Unless you can discredit the evidence it presents...
Surely the same rule applies for any RE evidence?
Please note, saying "It's clearly fake" does not count as discrediting.
So evidence being fake does not discredit it as evidence?
If you're gonna troll, at least be good at it.
How bout you don't make baseless accusations. If someone points out the fact that the "evidence" is false, would that not discredit it?
If it's a fact, and there is proof to support it, fair enough.
But simply saying "It's fake" is a different matter altogether. I think you missed the point of my first post. So either you're dumb, or you're a dumb troll.
Have a nice day.
There is nothing wrong with simply saying that something is fake if it is indeed fake. There is also no need for personal attacks.
The argument isn't that something being fake isn't a reason to discredit it, it's saying that you need to PROVE it's fake prior to saying it's fake.
Please show an example where FE'ers have called something faked and not at some point shown evidence for it.
http://osopher.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/earth_rise.jpgBasically they say it was faked. They then show, as evidence, the possibility of being able to fake it. They don't show it WAS faked, but show how it could have been faked.
They then take apart all the pictures known about the moon landing and find flaws in them. When they find said flaws (or what they think are flaws) they use that as evidence of forgery when it could very easily be something else.
Take the "c" on the rock. Not only do prop artists NOT label rocks with letters but there are millions of pictures with odd artifacts in them. Doesn't make them fake, just means something happened during processing or when the picture was taken. AND NASA has released the photo reprocessed from the negative. A reprocessed photo shows no "c" on the rock. The conclusion is that a hair got caught on the photo as it was being developed, possibly an eyelash.
Then you have someone like Tom Bishop who uses photoshop and a picture of the sun from the Moon to show that it's a spotlight. How does he do it? He changes the contrast(or some setting). He points to the image at high contrast and says "See? It's a stage light". All the while not realizing that what he's doing is horribly flawed AND without taking a picture using the same camera, of the sun on Earth and doing the same thing to compare.
Never has anyone produced papers showing that money was being funneled into other bank accounts from NASA instead of space projects.
Never has anyone gotten an eye witness or camera footage of them faking anything when it was live. Footage of training simulation construction or movie sets don't count.
But in the end, the difference in the word evidence is subjective. To FEers, Evidence is anything that shows FET is correct (or that RET is wrong). This doesn't require anything more than vague logic.
Hell, ENaG is full of thought experiments but very little experimental data, equations, or actual work. And some of the thought experiments violate the laws of physics. Cannon ball on a moving ship comes to mind as being one.