The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers

  • 580 Replies
  • 65922 Views
*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #450 on: December 04, 2011, 02:49:52 PM »
But I get it: men on the Moon => Earth is round.
Sorry, what?
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #451 on: December 04, 2011, 03:27:21 PM »
But I get it: men on the Moon => Earth is round.
Sorry, what?

Stop trolling!

lol
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #452 on: December 04, 2011, 04:46:13 PM »
In the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud and the Apollo missions were faked the only response mustered is "you're trolling" and "lol."

RE'ers are in denial. It is sad to the extreme that they cannot come to terms with the fact that their authorities lying to them. Instead of beginning to seek, they bury their heads in ignorance and dogma, believing only what they are told to believe.

I understand that it is difficult to accept that everything you know about space science is a lie, but the evidence is just overwhelming: NASA is a fraud.   
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 05:26:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #453 on: December 04, 2011, 05:02:03 PM »
Zarg: "The burden is always on the person making a new claim"
Markjo: "if the "skeptic" makes a negative claim, then that counts as a claim and the skeptic does incur a burden of proof for that negative claim."
Tom Bishop: "The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics."
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

See? several contradictory angles. However, what really clouds the issue is the nature of what is defined as a "claim".

My prediction has been validated:
Quote from: zarg
Judging by what I've seen in this thread, your solution now will be to redefine "burden of proof" such that your position becomes correct; just as you questionably redefine observable physics to fit your preconceived model.

You seem to be under the impression that the fact that you dispute the definitions of terms means that the entire subject is impossible and pointless to discuss, thus conveniently nullifying anyone's responsibility to deal with it.

Unfortunately for you, words do have actual definitions. Has it never occurred to you to check a source other than your own wiki?

And those statements are not contradictory. No one is denying that if you were merely skeptics, you would not hold the burden of proof that the claim is wrong. However as I already pointed out, you are not the "skeptics" here. Not only do you deny existent contrary proof, you hold your very own claims -- indeed, you even freely call it a "theory" -- and refuse to accept the responsibility to prove it!


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Negative claims don't have to be proven. I don't have to prove that ghosts "don't" exist in a discussion on the existence of ghosts.

Even to look at evidence and say "this is not evidence" is an assertion that you need to back up. For instance, following your ghost analogy: Ghost-believer says: "Ghosts exist because I felt something brush past me in an empty room." He has made an assertion and provided evidence; he's good so far. Only after you dispute his evidence with a valid counter-argument (such as demonstrating that wind could have created the same effect) is Ghost-believer once again obligated to provide more evidence.


But, I'm sure that when markjo says "negative", he means "opposing", not just simple denial. And a conspiracy theory is an opposing hypothesis. Your claims about light are opposing hypotheses. And so forth.


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Funny how in the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud

I don't think you understand what that word, "indisputable", means. There are documents that do exactly that: dispute your cited evidence, point by point. Nothing in your sources (which, again, is yourself!) is new, I've seen it before and it has all been thoroughly shot down years ago. It no longer has any value outside of cheap sensationalist TV programs. This information takes no time at all to find if you are simply honest enough to allow yourself to look at both sides and stop being lazy.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #454 on: December 04, 2011, 05:30:13 PM »
Accusing the Flat Earth Society of hacking into government servers and replacing mission photos is about the only thing RE'ers could do in a fruitless attempt to keep their beliefs alive.

RE'ers truly are brainwashed.

Are you telling me that instantly denying photographic proof is a strategy used only by desperate brainwashed fools?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #455 on: December 04, 2011, 05:35:30 PM »
Quote from: zarg
Even to look at evidence and say "this is not evidence" is an assertion that you need to back up. For instance, following your ghost analogy: Ghost-believer says: "Ghosts exist because I felt something brush past me in an empty room." He has made an assertion and provided evidence; he's good so far. Only after you dispute his evidence with a valid counter-argument (such as demonstrating that wind could have created the same effect) is Ghost-believer once again obligated to provide more evidence.

The ghost believer would need to prove that ghosts exist. If that's all he has, then fine. The burden is on him to prove the existence of ghosts, not anyone to prove that ghosts don't exist.

Asking someone to prove that ghosts don't exist is ridiculous. No one is ever burdened with proving a negative.

Quote from: zarg
But, I'm sure that when markjo says "negative", he means "opposing", not just simple denial. And a conspiracy theory is an opposing hypothesis. Your claims about light are opposing hypotheses. And so forth.

The conspiracy theory is entirely validated by the indisputable evidence which demonstrates that NASA is a fraud. I've provided evidence that a conspiracy exists. The only thing you guys can muster against it is "maybe you hacked into NASA's servers and planted those damning mission photographs there."

Quote from: zarg
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Funny how in the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud

I don't think you understand what that word, "indisputable", means. There are documents that do exactly that: dispute your cited evidence, point by point. Nothing in your sources (which, again, is yourself!) is new, I've seen it before and it has all been thoroughly shot down years ago. It no longer has any value outside of cheap sensationalist TV programs. This information takes no time at all to find if you are simply honest enough to allow yourself to look at both sides and stop being lazy.

Again, the sources for the images is NASA, not myself.

But if you are so adamant that it has been debunked before, please find documents which debunk the images in the below link:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 05:47:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #456 on: December 04, 2011, 05:45:06 PM »
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Jeez, this guy is obsessed with trotting out accusations of fallacy in latin. Give it a rest, why don't you? I wouldn't mind so much if you were usually right, but here you're wrong again. Argumentum ad hominem is attempting to discredit an argument that someone puts forward by attacking them personally.
Here, the quote describes the methods commonly used by hoax advocates, and describes them - accurately - as lacking in verification. Attacking an argument on the basis of lacking verification is not argumentum ad hominem (as it attacks the argument logically with no comment on the poster), and describing the practice as being a common thing is also not argumentum ad hominem (as it criticises the poster but does not attempt to discredit the argument they put forward in terms of merit). Combining these two things should be called the Tausami Fallacy.
Similarly:
Saying "John Davis is a troll" is neither argumentum ad hominem nor the George Spock fallacy.
Saying "Pizza Planet's experiment was conducted with all the rigor that one would expect from a chimpanzee in a cake shop" is also not argumentum ad hominem.
Saying "Your theory has to be nonsense because it is supported by Tom Bishop" is, interestingly, a sort of argumentum ad hominem by proxy AND a kind of George Spock fallacy at the same time, though evidence would suggest it is very likely to be a 100% true statement.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #457 on: December 04, 2011, 06:38:10 PM »
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Jeez, this guy is obsessed with trotting out accusations of fallacy in latin. Give it a rest, why don't you? I wouldn't mind so much if you were usually right, but here you're wrong again. Argumentum ad hominem is attempting to discredit an argument that someone puts forward by attacking them personally.
Here, the quote describes the methods commonly used by hoax advocates, and describes them - accurately - as lacking in verification. Attacking an argument on the basis of lacking verification is not argumentum ad hominem (as it attacks the argument logically with no comment on the poster), and describing the practice as being a common thing is also not argumentum ad hominem (as it criticises the poster but does not attempt to discredit the argument they put forward in terms of merit). Combining these two things should be called the Tausami Fallacy.
Similarly:
Saying "John Davis is a troll" is neither argumentum ad hominem nor the George Spock fallacy.
Saying "Pizza Planet's experiment was conducted with all the rigor that one would expect from a chimpanzee in a cake shop" is also not argumentum ad hominem.
Saying "Your theory has to be nonsense because it is supported by Tom Bishop" is, interestingly, a sort of argumentum ad hominem by proxy AND a kind of George Spock fallacy at the same time, though evidence would suggest it is very likely to be a 100% true statement.

No, this quote is the epitome of an ad hominem. Just because it doesn't blatantly say that we're retarded doesn't mean it isn't strongly implying it.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41795
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #458 on: December 04, 2011, 06:48:04 PM »
Quote from: markjo
If you make a claim, are you not obligated to prove that claim even if it is a negative claim?

Negative claims don't have to be proven. I don't have to prove that ghosts "don't" exist in a discussion on the existence of ghosts. The person mumbling in favor of the existence of ghosts needs to prove that ghosts exist.

Fine.  The moon landings were not faked.  The earth is not flat.  There are two negative claims that I don't have to prove.
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.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #459 on: December 04, 2011, 07:02:09 PM »
It's interesting to see that you stick to your 2 or 3 feebles examples of supposed hoax (no; I don't have an answer for everything) but that more than 20 hoax debunking cause no problem with you.

Falaciae compositio.

That was trolling, my good ol' Tom!
But I get it: men on the Moon => Earth is round.
Sorry, what?

Stop trolling!

lol

George Scott fallacy



And if one is accused of many fallacies, one should not assume that this is the accuser's hobby.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 07:03:45 PM by Tausami »

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #460 on: December 04, 2011, 08:45:26 PM »
Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

That paragraph is nonsense. He incorrectly contends that hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion are not used in cataloging NASA's hoaxery.

Please look at the article in question:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems

In the very first image, for example, the investigator looked at the four images in a panorama and made the hypothesis that the left Rover tracks were passing into a 4 foot deep crater. The investigator experiments by pasting together the panorama shots, and indeed, the left Rover tires have impossibly passed through a crater. Conclusion: NASA fakery

In the trackless Lunar Rover photos the investigator finds one trackless photo and hypothesizes that if some of the pictures depict miniature sets, or if a crane was transporting the Rover in place, there should be more trackless Rover photos. The author performs an experiment by searching through NASA's photos and finding other images where the Rover does not leave tracks in the moon dust (despite footprints abundant). Conclusion: NASA fakery

The real question is not why are there no tracks in certain pictures, it should be why would nasa (assuming they faked the landings) occasionally include tracks, (showing that it was not an oversight to not include them) and not include them in other photos.  its obvious that a rover should have tracks, so why would nasa purposfully not include them in such a big claim such as (we landed on the moon).

Assuming that nasa has outsmarted most of the worlds population for quite some time now is it just as unreasonable that they would forget to leave tracks behind their rover photos?

Its more reasonable to conclude that the astronauts quickly lifted and moved the rover for a better angle photograph than it is to assume that the entire missions were faked.  The rover would not have been particularly heavy, an easy two man lift on the moon, it was only 77.2 pounds.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #461 on: December 04, 2011, 09:48:47 PM »
The real question is not why are there no tracks in certain pictures, it should be why would nasa (assuming they faked the landings) occasionally include tracks, (showing that it was not an oversight to not include them) and not include them in other photos.  its obvious that a rover should have tracks, so why would nasa purposfully not include them in such a big claim such as (we landed on the moon).

You RE'ers also occasionally ask "How could NASA pull off a perfect scam with no mistakes?"

Well, this is a mistake.

My guess is that they were trying to set up specifically choreographed scenes and were moving it around with a crane. The people filming the hoax aren't necessarily the brightest crayons in the box.

You're assuming that the people working for NASA are smart, and that NASA is actually hiring the best and the brightest. The best and the brightest cuts into money that could otherwise be going towards another private mansion in the Alps.

Quote
Assuming that nasa has outsmarted most of the worlds population for quite some time now is it just as unreasonable that they would forget to leave tracks behind their rover photos?

No. It's unreasonable to assume that NASA would hire the best and the brightest for their hoax operation when the motive is to make a profit.

Quote
Its more reasonable to conclude that the astronauts quickly lifted and moved the rover for a better angle photograph than it is to assume that the entire missions were faked.  The rover would not have been particularly heavy, an easy two man lift on the moon, it was only 77.2 pounds.

Why would they be carrying the rover across the lunar surface? The rover is a distance away from any tracks in some of those images. The rover is supposed to be carrying them. They aren't supposed to be carrying the rover. That's the whole point of the rover in the first place.

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS15-88-11902HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21836HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21932HR.jpg

Look at the above images. There are no tracks leading up to the rover anywhere, at any angle. The astronauts didn't just angle it. They would have had to pick it up and carry it a ways.

The astronaut's entire dialogue are recorded throughout the missions. I've gone through them in the past. I guarantee you that there's nothing like "Hey Huston, hold on while we pick up the rover."

Besides, it's ridiculous that they would pick up the rover to get a shot at a certain angle. If they want a certain angle of the rover all they would need to do is position themselves around it.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 07:02:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #462 on: December 04, 2011, 09:56:32 PM »
The ghost believer would need to prove that ghosts exist. If that's all he has, then fine. The burden is on him to prove the existence of ghosts, not anyone to prove that ghosts don't exist.

Asking someone to prove that ghosts don't exist is ridiculous. No one is ever burdened with proving a negative.

You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.


But if you are so adamant that it has been debunked before, please find documents which debunk the images in the below link:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems

Honestly, do you really want to pursue this? Are you suggesting that such debunking is nonexistent? Please. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself and proving your own laziness.

The answer you're looking for is already right here in this thread, in the link Zhark posted after searching for mere moments, if you had actually bothered to at least skim it:

Quote
The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a deeper impression in the lunar dust.

The hoax advocates often quote the weight of the Lunar Module as 16 to 18 tons (weights varied mission to mission). This was the LM's Earth weight when fully fueled and included about 9 tons of descent stage propellant. By the time the LM reached the surface, its weight in lunar gravity was only about 2,700 lbs. With four 37-inch diameter footpads, the load on the surface was about 90 lbs/ft2. Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs. His boots covered an area of about one square foot, giving a load of 58 lbs/ft2. In Armstrong's own words "the LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #463 on: December 04, 2011, 10:09:34 PM »
Quote
You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.

Well that's the topic you were replying to. The burden of proof is solely on the ghost claimant. If the ghost claimant presents some kind of evidence for the existence of ghosts it's the skeptic's duty to challenge it, just as I have been challenging the Apollo mission photographs here.

Quote
Honestly, do you really want to pursue this? Are you suggesting that such debunking is nonexistent? Please. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself and proving your own laziness.

The answer you're looking for is already right here in this thread, in the link Zhark posted after searching for mere moments, if you had actually bothered to at least skim it:

Quote
The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a deeper impression in the lunar dust.

The hoax advocates often quote the weight of the Lunar Module as 16 to 18 tons (weights varied mission to mission). This was the LM's Earth weight when fully fueled and included about 9 tons of descent stage propellant. By the time the LM reached the surface, its weight in lunar gravity was only about 2,700 lbs. With four 37-inch diameter footpads, the load on the surface was about 90 lbs/ft2. Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs. His boots covered an area of about one square foot, giving a load of 58 lbs/ft2. In Armstrong's own words "the LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

The Lunar Module is not the Lunar Rover.

How embarrassing.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 10:14:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #464 on: December 04, 2011, 10:13:20 PM »
The real question is not why are there no tracks in certain pictures, it should be why would nasa (assuming they faked the landings) occasionally include tracks, (showing that it was not an oversight to not include them) and not include them in other photos.  its obvious that a rover should have tracks, so why would nasa purposfully not include them in such a big claim such as (we landed on the moon).

You RE'ers also occasionally ask "How could NASA pull off a perfect scam with no mistakes?"

Well, this is a mistake.

My guess is that they were trying to pose with the rover in specifically choreographed scenes and were moving it around with a crane. The people filming the hoax aren't necessarily the brightest crayons in the box.

You're assuming that the people working for NASA are smart, and that NASA is actually hiring the best and the brightest. The best and the brightest cuts into money that could otherwise be going towards another private mansion in the Alps.

Quote
Assuming that nasa has outsmarted most of the worlds population for quite some time now is it just as unreasonable that they would forget to leave tracks behind their rover photos?

No. It's unreasonable to assume that NASA is hiring the best and the brightest for their hoax operation.

Quote
Its more reasonable to conclude that the astronauts quickly lifted and moved the rover for a better angle photograph than it is to assume that the entire missions were faked.  The rover would not have been particularly heavy, an easy two man lift on the moon, it was only 77.2 pounds.

Why would they be carrying the rover across the lunar surface? The rover is a distance away from any tracks in some of those images. The rover is supposed to be carrying them. They aren't supposed to be carrying the rover.

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS15-88-11902HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21836HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21932HR.jpg

Look at the above images. There are no tracks leading up to the rover anywhere, at any angle. The astronauts didn't just angle it. They would have had to pick it up and carry it a ways.

The astronaut's entire dialogue are recorded throughout the missions. I've gone through them in the past. I guarantee you that there's nothing like "Hey Richard, help me pick up the rover."

Besides, it's ridiculous that they would pick up the rover to get a shot at a certain angle. If they want a certain angle of the rover all they would need to do is position themselves around it.

First all of those photos would only require the rover to be moved one car width or so to remove any tracks from the photo.  Second, NASA does hire the best and the brightest, and a major portion of their expenses are to third parties for designing and producing the equipment that they use.  My grandfather was vice president of Collins radio during the Apollo missions, and he was contracted to produce the radio equipment.  He attended Stanford University, and he was not cheap.  So before you go insulting the intelligence of NASA employees and those contracted by NASA (recipients of NASA funds) please first consult my signature and consider if the person who said that would be part of the "best and brightest", because in my opinion you have no clue who the "best and brightest" are.

Alas, you did not answer my question, I know you think its a mistake, and I'm not assuming that NASA hires the best and the brightest, but by looking at photos where they included tracks, its obvious that they know that there should be tracks visible in photos(assuming they are faking them).  That is why some of the photos have tracks presumably.  So why would they decide to not include tracks in some of their photos?

And i have done tons of photos of cars (look at my picture) and every time i do i always wish i could just pick the car up and move it to exactly where i wish, but alas, its not 77.2 pounds.  That being said two astronauts moving the rover for a greaat picture seems less "ridiculous" than a NASA conspiracy.

What I am saying Tom, is that instead of going "the lunar rover made no tracks, that must mean CONSPIRACY OF ENTIRE LUNAR EXPIDITIONS!" perhaps a less radical assumption is in order.  For instance, maybe the 77.2 spread over 4 tires is not always enough to create noticeable tracks on cameras from 40 to 50 years ago.  There are a whole slew of explanations that are more reasonable than a NASA hoax, but you just ignore them and go straight for whatever supports your other ideas.

Sure NASA could have hoaxed everything, but it is far from the most likely option.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 10:38:51 PM by OrbisNonSufficit »

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #465 on: December 04, 2011, 10:30:15 PM »
Quote
You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.

Well that's the topic you were replying to. The burden of proof is solely on the ghost claimant. If the ghost claimant presents some kind of evidence for the existence of ghosts it's the skeptic's duty to challenge it, just as I have been challenging the Apollo mission photographs here.
It's not on the ghost claimant if he has provided evidence and you have failed to provide a valid counter-argument. You haven't countered any of the vast amounts of evidence that the moon expedition did take place; instead you have a paltry amount of contrary evidence that has already been countered over and over throughout the years with no follow-up arguments. It's your move, but you choose to keep winding the game back to the first move as if the previous ones never happened.


Quote
The Lunar Module is not the Lunar Rover.

How embarrassing.

Indeed, that fact is embarrassing, for you -- because the rover is even smaller and lighter than the module and the tires have a much wider surface area than the feet, meaning the explanation about the module is even more applicable to the rover. Or did you even bother to read the explanation to see if it answered your question? I thought not. Laziness.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2011, 10:32:21 PM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #466 on: December 05, 2011, 12:42:11 AM »

Well that's the topic you were replying to. The burden of proof is solely on the ghost claimant. If the ghost claimant presents some kind of evidence for the existence of ghosts it's the skeptic's duty to challenge it, just as I have been challenging the Apollo mission photographs here.

Quote

Weren't you the one claiming that man didn't land on the Moon?

Come on lazy man, do some work if you want to prove the contrary!
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #467 on: December 05, 2011, 05:46:59 AM »
Quote
You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.

Well that's the topic you were replying to. The burden of proof is solely on the ghost claimant. If the ghost claimant presents some kind of evidence for the existence of ghosts it's the skeptic's duty to challenge it, just as I have been challenging the Apollo mission photographs here.

Tom, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim, proponent or sceptic.

This is not law.  This is not "presumption of innocence" for the defendant (sceptic).   This is reality. 
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #468 on: December 05, 2011, 05:47:14 AM »
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Jeez, this guy is obsessed with trotting out accusations of fallacy in latin. Give it a rest, why don't you? I wouldn't mind so much if you were usually right, but here you're wrong again. Argumentum ad hominem is attempting to discredit an argument that someone puts forward by attacking them personally.
Here, the quote describes the methods commonly used by hoax advocates, and describes them - accurately - as lacking in verification. Attacking an argument on the basis of lacking verification is not argumentum ad hominem (as it attacks the argument logically with no comment on the poster), and describing the practice as being a common thing is also not argumentum ad hominem (as it criticises the poster but does not attempt to discredit the argument they put forward in terms of merit). Combining these two things should be called the Tausami Fallacy.
Similarly:
Saying "John Davis is a troll" is neither argumentum ad hominem nor the George Spock fallacy.
Saying "Pizza Planet's experiment was conducted with all the rigor that one would expect from a chimpanzee in a cake shop" is also not argumentum ad hominem.
Saying "Your theory has to be nonsense because it is supported by Tom Bishop" is, interestingly, a sort of argumentum ad hominem by proxy AND a kind of George Spock fallacy at the same time, though evidence would suggest it is very likely to be a 100% true statement.

No, this quote is the epitome of an ad hominem. Just because it doesn't blatantly say that we're retarded doesn't mean it isn't strongly implying it.

Tausami, you really need to understand that "argumentum ad hominem" is NOT just "being insulting about someone". It is attempting to discredit an argument by discrediting the person pitching the argument. For example "Tausami's theory is rubbish because he's a smelly, rotting chicken carcass" IS ad hominem, whereas "Tausami's theory can be ignored because he refuses to supply evidence to back it up and fails to put his claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them" is NOT ad hominem, as the non-application of rigorous science is not a personal attack on Tausami, but an attack on the quality of presented evidence.
Additionally, the statement "Hoax advocates are retarded" is NOT an ad hominem, merely an insult. To say "The argument pitched by hoax advocates is wrong BECAUSE they are retarded" IS an ad hominem. Do you see the difference?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #469 on: December 06, 2011, 12:52:25 PM »
Have fun:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

(3 seconds of intense search in Google)

Quote
The hoax advocates like to paint the picture that they are soldiers in a war against government corruption and stand for truth and justice. The thing I find most bothersome about the hoax advocates is their repeated failure to apply the scientific method, that is, the principles of discovery and demonstration considered necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. The hoax advocates routinely observe a phenomenon; they usually call it an anomaly, dream up one possible explanation for the anomaly, and then jump straight to the conclusion that their explanation is the correct one. They universally fail to put their claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them. It is this failing that irreparably damages the credibility of the hoax advocates.

He just crushed every single conspiracy theory in a paragraph. I envy that ability.

No, he didn't. He used argumentum ad hominems over and over again, and your desire to be correct caused you to agree with him.

Jeez, this guy is obsessed with trotting out accusations of fallacy in latin. Give it a rest, why don't you? I wouldn't mind so much if you were usually right, but here you're wrong again. Argumentum ad hominem is attempting to discredit an argument that someone puts forward by attacking them personally.
Here, the quote describes the methods commonly used by hoax advocates, and describes them - accurately - as lacking in verification. Attacking an argument on the basis of lacking verification is not argumentum ad hominem (as it attacks the argument logically with no comment on the poster), and describing the practice as being a common thing is also not argumentum ad hominem (as it criticises the poster but does not attempt to discredit the argument they put forward in terms of merit). Combining these two things should be called the Tausami Fallacy.
Similarly:
Saying "John Davis is a troll" is neither argumentum ad hominem nor the George Spock fallacy.
Saying "Pizza Planet's experiment was conducted with all the rigor that one would expect from a chimpanzee in a cake shop" is also not argumentum ad hominem.
Saying "Your theory has to be nonsense because it is supported by Tom Bishop" is, interestingly, a sort of argumentum ad hominem by proxy AND a kind of George Spock fallacy at the same time, though evidence would suggest it is very likely to be a 100% true statement.

No, this quote is the epitome of an ad hominem. Just because it doesn't blatantly say that we're retarded doesn't mean it isn't strongly implying it.

Tausami, you really need to understand that "argumentum ad hominem" is NOT just "being insulting about someone". It is attempting to discredit an argument by discrediting the person pitching the argument. For example "Tausami's theory is rubbish because he's a smelly, rotting chicken carcass" IS ad hominem, whereas "Tausami's theory can be ignored because he refuses to supply evidence to back it up and fails to put his claims through the rigorous testing necessary to validate them" is NOT ad hominem, as the non-application of rigorous science is not a personal attack on Tausami, but an attack on the quality of presented evidence.
Additionally, the statement "Hoax advocates are retarded" is NOT an ad hominem, merely an insult. To say "The argument pitched by hoax advocates is wrong BECAUSE they are retarded" IS an ad hominem. Do you see the difference?

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #470 on: December 06, 2011, 01:17:18 PM »

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS15-88-11902HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21836HR.jpg

http://apolloanomalies.com/images/ALSJ/AS17-143-21932HR.jpg

Look at the above images. There are no tracks leading up to the rover anywhere, at any angle. The astronauts didn't just angle it. They would have had to pick it up and carry it a ways.


If there's a problem with the tracks of the rover, it remains a problem wherever the pictures were taken. Footprints but no Rover tracks pose the same problem on Earth or on the Moon. And why should they have devised a complex staging with a crane? Why not push the Rover?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #471 on: December 06, 2011, 01:51:42 PM »

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

No, it's an ad hominem if the basis of the argument rests on an insult.
For god's sake, read this and then shut up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #472 on: December 06, 2011, 06:02:52 PM »
In the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud and the Apollo missions were faked the only response mustered is "you're trolling" and "lol."

RE'ers are in denial. It is sad to the extreme that they cannot come to terms with the fact that their authorities lying to them. Instead of beginning to seek, they bury their heads in ignorance and dogma, believing only what they are told to believe.

I understand that it is difficult to accept that everything you know about space science is a lie, but the evidence is just overwhelming: NASA is a fraud.

But I do think the authorities are lying.  NASA wasn't faked, that wasn't the point.  It was to use up production without increasing the quality of living.  The same with nuclear weapons, and anti-communist/anti-terrorist escapades, et cetera.  However, there is one thing that it is impossible to deny:  the Earth is round.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #473 on: December 06, 2011, 06:33:06 PM »

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

No, it's an ad hominem if the basis of the argument rests on an insult.
For god's sake, read this and then shut up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

Semantics. That's what I meant.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #474 on: December 06, 2011, 07:33:49 PM »

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

No, it's an ad hominem if the basis of the argument rests on an insult.
For god's sake, read this and then shut up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

Semantics. That's what I meant.
"Entirety" and "basis" mean very different things.  And the answer is, if it's the basis.  Even if there's something else involved, it's still a fallacy if the basis is an insult.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #475 on: December 07, 2011, 11:38:31 AM »
In the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud and the Apollo missions were faked the only response mustered is "you're trolling" and "lol."

RE'ers are in denial. It is sad to the extreme that they cannot come to terms with the fact that their authorities lying to them. Instead of beginning to seek, they bury their heads in ignorance and dogma, believing only what they are told to believe.

I understand that it is difficult to accept that everything you know about space science is a lie, but the evidence is just overwhelming: NASA is a fraud.

You're not getting this kind of answers.

Do type "moon hoax debunking" on Google and you'll get some answers.

And anyway the so-clled proofs are only indirect proofs: it is not by saying "hey this thing dosn't make sense" that you prove it did'nt happen.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #476 on: December 07, 2011, 01:00:56 PM »

It is an ad Hominem if the entirety of the argument is an insult.

No, it's an ad hominem if the basis of the argument rests on an insult.
For god's sake, read this and then shut up about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem


Semantics. That's what I meant.

No, it's not semantics, it's actually something completely different. Here's an illustrative example:
Tausami's stinking argument, which I find offensive and makes me want to vomit, is rubbish of the worst order, just like he usually trots out, and fails because of the utterly laughable conceit that a chicken powered car would be capable of generating the energy required to reach the moon. How stupid.

Tausami would class that as an ad hominem, but it isn't. The entire post is insulting, but ONLY attacks the argument (that a chicken powered car could reach the moon) on the basis that the car could not generate enough energy. Despite references to the effect of the argument on the reader, and references to Tausami's less than shining post history, these are not held to have any bearing on why the argument fails.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #477 on: December 07, 2011, 01:08:35 PM »
Please remember that a troll is someone who repeatedly makes the wrong argumentative choices or decisions by making small subtle and usually annoying mistakes. For example, Tausami repeatedly stating logical fallacies are in places they are not really present or feigning complete misunderstanding of their definition.

Occam's Razor: Does someone really not understand their definition under repeated circumstances or is that person purposfully making mistakes? The latter is more likely due to physical evidence that Tausami can not learn any new ideas. Therefore the first choice makes more assumptions than the latter. The latter is deemed true until further evidence is presented.

Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #478 on: December 12, 2011, 09:51:42 AM »
Occam's razor only works with a proper theory, not with a hypothesis such as FE.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« Reply #479 on: December 12, 2011, 10:13:41 AM »
Occam's razor only works with a proper theory, not with a hypothesis such as FE.

Did...did you even read my post?