View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Should skeptics be ignored?

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Re: Should skeptics be ignored?

Postby Arouet » 11 Mar 2013, 06:51

SydneyPSIder wrote:haha, very funny. Don't you mean that you've had your ass handed to you on a plate so many times now based on the facts, evidence and likely probabilities


You know, just stating this confidently doesn't change the way these discussions actually went.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: Should skeptics be ignored?

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Mar 2013, 07:07

Arouet wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:haha, very funny. Don't you mean that you've had your ass handed to you on a plate so many times now based on the facts, evidence and likely probabilities


You know, just stating this confidently doesn't change the way these discussions actually went.

They went perfectly well against you.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Should skeptics be ignored?

Postby Arouet » 11 Mar 2013, 07:11

You heard back from White yet to help you come up with counterarguments to mine?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Should skeptics be ignored?

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Mar 2013, 13:51

Arouet wrote:You heard back from White yet to help you come up with counterarguments to mine?

Are you saying you have access to hard, independently verified research that travelling through the van Allen belts and then for half a million miles in space at a time of peak solar winds and flares means you will have no problems with radiation poisoning/sickness and will live to a hearty old age like most of the alleged astronauts have?

Further, why is it that after Russian cosmonauts are in weightless conditions for 11 days they have to be ferried out of their lander craft on a stretcher, but the US 'astronauts' leap forward from their landers saluting and waving and giving press conferences moments later? As though, for instance, they just went up in a C4 plane and were ejected out of it and landed via parachute descent. Note also that the lander modules float too high in the water, as though they don't have the weight for the moon trip they are supposed to have, they are several tons too light.

Plus the terrible problems the Apollo 17 astronauts claimed to have had with their 'hands' which had no nails and were chafed and bleeding from the pressurised gloves up there on the moon, and were suddenly healed completely on landing while they wielded hunting knives on the rescuing Navy ship?

And why do US astronauts bounce around on the moon falling over and cracking jokes and kicking rocks while they could ostensibly die horribly at any moment from a spacesuit leak or malfunction from falling over or from a micro-meteorite striking them at 20,000 mph, thus disgracing the mission for the US and ensuring the cancellation of future missions due to the ignominy and risk?

But just prove to me the radiation levels are safe via your own measurements or the independently verified measurements of others for a start. In particular the largest solar flare of the 20th century up to that time occurred (supposedly) mid-flight in the Apollo 16 mission.

And because you apparently can't understand or make sense of the very obvious evidence and probabilities (or improbabilities), that is why pseudosceps should be ignored.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Should skeptics be ignored?

Postby Arouet » 11 Mar 2013, 20:32

Honestly, what I see from you Sydney, is a tendency to only engage on these topics by throwing out a bunch of snippets of issues (such as you did here) - but when it comes through going into each snippet in more detail, to see if they hold up, you quickly move on saying something along the lines of: Ok that one doesn't hold up, but look at all these other areas!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Should skeptics be ignored?

Postby really? » 12 Mar 2013, 03:38

Arouet wrote:Honestly, what I see from you Sydney, is a tendency to only engage on these topics by throwing out a bunch of snippets of issues (such as you did here) - but when it comes through going into each snippet in more detail, to see if they hold up, you quickly move on saying something along the lines of: Ok that one doesn't hold up, but look at all these other areas!


I don't know if you've read this Arouet, but if you have time please do.
Let the Best Ideas Win: Should Skeptics Engage Conspiracy Theorists Directly? viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2722
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Should skeptics be ignored?

Postby SydneyPSIder » 12 Mar 2013, 16:28

Arouet wrote:Honestly, what I see from you Sydney, is a tendency to only engage on these topics by throwing out a bunch of snippets of issues (such as you did here) - but when it comes through going into each snippet in more detail, to see if they hold up, you quickly move on saying something along the lines of: Ok that one doesn't hold up, but look at all these other areas!

I'm not sure what you're saying, apart from detecting a lot of empty attempts at smear instead of actual logical argument.

Are you saying you have hard, irrefutable, independently verified evidence that Apollo astronauts could not have been harmed by the radiation they would have received if they went through the van Allen belts twice and were exposed to solar radiation for several days protected by very little, including a period of the biggest recorded solar flare of the century?

If you can't produce that evidence, you've pretty well lost the debate outright.

Or are you saying you've found errors in White's analysis? If that's the case, I've said before you should take it up directly with him -- message him on Facebook, email him or post on his youtube account. Emailing him with a single, concise summary of your rebuttal of his points would probably be most effective. He may respond, he often responds to his critics, and often publicly on youtube.

You seemed to write a lot of garbled stuff over one thread that nobody could follow, and, as you yourself have said in the past, 'I'm not going through pages of posts to find out what was said'.

In the meantime, here's another couple of fake NASA pictures, where the earth is of course way too small in the sky for a start, it would be several times bigger than the moon we see as it is so much larger but at the same distance. Apart from the obvious cut and paste effort by NASA 'artists', of course.

Image

Image

Image

The angular size of the Moon viewed from the Earth is about half a degree. Since the diameter of the Earth is about four times that of the Moon, the Earth viewed from the Moon should appear to be about four times as wide as the Moon viewed from the Earth, or 2 degrees. Here, as it is, the pasted Earth appears to be about half the diameter of the Moon from Earth.

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_b.html

The fact that Arouet is not the least bit 'sceptical' of the official story of the Apollo moon account, despite the considerable amount of evidence amassed just on the http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm site, amongst many other sites, suggests that he is not in this to be a 'sceptic' at all, he has another agenda — to discredit any criticism of the reality of the manned moon landings. His refusal to look at or accept any of the considerable pile of evidence, brushing it off with 'there's too many pages of info on the thread now', and continually harping on a rebuttal nobody could follow, and his false assertions that 'evasion repeatedly happens' clearly suggests that it's something beyond even pseudoscepticism, he's probably one of these casual intelligence workers for the spooks. Presumably the same applies to his colleagues here — if not, they must really(?) just be sick in the head.

Either way, it just confirms again that pseudosceptics should be ignored.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Previous

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron