logic.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #142 on: January 05, 2010, 07:09:18 AM »
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.

It's not a lie: You're in denial.

Of course I could see a gristly bear from Concorde if the bear was made of shiny metal and lit by the sun, in front of a dark background in pitch blackness.   You couldn't make out the shape of it, it would just see a dim point of light.  A candle is visible from may miles away for the same reason.

You need to prove there is a conspiracy in order to disprove NASA and all space flight.  There is no substance to your sceptical POV, it's just lazy misguided arrogance. 

We're still waiting for that proof (in our millions)...
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40321
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #143 on: January 05, 2010, 08:20:13 AM »
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.

http://www.astronet.ru/db/varstars/msg/1162489
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #144 on: January 05, 2010, 08:29:44 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.




A better analogy would be "Is HIV/AIDS real" (as opposed to ghosts) because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it does exist, just like the consensus is that the Earth is round. If somebody says that HIV/AIDS is not real but that it is manufactured by the government and pharmaceutical companies in an elaborate money-making conspiracy, the burden of proof rests with those who are suggesting the conspiracy is real:

Person 1: "AIDS is a terrible disease that has killed millions around the world"
Person 2: "AIDS is not real"
Person 1: "The scientific consensus is that HIV/AIDS is real"
Person 2: "Yeah, the scientists are part of the conspiracy"
Person 1: "..."
Person 2: "What?"
Person 1: "Prove it; that the conspiracy is real""
Person 2: "No. I am the skeptic, therefore I don't have to prove anything"
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 08:36:12 AM by Canadark »
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

?

Tristan

  • 180
  • Bendy Earth Proponent
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #145 on: January 05, 2010, 09:37:25 AM »
I posted this earlier, but everyone seemed to fly straight past it, so here it is again (abridged)

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?
Image used in Avatar:
"Duck Dodgers™ in the 24&1/2th Century"
© Warner Brothers Animation
All Rights Reserved

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #146 on: January 05, 2010, 03:35:06 PM »
I posted this earlier, but everyone seemed to fly straight past it, so here it is again (abridged)

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?

That's asking WAAAAY too much
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #147 on: January 06, 2010, 09:53:54 AM »
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.

Hurr semantics durr. (Sorry, I'm in a 4chan mood tonight...)

See my opening post, in which I clearly state the purpose of this thread.
For the FET proponents to prove the conspiracy exists and for the RET proponents to disprove that. In my understanding, the defendant is the person being accused of something (in this case, NASA; of a conspiracy) and the prosecutor is the accuser (i.e. the FE Society).
YOU are accusing NASA of a conspiracy. Claims have nothing to do with this. You cannot deny it, you are making accusations. Defy me, prove me wrong.

You can’t, and that’s an end to it, I hope. If you would like to continue this, tell me and I’ll create another thread for this argument so the derailment can end.

Still need those Chinese motives/NASA conspiracy evidence/stage light stuff/dirt on every other space company. GOGOGOGOGO!

Also, hooray for proxies. YOU CAN'T KEEP ME AWAY WITH YOUR PETTY IP BANS! HURRAH!
When I was 5 years old my mum always told me that happiness was the key to life.
When I went to school they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up.
I wrote down "happy."
They told me I didn't understand the assignment.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #148 on: January 06, 2010, 09:11:23 PM »
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.


Keep ignoring this and bring up ghosts again Tom, I'll just keep making you look like a fool.

?

Tristan

  • 180
  • Bendy Earth Proponent
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #149 on: January 07, 2010, 06:10:36 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

I suppose, when you don't actually have a valid point to argue, the best you can do is argue that you don't have to argue it.
Image used in Avatar:
"Duck Dodgers™ in the 24&1/2th Century"
© Warner Brothers Animation
All Rights Reserved