• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Pluto flyover by New Horizons

I attribute this sarcasm and hostility to embarrassment: I've forced you to doubt yourselves. That's okay, I can live with that!

"First Alien Auroras Found, Are 1 Million Times Brighter Than Any On Earth"

It'd be so much more impressive if they'd 'found' one which is 2 millions times brighter than any on earth though. Jesus wept, some people will believe anything!
Head%20Banger.gif

What part of that report, if it's backed up with data, is hard to believe? Do you think that it's impossible for auroras to be much brighter than they are on earth? Do you realize how big the universe is?
 
You made positive claims. You stated, for example, that CGI graphics were used to fake this mission. Provide your evidence that this occurred. NASA made a positive claim - that they went to Pluto. Their evidence is in the form of armies of eye witnesses and participants in the project, and photographic and telemetric data as evidence as well.

Ok, I have to side with Cerberus in this one.

No scientist would ever want to build a spacecraft to look at things... that is totally unscientific! In fact, scientists don't like refining their talents and accomplishing feats that their predecessors could only dream of. Not one bit.

It's like everyone here doesn't understand the psychology of rich scientists who have managed to secure billions of dollars in funding. They don't want to accomplish actual engineering marvels- they just want to trick people like Cerberus and live in their multi-million dollar mansions.

Science is not like sports, in which the best players rise to the top by accomplishing various things that they enjoy accomplishing.

Like people actually play sports. It's all done with CGI, dude.
 
The FBI don't do anything. It's just an organisation of thousands of people who pretend to investigate crimes, arrest people, etc. They hire people on the pretence of training them to be FBI agents, investigators, etc. but once they reach a certain level they are told that they won't actually be doing the job they wanted to do, but will spend their days pretending to do the job people think the FBI do. Instead they will actually be writing fake investigation reports, concocting fake evidence of crimes, releasing hoaxed details about hoaxed crimes to the mainstream press, etc. If any new hirees dare to speak out then their will be threatened that they will never work in "law enforcement" again so no-one dares speak out. It's all just a scam to make the US government hand over huge budgets of money never spent on the things it's meant to so thousands of people can have easy jobs doing nothing difficult but hoaxing all the crimes and investigation and shit the FBI supposedly does.

It's at least as plausible or dumb as Cerberus's harebrained proposals in this thread and I've provided the same amount of provable and tangible evidence as he has too!

Bullshit. I deny the existence of an organization called the FBI. There is no such thing and any evidence that you attempt to present to me to the contrary is obviously just more cover-up. I know this because I know this.
TBH I expected something along the lines of "They know, of course, but the embarrassment would be too big, so they let it slide", but I see now that taking over denialists on the right has its charm, too. I've just finished reading Ubik, and feels like Philip K. Dick was onto something there.
 
Ok, I have to side with Cerberus in this one.

No scientist would ever want to build a spacecraft to look at things... that is totally unscientific! In fact, scientists don't like refining their talents and accomplishing feats that their predecessors could only dream of. Not one bit.

It's like everyone here doesn't understand the psychology of rich scientists who have managed to secure billions of dollars in funding. They don't want to accomplish actual engineering marvels- they just want to trick people like Cerberus and live in their multi-million dollar mansions.

Science is not like sports, in which the best players rise to the top by accomplishing various things that they enjoy accomplishing.

Like people actually play sports. It's all done with CGI, dude.

You caught me making things up. Again. Why do I even try? :shrug:
 
Politicians cannot be real, real people cannot act like that. Impossible, must be all CGI.

But of course the Upper echelons of the world elite are all shape shifting aliens who secretly thrive on human flesh.

Everyone should know that:
''They are among us. Blood-drinking, flesh-eating, shape-shifting extraterrestrial reptilian humanoids with only one objective in their cold-blooded little heads: to enslave the human race. They are our leaders, our corporate executives, our beloved Oscar-winning actors and Grammy-winning singers, and they're responsible for the Holocaust, the Oklahoma City bombings and the 9/11 attacks ... at least according to former BBC sports reporter David Icke, who became the poster human for the theory in 1998 after publishing his first book, The Biggest Secret, which contained interviews with two Brits who claimed members of the royal family are nothing more than reptiles with crowns''
 
I attribute this sarcasm and hostility to embarrassment: I've forced you to doubt yourselves. That's okay, I can live with that!

"First Alien Auroras Found, Are 1 Million Times Brighter Than Any On Earth"

It'd be so much more impressive if they'd 'found' one which is 2 millions times brighter than any on earth though. Jesus wept, some people will believe anything!
Head%20Banger.gif

What part of that report, if it's backed up with data, is hard to believe? Do you think that it's impossible for auroras to be much brighter than they are on earth? Do you realize how big the universe is?

But it isn't 'backed up with data' is it! You're believing it for no other reason than you want to believe it, which is irrational!
Head%20Banger.gif
WTF do I bother? :rolleyes:
 
Asking you to support what you've claimed you have is hostility?
Pointing out your utter failure to provide the tangible evidence you claim you base your every belief on is sarcasm?

That's a really special sort of outlook, Timmy. You've got speculation and nothing else and claim it's equivalent to tons of evidence because you, personally, discount the evidence.
to embarrassment: I've forced you to doubt yourselves.
No doubt expressed except towards your claims.

But, hey, you're clearly more comfortable in fantasy worlds than scientific investigation, so have a blast with your wonder-world fantasy.

Read my lips - I can't bloody support something which hasn't happened any more than you can. ( :rolleyes: adults with the rationale of children; dumbing down - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!)
 
The FBI don't do anything. It's just an organisation of thousands of people who pretend to investigate crimes, arrest people, etc. They hire people on the pretence of training them to be FBI agents, investigators, etc. but once they reach a certain level they are told that they won't actually be doing the job they wanted to do, but will spend their days pretending to do the job people think the FBI do. Instead they will actually be writing fake investigation reports, concocting fake evidence of crimes, releasing hoaxed details about hoaxed crimes to the mainstream press, etc. If any new hirees dare to speak out then their will be threatened that they will never work in "law enforcement" again so no-one dares speak out. It's all just a scam to make the US government hand over huge budgets of money never spent on the things it's meant to so thousands of people can have easy jobs doing nothing difficult but hoaxing all the crimes and investigation and shit the FBI supposedly does.

It's at least as plausible or dumb as Cerberus's harebrained proposals in this thread and I've provided the same amount of provable and tangible evidence as he has too!

Bullshit. I deny the existence of an organization called the FBI. There is no such thing and any evidence that you attempt to present to me to the contrary is obviously just more cover-up. I know this because I know this.

You shouldn't you know - they real and active for all to see (you know what I mean - think 'tangible?) in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington DC. Here's a link lest you doubt it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

No need to thank me! :rolleyes:
 
Bullshit. I deny the existence of an organization called the FBI. There is no such thing and any evidence that you attempt to present to me to the contrary is obviously just more cover-up. I know this because I know this.

You shouldn't you know - they real and active for all to see (you know what I mean - think 'tangible?) in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington DC. Here's a link lest you doubt it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

No need to thank me! :rolleyes:

You're just repeating what you've read.
 
Read my lips - I can't bloody support something which hasn't happened any more than you can. ( :rolleyes: adults with the rationale of children; dumbing down - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!)
But according to you, you are supporting something that has happened. You're not merely being skeptical about New Horizons, you're asserting the existence of a decades long conspiracy at NASA and other space agencies involving hundreds of thousands of CGI images, faking science data, bullying employees into getting involved with the conspiracy, etc.

Where's your real tangible evidence (you have asserted that you only believe things that have real and tangible evidence for) for this decades long conspiracy and coverup that you positively assert is happening at NASA and other space agencies?

Why do you refuse to provide the evidence that must exist if what you said about only believing things that have real and tangible evidence is true?
 
Bullshit. I deny the existence of an organization called the FBI. There is no such thing and any evidence that you attempt to present to me to the contrary is obviously just more cover-up. I know this because I know this.

You shouldn't you know - they real and active for all to see (you know what I mean - think 'tangible?) in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington DC. Here's a link lest you doubt it:
But that's just a building. What makes you think that the FBI are actually active inside that building? I could provide you with photographs of NASA's launch pads, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory or Arizona State University or other instititutes that are affiliated with NASA's probes that have gone beyond the moon that you say never happened. Why should the existence of the J. Edgar Hoover building prove that the FBI is a non-hoaxed organisation any more than the existence of NASA institutes and buildings would prove to you that NASA aren't hoaxing space probe missions?

No need to thank me! :rolleyes:
Do you think that Wikipedia articles prove the existence of the FBI? Why doesn't Wikipedia prove the existence of any of dozens of space probes that you assert don't actually exist?
 
But according to you, you are supporting something that has happened. You're not merely being skeptical about New Horizons, you're asserting the existence of a decades long conspiracy at NASA and other space agencies involving hundreds of thousands of CGI images, faking science data, etc.

Where's your real tangible evidence (you have asserted that you only believe things that have real and tangible evidence for) for this decades long conspiracy and coverup that you positively assert is happening at NASA and other space agencies? Why do you refuse to provide the evidence that must exist if what you said about only believing things that have real and tangible evidence is true?

No, that's according to you (that it has happened); and as I keep saying - I can't provide tangible evidence for something which didn't/hasn't take/taken place. You can reveal your tangible evidence that it did if you like?? (I give up, I really do!)
 
According to, well, lots of places, in the afternoon of November 28, 1964, an Atlas-D rocket blasted into the sky from Cape Canaveral, Florida. The launch was conducted in plain sight of the public. Less than an hour later, the Mariner 4 probe was released into a Mars transfer orbit.

Seven and a half months later, on July 14, 1965, Mariner 4 reached Mars. The probe did not have the fuel or ability to enter an orbit--it was a flyby mission. The probe took 22 pictures of the Martian surface, stored them on on-board tape recorders, and began transmitting the data back to Earth. It took over two weeks for the 634 kb of data to be fully transmitted--twice, for redundancy.

120px-Mariner_4_craters.gif

Mariner 4 suffered several collisions with micrometeorites after its Mars flyby and ran out of fuel in its attitude control system. Communications with the probe was officially ceased on December 21, 1967, more than three years after launch.

That's the official record of what happened. That's what the majority of people here on this board and elsewhere understand what happened. It was an historic, ground-breaking mission. Before this, Mars was just a dot in the sky. Thanks to Mariner 4, Mars was now a world, a planet with craters and mountain ranges and a thin atmosphere. Mars became a place where one day, people could stand. Mars became real in the 1960s like it never had before.

However, you, Cerberus, have declared that none of that happened. What we want to know is what you think actually happened. Did the Atlas-D rocket not really launch? Was the probe not released? Did Mariner 4 not really reach Mars? Did it not take scientific measurements and photos? Was that data not transmitted back to Earth? Did someone fake those photos? If the whole thing was faked, why did NASA fake the failures of Mariners 1, 2, and 3? What actually happened?

And more importantly, what is your evidence?
 
No, that's according to you (that it has happened); and as I keep saying
No, it's not according to me. You have positively asserted in this thread that the images from New Horizons are computer generated imagery. You have also positively asserted that there is a policy as NASA to hire new people, not let them know about the wide ranging conspiracy to fake dozens of space probe missions, and to bully them in to not blowing the whistle when they become aware of the massive conspiracy going on inside NASA.

Do you not remember saying those things in this thread? I can quote you if your memory and ability to reread the thread is somehow faulty.

I'll let slide for now the implicit ridicilous implications of your assertions that involve multiple space agencies across multiple countries, multiple government administrations and going back at least 5 decades, and just insist that you provide the evidence that you have for the positive assertion that the images from New Horizons have been generated on computers by NASA and that there is a policy at NASA to bully employees into not leaking the conspiracy happening in the organisation.

Where is your tangible and proven evidence for these positive claims that you have asserted?
 
Cerberus, when asked about NASA scientists smiling when being interviewed or appearing in the media, you positively asserted the following:

They're smiling because people like you are providing them with a lucrative job for life
That's not mere skepticism about something happening or not happening, it's a positive assertion from you that NASA scientists smile in the media because they have a lucrative job for life involving them hoaxing space probe missions. You followed that up with a later post querying this where you asserted that NASA scientists must be good actors. Again, not mere skepticism about something, but a positive assertion that you must have provable and tangible evidence for as apparently you don't believe anything otherwise.

You have also asserted the following about the "charlatans" involved in the hoax:
They've invented a whole new lexicon intended to impress and beguile in order to sustain the mystique
Again, you have failed to provide an iota of evidence for this despite it being a positive claim and not mere skepticism about NASA.

You have made the following positive claim about what happens when NASA hire people:
If you accepted a post you would obviously start on the lower rungs of the ladder, like you would if you were accepting a position in any other firm, and would therefore not be entitled to a considered opinion. If you declared that you suspect 'it's all a lie' they'll tell you to take it, or leave it, and wouldn't care either way (in fact if you did have the temerity to ask that question during the interview you wouldn't even be offered the post - they'd say 'Next applicant please.'). If you took the post despite those restrictions, and subsequently 'made waves' within it - ie became a whistle-blower - you'd be sacked and never be employed in the same field ever again.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. You have made multiple positive claims about NASA and have asserted that you only believe things that you have provable and tangible evidence for. Therefore it is only rational to conclude that you must have provable and tangible evidence for these claims.

Yet you refuse to provide the evidence and also insist that you have nothing to prove because you haven't made any positive claims. You're fooling nobody.

Where is your provable and tangible evidence that you have for the claims above?
 
Asking you to support what you've claimed you have is hostility?
Pointing out your utter failure to provide the tangible evidence you claim you base your every belief on is sarcasm?

That's a really special sort of outlook, Timmy. You've got speculation and nothing else and claim it's equivalent to tons of evidence because you, personally, discount the evidence. No doubt expressed except towards your claims.

But, hey, you're clearly more comfortable in fantasy worlds than scientific investigation, so have a blast with your wonder-world fantasy.

Read my lips - I can't bloody support something which hasn't happened any more than you can.
Read your own fucking lips, Cerberus. You say that CGI HAS happened.
You've said that fraud HAS HAPPENED.
You've described the hiring practices that HAPPEN. In NASA just like every other company.

You have described a lot of shit that HAS HAPPENED. THAT should be something you could provide evidence for.
Positive claims, you know? Or maybe you don't know. It's kind of a complicated thing, being able to make shit up versus being a credible witness to history.

Maybe it is too complicated for you....
 
Cerberus, when asked about NASA scientists smiling when being interviewed or appearing in the media, you positively asserted the following:
At this point, i think the most important thing he's asserted is his belief that he's somehow won. He's not going to provide evidence for this, either, because it would dash his self image to acknowledge the truth.
So maybe he'll retire, undefeated, at a game he really doesn't know how to play....
 
I can't provide tangible evidence for something which didn't/hasn't take/taken place.
That's actually kind of trivial.

Say, we wanted to make a positive claim that you NEVER provided evidence for YOUR claims.
But you say we can't prove a negative?
Well, we turn it into a positive.
We'll examine a claim that "Cerberus HAD provided evidence for his positive claims."
If that were true, we find that evidence in this thread, in one of his posts.
That is not true. An examination of Cerberus' posts finds no positive evidence for any of his positive claims.

So, the statement "Cerberus has supports his claims with evidence" is a false claim. That would make the opposite claim, that "Cerberus has provided no evidence for his various positive claims" a factual statement.
And thus, we have established the fact-ticity of a negative claim.

Despite Cerberus' also-false statement that it cannot be done.


Even though that has nothing to do with the specific, positive claims you've made and been challenged to support, but weasel out of.
 
What part of that report, if it's backed up with data, is hard to believe? Do you think that it's impossible for auroras to be much brighter than they are on earth? Do you realize how big the universe is?

But it isn't 'backed up with data' is it! You're believing it for no other reason than you want to believe it, which is irrational!
Head%20Banger.gif
WTF do I bother? :rolleyes:

How do you know it isn't backed up with data? Have you checked?

Incidentally, what would be the kind of data that would convince you it was true? Specifically.

Would you accept a publication in a peer-reviewed journal as data? Like this one, for instance?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7562/full/nature14619.html
 
Back
Top Bottom