Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 23, 2005 13:38:25 GMT -4
You are ultimately gullible. A snake-oil salesman could make a mint off you. Judging by her expressed beliefs on this thread this has probably already happened, I'm afraid...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 23, 2005 13:41:01 GMT -4
You might want to ask Sibrel...
I have. Sibrel cannot name any of the "leading scientists" who agree with him.
In any case the question was not whether Bart Sibrel has any scientists who endorse his findings, but whether you have any such scientists. Apparently you don't because you're simply referring me to another source whom you didn't bother to confirm.
...he [Sibrel] says: "The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal (who were generally in preschool at the time of the first alleged moon landing) do so by the following deduction...
False. The leading scientists of today are those who discovered the Van Allen belts and include Prof. James Van Allen himself. Dr. Van Allen has confirmed through personal correspondence to me that there is nothing about cislunar radiation that makes manned travel to the moon impossible.
And since Sibrel cannot name any such sources, there is no evidence that any scientists believe as he says they do, nor that they follow the line of reasoning he ascribes to them. Sibrel simply makes up a straw-man line of reasoning, attributes it to unnamed "experts" and pretends that he has thus refuted the notion that qualified scientists, to a man, dispute his findings.
ppl at edison's time just thought like you.
Not about Edison they didn't. Edison was rightly praised by his peers as a genius.
You seem to be trying to lump me into some category. Can I safely assume that you reject all mainstream science?
I am still not convinced, that the other scientists are not scientists.
Whether you are convinced or not is irrelevant. Can you cite any evidence for qualified scientists who endorse your beliefs?
I have no way to judge, was just suggesting that they may be right.
But they may be wrong as well. Since they have no academic or professional credentials that would otherwise give some weight to their claims, we have to judge the claims themselves on their merits. Since the claims get factual information wrong and scientific principles wrong, the claims fail on their merits.
The claimants have no foundation nor inherent credibility. On what basis should they be believed? On the extremely slim chance that these uneducated, inexperienced people are somehow going to be proven right according to future principles that entirely contravene what has been working for hundreds of years?
...and I still am convinced you may be wrong
It is obvious that you remain convinced that I am wrong. However you can provide no argument for the rightness of your belief and the wrongness of mine. You simply assert that it is possible for me to be wrong and for you to be right, and you reassert your belief.
Your sole criterion for a source's credibility seems to be whether it confirms what you already intend to believe.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 23, 2005 13:51:59 GMT -4
Then I came upon a highly credible source, in his late seventies, who I verified worked for the space program during the 1960s.
Bill Kasying. Kaysing is indeed a "highly credible source" -- it says so right in Kaysing's own conspiracy theory book, which he admitted later he wrote in order to punish the U.S. government for its treatment of Vietnam War veterans. People who have political axes to grind are always "highly credible sources". :-)
And Kaysing really did work for the space program in the 1960s. He worked for Rocketdyne, a major manufacturer of rocket engines. He was a librarian, not an engineer. His training was in English literature, and he managed the library at one of their field offices.
He's certainly not a scientist. Not even close. In fact, some of the other conspiracy theorists -- themselves not even scientists -- ridicule Kaysing for his lack of technical sophistication.
He asserted, most confidently, that the Apollo moon landings were first, impossible, and second, falsified as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into thinking the United States had greater capability than it really did.
But of course the Soviets were no dummies, and Bart Sibrel argues strenuously that the Soviets were well ahead of the United States in the 1960s in space technology. So if it was known to U.S. scientists that landing on the moon was impossible, it had to be known also to the Soviets that landing on the moon was impossible. So how in the world is pretending to do something impossible going to fool the Soviets into thinking we have great capability?
You don't even have to know who Kaysing and Sibrel are to see through the obvious nonsense in their arguments. They have no evidence for any of this; they're just making it up as they go. They're not even particularly convincing storytellers.
So you have completely deferred to Bart Sibrel on the issue of expert endorsement. We have already contacted Sibrel, and all he does when we ask for names is spew profanity.
Who is your next star witness?
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
Post by lonewulf on Nov 23, 2005 15:04:07 GMT -4
Who is your next star witness?
I predict none, since she "left forever", dude.
|
|