|
Post by blackstar on Apr 9, 2011 9:51:44 GMT -4
It shouldn't be used unless one can prove just what quantity were analyzed to insure not just like 10% of the alleged amount brought back from the moon were analyzed. I put that video because I was curious how others would explain it. And this is where that lack of rigor comes in. Such a position is only justified if you can show that there is a viable alternative explanation as to how the samples were obtained, and by viable alternative I mean one with a shred of evidence to support it. As far as I can see you simply wish to set the bar of proof at an impossible height while giving a free pass to the HB's theories.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 8, 2011 16:48:20 GMT -4
HB=Hoax Believer Rigor is important but you've yet to show any. You want to nitpick the evidence of Apollo while failing to address whether any of the alternate theories are even feasible let alone correct.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 8, 2011 15:30:13 GMT -4
They don't identify what sample(s) of the samples were studied and by whom those sample(s) were identified, they just cite researches that analyzed some sample(s) of the samples. I still wonder if you have applied this degree of rigor to the claims of the HBs.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Mar 30, 2011 18:08:40 GMT -4
Never underestimate the possible contortions. I'm posting back and forth at another forum with someone who believes the recent tsunami never happened, that the video coming out of Japan is obvious fakes, and his major reason is that "cars don't float." I suggest pointing out that if this can float half way round the planet: gcaptain.com/emma-maersk-from-shipyard-fire-to-world-records?38having a car bob a round for a few seconds is pretty trivial. Unless he doesn't believe in container ships either?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Mar 30, 2011 17:58:47 GMT -4
I know that most of you haven't an understanding of Mathematics and Physics. So trust me when I write that it happened because it did. Really? You "know"? You haven't even taken the time to realize what sort of board you're posting on (hint - the name of the site isn't necessarily the belief of most posters). You would think the subtitle would be a pretty big hint as well, not to mention that there isn't one HB post in this thread, in fact five minutes reading just about any thread in this section of the board would tell you this isn't exactly a cozy home for HB's.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Mar 24, 2011 18:46:25 GMT -4
Well you know what happens to people so willfully ignorant of science of course, they get elected to the US Congress and start designing rockets...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Mar 3, 2011 18:14:18 GMT -4
Of course you can argue philosophically that nothing can be proved 100% but it's not a very useful argument. In the case of the moon landings we have a body of evidence for which only one coherent, rational, explanation exists; that the Apollo program sent men to the moon and brought them back to Earth along with a visual record and physical samples. The HB's have singularly failed to produce any reasonable counter theorem, and many of them fail at such a basic level that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the flaws in their reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Mar 1, 2011 19:29:54 GMT -4
There is a vast mountain of evidence Apollo landed on the moon, testimony, documents, images, and material returned to Earth that could only have formed on the moon. On the other side there is a failure to understand the physics of light, a lack of knowledge about photography, and a picture of what is claimed to be a 'C' on a rock. What should a reasonable person examining the evidence conclude? Of course if you set the bar for proof at infinite height then nothing can be proved but I wonder if you apply the same rigorous standard to those who claim that Apollo was a hoax?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Feb 21, 2011 16:05:26 GMT -4
No one back then could have imagined that anyone would ever question the moon landings, or that if they did they would get so much media attention. Head they known they would have attached a plow blade to a rover and marked out 'Apollo was here' in 100 metre high letters.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Feb 19, 2011 15:32:21 GMT -4
Hagbardceline, What is the temperature in Canada? Everyone I ask gives me a different answer. Ottawa tells me it's -11C, Calgary says it's -19C, Vancouver says it's +2C, and Yellowknife says it's -23C. Why can't they agree on one temperature? And I bet they'll give me different answers if I ask again tomorrow... or even later tonight. Obviously someone is lying to me! Okay, so there's no one answer. Calgary isn't contradicting Ottawa. Both answers are correct right now, but they'll have different answers if I ask again tomorrow. But if you were planning a trip to Canada I could tell you that it's rarely warmer than +40C or colder than -40C. And we can narrow that range even more by knowing exactly when and where you'll be visiting (summer vs. winter, north vs. south, etc.). I can tell you that you don't need to wear a parka in Toronto in June, but you might die if you wore nothing but shorts and t-shirt in Toronto in January. You can't ask for one or two measurements for the Van Allen Belt, and just because two people gave you two different answers doesn't mean they are contradicting each other. Understand? I tried the same sort of analogy but with tides, never got a response. Hagbardceline either can't or won't understand the basic concept that the belts vary and change but within a range where you can make usable predictions about them and plan a mission with a high degree of confidence. And that confidence does not have to be 100%, anymore than it does if you set sail in a boat or get in a car or catch a plane, no one can offer you a total guarantee of safety. You either decide to take the risk or you don't and the Apollo astronauts understood the risks and were willing to take them in the same way many of them had when they were test pilots. As I say at this point you have to assume he either can't understand, or simply chooses not, and I know which I'm leaning towards.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Feb 17, 2011 17:10:43 GMT -4
Here's a page for you to look at HagbardCeline, it's a BBC page forcasting the high and low tides at a port: news.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast_and_sea/tide_tables/12/523/Note that over the course of a week those tides change dramatically. If you knew nothing of how tides work you might conclude that the predictions reflect a degree of uncertainty about the nature and behaviour of the tides, rather than being the predictable variations a of system of interacting forces. You might even conclude that no one would be crazy enough to put to sea given such uncertainty, and even be indignant when others question your conclusion, or tell you that you don't know what you're talking about. To put it simply the problem isn't with the values for the Van Allen Belt you've found, the problem is your inability to understand what they mean and put them in context. Now if you choose to believe otherwise that's your affair, just don't be surprised that no one takes your questions seriously when you simply refuse to absorb the explanations being offered to you, and the physical facts that they contain.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Feb 16, 2011 19:40:32 GMT -4
How can we have a real debate here? Hagbardceline pops up, responds to a few posts, not with any useful replies, and then vanishes again, having wound people up. He seems to have descended from CT to troll. that's grossly unfair Still I'd be naive to expect anything better. I doubt if there is anything I'd say that you would not consider trolling. Oh there certainly are things you could post I wouldn't consider trolling. Anything where you provided actual numbers and a proper citation for your source would be fine, any post with documented evidence for your many claims. Sadly you've failed to do that in 55 pages and I'm not holding my breath for any radical change. Oh and on a personal note could you knock it off with the smilies, they aren't doing anything to improve you credibility and sprinkling them so freely is just annoying.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Feb 2, 2011 18:49:36 GMT -4
He seems to have descended from CT to troll. You say that as though the two categories were mutually exclusive. Perhaps I should have said to being only a troll. But the larger point remains that its impossible to have a discussion with someone indulging in this sort of hit and run posting.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Feb 1, 2011 17:59:14 GMT -4
How can we have a real debate here? Hagbardceline pops up, responds to a few posts, not with any useful replies, and then vanishes again, having wound people up. He seems to have descended from CT to troll.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jan 24, 2011 14:44:17 GMT -4
I always thought some of them might have been done by bored math and engineering college students. I think that after the original circles got attention you had something of a bandwagon with other people trying to top the originals, and yeah probably a lot of bored/stoned students involved there. Of course following such an obvious line of logic seems to be beyond CT's; they want their theories weird and incomprehensible.
|
|