The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This

You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want with impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you and no one else.

Quote from: Mookie89 on January 03, 2010, 07:15:14 PM

You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you.

So what you're saying is that since you don't "claim" that space travel is not possible, then you're not sure if it is possible or not? I'm glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: Mookie89 on January 03, 2010, 07:15:14 PM

You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you and no one else.

If the burden of proof of space travel is upon us, then you need to tell us what sort of evidence you require to satisfy your skepticism.  Personal testimony, video and photographs don't seem to be enough.  So, what will it take to convince you that manned space flight is real?

Quote

You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you and no one else.

This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2010, 07:17:17 PM

Quote

You skepticize if NASA actually has satellites in orbit, with which we provide video evidence to prove this, then you claim that the videos are faked. In this case, you are the claimant, so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

The claim is that space travel has happened. The burden is on the claimants to prove their claims. The burden of proof is on you and no one else.

This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Aaaahhh, exactly. Tom claims that there is a conspiracy, we are skeptical that there is a conspiracy, so the burden of proof lies on him, not us, since we are the skeptics of the conspiracy.

Using their own crappy trolling against them ftw.


They are claiming the Earth is flat, being a skeptic to RE, burden of proof is on them there too.


You can turn the BoP thing round so easily.

If the burden of proof of space travel is upon us, then you need to tell us what sort of evidence you require to satisfy your skepticism.  Personal testimony, video and photographs don't seem to be enough.  So, what will it take to convince you that manned space flight is real?

Falsifiable evidence you've collected your own self.

This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Actually, I don't. In matters of debate the burden of proof is always on the claimant. When a skeptic doubts the claims, the burden of proof does not move to the skeptic. It remains on the claimant.

I could call NASA a fake, liar, or sham all I want with impunity. I'm the skeptic.

It's your burden to prove that NASA can do the amazing things that you say they can do. You're the one making the fantastic claims here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.

I could call you a fake, liar, or sham all I want with impunity. I'm the skeptic.

It's your burden to prove that NASA cannot do the amazing things that they say they can do. You're the one making the fantastic claims here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.

See how easy I changed that with 2 edits.

Bishop, this just proves how you rely completely on semantics to dodge answering questions. I think this thread is a pretty good example of how the ridiculous "burden of proof" argument can be spun around to its exact opposite depending on the wording.
Couple that with the fact that when anyone presents any sort of evidence or proof to you you just blankly go "that isn't proof" like an automaton, regardless of what it is, it just highlights that you use witch trial logic to ensure that whatever the RE'ers do, they will always be wrong.
And you know what? It doesn't make the RE'ers look wrong to everyone else. It makes you look petty and dimwitted.

There's a common theme to a lot of Tom's posts. As his theories get disproven and his evidence debunked, he always retreats behind the semantics of whose job it is to prove/disprove whatever is in question. This is basically the "You can't fire me, I quit" tactic of arguing, and it frustrates people because it's an entirely separate and irrelevant issue. 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, Tom, 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. We are not here to dethrone you, and likewise, you cannot remain King by simply refusing to participate. 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 but yourself, so if you're afraid of coming out and arguing for something, rather than against the opposite, maybe you need to think less about what you believe and think more about why.

Quote

If the burden of proof of space travel is upon us, then you need to tell us what sort of evidence you require to satisfy your skepticism.  Personal testimony, video and photographs don't seem to be enough.  So, what will it take to convince you that manned space flight is real?

Falsifiable evidence you've collected your own self.

Quote

This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Actually, I don't. In matters of debate the burden of proof is always on the claimant. When a skeptic doubts the claims, the burden of proof does not move to the skeptic. It remains on the claimant.

I could call NASA a fake, liar, or sham all I want with impunity. I'm the skeptic.

It's your burden to prove that NASA can do the amazing things that you say they can do. You're the one making the fantastic claims here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.

You are the one that is claiming that there is a conspiracy, with which we are skeptical of this conspiracy. You are the claimant not us. NASA is the claimant that they are able to achieve space flight, not us. We just rely on what they say to get our point across.

Quote

If the burden of proof of space travel is upon us, then you need to tell us what sort of evidence you require to satisfy your skepticism.  Personal testimony, video and photographs don't seem to be enough.  So, what will it take to convince you that manned space flight is real?

Falsifiable evidence you've collected your own self.

Quote

This isn't about space flight, this is about the conspiracy. You need to provide proof that there is a conspiracy.

Actually, I don't. In matters of debate the burden of proof is always on the claimant. When a skeptic doubts the claims, the burden of proof does not move to the skeptic. It remains on the claimant.

I could call NASA a fake, liar, or sham all I want with impunity. I'm the skeptic.

It's your burden to prove that NASA can do the amazing things that you say they can do. You're the one making the fantastic claims here. You're the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.

Hypocrite.

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

Tom, there is a huge difference between being skeptical of someone's claim and outright calling them liars.

Anyway there is no need for the conspiracy any more, as satellites have been proved to exist now (see thread about proof of geostationary satellites).

NASA is the claimant that they are able to achieve space flight, not us.

And they provide quite a lot of proof, don't forget that.

You are the one that is claiming that there is a conspiracy, with which we are skeptical of this conspiracy. You are the claimant not us. NASA is the claimant that they are able to achieve space flight, not us. We just rely on what they say to get our point across.

Nope. The stance of NASA being a conspiracy, a fake, or a sham is a stance of skepticism.

The burden is on you to prove your positive claims of space travel.

Nope, that is a claim. NASA is about launching stuff into space which they have done. You claim it is all a lie and is a conspiracy. You can be skeptical about NASA but we can be skeptical about the conspiracy.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2010, 07:17:17 PM

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

Tom, there is a huge difference between being skeptical of someone's claim and outright calling them liars.

No there isn't.

Why should I believe a man who claims that his uncle tunneled into the center of the earth in the 1980's?

The burden of proof is on him, just as it is on you.

No there isn't.

Why should I believe a man who claims that his uncle tunneled into the center of the earth in the 1980's?

The burden of proof is on him, just as it is on you.

The only difference here, is NASA provides significant amounts of proof, you just choose not to accept it.


You have no proof that it's all a conspiracy, just what you say.

Where's your proof?

Nope, that is a claim. NASA is about launching stuff into space which they have done. You claim it is all a lie and is a conspiracy. You can be skeptical about NASA but we can be skeptical about the conspiracy.

It doesn't matter if I say it's a lie. You're the one saying it happened. In a debate where we have two opposing sides, such as in the conversation on the existence of ghosts, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that ghosts do exist.

The burden of proof is not on the person saying that ghost don't exist, or that they are make-believe. That's the skeptic. 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.

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2010, 04:17:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2010, 07:17:17 PM

Wrong. I can say that space travel hasn't happened all I want without impunity. Doubt is not a claim. Doubt and skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable are not claims.

Tom, there is a huge difference between being skeptical of someone's claim and outright calling them liars.

No there isn't.

Why should I believe a man who claims that his uncle tunneled into the center of the earth in the 1980's?

The burden of proof is on him, just as it is on you.

Yes, there is a difference, Tom.  With enough evidence, a skeptic can be convinced that a fantastic claim is indeed true.  You can't (or won't).

It doesn't matter if I say it's a lie. You're the one saying it happened. In a debate where we have two opposing sides, such as in the conversation on the existence of ghosts, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that ghosts do exist.

The burden of proof is not on the person saying that ghost don't exist, or that they are make believe. That's the skeptic. 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.

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.

Fine then, we will prove NASA does stuff while you prove the conspiracy. Happy now?

Fine then, we will prove NASA does stuff while you prove the conspiracy. Happy now?

We don't need to, NASA and non-NASA affiliated people provide enough proof.

You don't need to prove a conspiracy in order to believe a conspiracy exists. A conspiracy theory usually consists in "connecting the dots". There exists a powerful narrative for a conspiracy here, whether you believe in that narrative or not.

You don't need to prove a conspiracy in order to believe a conspiracy exists. A conspiracy theory usually consists in "connecting the dots". There exists a powerful narrative for a conspiracy here, whether you believe in that narrative or not.

What dots exactly?

Other than, "omg nowai that must be part of the conspiracy too!" I see none.


Your 'conspiracy' is only there to try back up your theory, that, itself, is just various theories stacked atop of one another.

Quote from: Dino on January 04, 2010, 07:40:26 PM

You don't need to prove a conspiracy in order to believe a conspiracy exists. A conspiracy theory usually consists in "connecting the dots". There exists a powerful narrative for a conspiracy here, whether you believe in that narrative or not.

What dots exactly?

Other than, "omg nowai that must be part of the conspiracy too!" I see none.


Your 'conspiracy' is only there to try back up your theory, that, itself, is just various theories stacked atop of one another.

Here's the first dot: explain what Wall Street does.

EDIT; Another: What was the POINT of the space race during the cold war?

Here's the first dot: explain what Wall Street does.

Wall Street doesn't do anything, it's asphalt after all, what you're looking for is what's on it.


It's your conspiracy, anything I say will not help you explain your conspiracy, because I am not apart of it.

If you want pointers on how to conduct a conspiracy theory, head to the 911 ones.

EDIT; Another: What was the POINT of the space race during the cold war?

The Space Race became an important part of the cultural, technological, and ideological rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Space technology became a particularly important arena in this conflict, because of both its potential military applications and the morale-boosting social benefits.

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

Quote from: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:01:49 PM

Here's the first dot: explain what Wall Street does.

Wall Street doesn't do anything, it's asphalt after all, what you're looking for is what's on it.


It's your conspiracy, anything I say will not help you explain your conspiracy, because I am not apart of it.

If you want pointers on how to conduct a conspiracy theory, head to the 911 ones.

Quote from: Dino on January 04, 2010, 08:01:49 PM

EDIT; Another: What was the POINT of the space race during the cold war?

Quote

The Space Race became an important part of the cultural, technological, and ideological rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Space technology became a particularly important arena in this conflict, because of both its potential military applications and the morale-boosting social benefits.

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

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

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

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 04, 2010, 07:08:54 PM

Nope, that is a claim. NASA is about launching stuff into space which they have done. You claim it is all a lie and is a conspiracy. You can be skeptical about NASA but we can be skeptical about the conspiracy.

It doesn't matter if I say it's a lie. You're the one saying it happened. In a debate where we have two opposing sides, such as in the conversation on the existence of ghosts, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that ghosts do exist.

The burden of proof is not on the person saying that ghost don't exist, or that they are make believe. That's the skeptic. 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.

Thanks for ignoring me when I said this the first time Tom:

This is THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY. You are the ones making the claim. The burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders.

Tom. Read very carefully. It is not called the "Oh yeah? Prove The Earth is a Globe Society!" You are literally calling the Earth flat. You have to support your claim.

You are the claimant. I know I can't argue with insanity (read: you) but you are the one making the claim against very conventional wisdom that sustained space travel is very real.

You are the freaking ghost claimant in your analogy. There is a lack of evidence for ghosts, just like there is a HUGE lack of evidence for a Flat Earth. You are the claimant. I'm skeptical of your absurdity. The burden of proof is on you to prove to me that you aren't a huge steaming pile of absurdity.