Pluto flyover by New Horizons

[James Brown]

Well what a surprise! See my earlier post re what happens to whistle-blowers??

Yes, sometimes governments are harsh toward whistle blowers, ostracizing them, firing them, charging them with treason, disappearing them...

AFTER the whistle blower's message is out in the public.

So where are the messages?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But what have you provided for us to think that you're right?
You HAVE made it a positive claim. Based on what?

Er, based on total lack of evidence?

The total lack of evidence for a countering claim is not in any way positive evidence for your claim.
And, really, the fact that you deny the evidence that exists is not positive evidence that it's all faked. That would be speculation on your part, which you claim you don't do.
So, again, where's the positive evidence? Or is the concept too complicated for you?

All there is in the public arena is speculation and CGI but not one iota of proof positive.

So that's a positive claim.
You've yet to provide evidence that ANYTHING is CGI.
Speculation made without evidence can be dismissed with a hearty laugh.

Do you believe everything you're told without question?

Well, i don't believe that it's CGI without question, no.
You appear to only HAVE the questions. Nothing to support the answers you're accepting.

And it makes you look pretty fucking foolish, really, attempting to claim credibility superiority with nothing but ad hom in your pocket.

If not, then why do you believe this without question?

Because despite your twists, there IS evidence. Evidence you've given me absolutely no reason to question.
Actually, considering your charge that everything past the Moon is CGI, that silly stance makes any other explanation than yours even more credible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Er, based on total lack of evidence? All there is in the public arena is speculation and CGI but not one iota of proof positive. Do you believe everything you're told without question? If not, then why do you believe this without question?

I'm trying to imagine the CGI used to fake the first Mars flyby back in July of 1965.

I'll bet it was Disney! Walt bragged to what's-his-Russia that he owned the world's third biggest submarine fleet. He probably had CGI computers back in the 50's!

 

[Keith&Co.]

After all I said earlier about what happens to whistle-blowers you still come out with that?? [

Now that's just adorable, really.
You whine about people accepting things without question, then YOU get upset when someone doesn't just swallow 'all you've said' at face value.

You're not prepared for independent thought to question YOU and you get indignant! Hilarious, really.

You might want to stop and think about exactly what's going on, here.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm trying to imagine the CGI used to fake the first Mars flyby back in July of 1965.

The tech to deceive the poor has been around for 1000s of years. Who do you think "Satan"/"Loki" was/is?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because you don't have the scientific understanding to understand the arguments we present doesn't mean we don't.

The salient fact of the matter is that you don't - any more than I do. Indeed, any more than they do! The difference is that I don't pretend to know.

There's simple things like the parallax issue that shows how far away the transmitter is--it's not hard to understand.

- - - Updated - - -

Er, based on total lack of evidence? All there is in the public arena is speculation and CGI but not one iota of proof positive. Do you believe everything you're told without question? If not, then why do you believe this without question?

I'm trying to imagine the CGI used to fake the first Mars flyby back in July of 1965.

Why do you need CGI? Make a mock Mars and send a camera past it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Or maybe he was once one of those who believed the Moon landing was all a hoax and is slowly recovering - baby steps. In a few more years, he may realize that we have rovers on Mars but will still be denying anything further.

But this would be weird, because Moon landing was orders and orders of magnitude harder than Pluto flyby, especially considering times of the missions.

Absolutely but then conspiracy theorists don't seem to ever have the slightest grasp of basic physics. Once there is the ability to put something in low Earth orbit, sending it out of the solar system only requires more fuel, not more expertise. Landing on the moon would require much more fuel and even much more expertise.

Or then again, it all may just be an attempt to provoke responses.

This is what I think too, this is simple trolling

My thoughts too.

 

[bilby]

Er, based on total lack of evidence? All there is in the public arena is speculation and CGI but not one iota of proof positive. Do you believe everything you're told without question? If not, then why do you believe this without question?

I'm trying to imagine the CGI used to fake the first Mars flyby back in July of 1965.

Why do you need CGI? Make a mock Mars and send a camera past it.

Ah, yes; but to make a fake Mars, you need to know what Mars looks like. So first, you have to secretly send a probe on a Mars fly-by, to get the data you need to fake a Mars fly-by.

These conspiracists are both cunning and well funded, so they can do this, even though NASA could not.

Or something.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Er, based on total lack of evidence? All there is in the public arena is speculation and CGI but not one iota of proof positive. Do you believe everything you're told without question? If not, then why do you believe this without question?

I'm trying to imagine the CGI used to fake the first Mars flyby back in July of 1965.

Why do you need CGI? Make a mock Mars and send a camera past it.

Ah, yes; but to make a fake Mars, you need to know what Mars looks like. So first, you have to secretly send a probe on a Mars fly-by, to get the data you need to fake a Mars fly-by.

These conspiracists are both cunning and well funded, so they can do this, even though NASA could not.

Or something.

Huh? Since nobody had seen Mars at that point the fake need not be accurate.

 

[bilby]

Er, based on total lack of evidence? All there is in the public arena is speculation and CGI but not one iota of proof positive. Do you believe everything you're told without question? If not, then why do you believe this without question?

I'm trying to imagine the CGI used to fake the first Mars flyby back in July of 1965.

Why do you need CGI? Make a mock Mars and send a camera past it.

Ah, yes; but to make a fake Mars, you need to know what Mars looks like. So first, you have to secretly send a probe on a Mars fly-by, to get the data you need to fake a Mars fly-by.

These conspiracists are both cunning and well funded, so they can do this, even though NASA could not.

Or something.

Huh? Since nobody had seen Mars at that point the fake need not be accurate.

Gosh, really?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Huh? Since nobody had seen Mars at that point the fake need not be accurate.

"At that point," though.
You'd think that fraudsters would learn their lesson. Piltdown Man was made specifically to answer the theories of the time. As science moved on, theories changed, Pilty fit less and less well until people decided he was a sport and published without any reference to him at all.

Some dinosaur frauds were made to match the Comic Book portrayals of the time, but those became rather pointedly dated as the theories marched on. So if you're going to create a fraud that'll stand the test of time, and some of these 'frauds' (according-to-the-three-headed-Chihuahua-From-Hell) have to have lasted for generations, then you need really good facts for your fakes. The more accurate your fake, the longer it'll stand up to scrutiny.

Either that, or you have to make absolutely sure your conspiracy includes every single scientist and amateur who may contribute any observation to the sort of science you're trying to publish, and that all their observations contribute to a shared whole, a community fictional science shared-fan-fiction of space beyond Earth. So the only way to make the fraud that bullet-proof would be to send real probes so that no one who follows along after falsifies your fakes.

 

[James Brown]

It's curious how we've gone from, in post #40:

'Have we been there'? Only in 'the back yard' viz the moon; further out? No!

(Which, to my ear, sounds like a firm, definite conviction) to, in post #136:

You (nor others) have any more proof that it did take place than I have that it didn't.

Which sounds like a suitable post for the Solipsism thread over in the "Other Philosophical Discussions" board.

I wonder A) what prompted the firm, definite conviction, and B) what prompted the backing away to a defenseless thought experiment?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder A) what prompted the firm, definite conviction, and B) what prompted the backing away to a defenseless thought experiment?

Clearly, the answer to B) is all the requests to support the A).
Where the A) comes from is anyone's guess.

 

[DBT]

Odd that Russia and the EU would fake their own failed missions to Mars. If you are going to fake something, you may as well make it a successful mission.

 

[Cerberus]

Here's a question for you for a change: do you agree with my premise of what happens to whistle-blowers, bearing in mind that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are being mercilessly hounded and victimised by the full weight of the US and UK governments? If you do agree, what makes you think NASA wouldn't do the same?

One should also note that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are both still quite alive and capable of blowing their whistles, which should indicate to any rational individual that we'd expect at least a few space program whistleblowers to have come forward and blow whistles.

But maybe the alien technology confiscated by the world's various space agencies enables them to take care of whistleblowers before they blow their whistles, and they have not for some reason shared this technology with the NSA.

And from 'clutching at straws' we now descend into sarcasm. Well I always expect that - it's what those who realise they're losing an argument eventually resort to. Here are a few questions for you though, before I bow out - I'm intelligent enough to know that you can't argue against a closed mind - 1) Why didn’t NASA allocate more time for the probe do a few orbits of Pluto and take more photos – why just take the one with the ‘heart-shape’ in the momentary fly-by? 2) What’s the difference between liquid water and er water? 3) If the ‘climates’ on Pluto and Mars are so hostile to life that mankind couldn’t live there, what was the point of the missions? Why not use the funding to build a colony on the moon? And the Philae thing - when it bounced after first landing on the asteroid, how come the asteroid was still there when it came back down when asteroids travel at 280.000mph? If I think of any more questions I'll get back to you!

 

[DBT]

Cerberus, we have examples of whistle blowers in relation to politics, business practices, religious organizations, etc, but not one whistle blower who works or ever worked in the field of space exploration, that I can recall, has ever gone public and claimed that all the probes/landers/missions beyond the moon have been faked.

Can you give an example? Can you name one whistle blower in relation to claims of fake space missions?

 

[Cerberus]

Cerberus, we have examples of whistle blowers in relation to politics, business practices, religious organizations, etc, but not one whistle blower who works or ever worked in the field of space exploration, that I can recall, has ever gone public and claimed that all the probes/landers/missions beyond the moon have been faked.

Can you give an example? Can you name one whistle blower in relation to claims of fake space missions?

No I can't, but that's not to say someone hasn't broken ranks and gone public; but what would be their motivation, knowing full well that they'll be ignored?

 

[barbos]

One should also note that Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are both still quite alive and capable of blowing their whistles, which should indicate to any rational individual that we'd expect at least a few space program whistleblowers to have come forward and blow whistles.

But maybe the alien technology confiscated by the world's various space agencies enables them to take care of whistleblowers before they blow their whistles, and they have not for some reason shared this technology with the NSA.

And from 'clutching at straws' we now descend into sarcasm. Well I always expect that - it's what those who realise they're losing an argument eventually resort to. Here are a few questions for you though, before I bow out - I'm intelligent enough to know that you can't argue against a closed mind - 1) Why didn’t NASA allocate more time for the probe do a few orbits of Pluto and take more photos

LOL, now I understand why NASA did not hire you. Sorry to blow your bubble but you are not intelligent at all.

– why just take the one with the ‘heart-shape’ in the momentary fly-by? 2) What’s the difference between liquid water and er water? 3) If the ‘climates’ on Pluto and Mars are so hostile to life that mankind couldn’t live there, what was the point of the missions? Why not use the funding to build a colony on the moon? And the Philae thing - when it bounced after first landing on the asteroid, how come the asteroid was still there when it came back down when asteroids travel at 280.000mph? If I think of any more questions I'll get back to you!

Wow, you really have something going on in your head.

 

[DBT]

Cerberus, we have examples of whistle blowers in relation to politics, business practices, religious organizations, etc, but not one whistle blower who works or ever worked in the field of space exploration, that I can recall, has ever gone public and claimed that all the probes/landers/missions beyond the moon have been faked.

Can you give an example? Can you name one whistle blower in relation to claims of fake space missions?

No I can't, but that's not to say someone hasn't broken ranks and gone public; but what would be their motivation, knowing full well that they'll be ignored?

Why would a whistle blower who had evidence for fraud on a monumental scale, evidence that would make world wide news, become the story of century, be ignored by the media? Snowden, Assange, et al, had verifiable evidence, secret documents revealed, etc, and were not ignored. It's just a matter of evidence. Not claims. Not your claim. You have nothing to support your claim (whether you are serious, or not).

 

[Cerberus]

You should be getting ready for school, barbos. I hope you're not bunking off?