THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby ICfreely on July 14th, 2015, 5:09 am

All apologies Selene! I'm so sorry for my irrational 'attacks' against 'science.' All praise be to Copernicus & Democritus - the pillars of 'scientific' thought!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby hoi.polloi on July 17th, 2015, 5:21 am

First of all, ICfreely, I want to say I respect your explication of the "Protocols" document, even though it still feels quite loose. And I want to say Selene's annoyance is kind of understandable.

Though I am not defending official personalities, I would also come to the defense of certain scientific ideals, such as the rational reasoning we all attempt (regardless of our result).

I must say, even if it's not really important, that I don't fully agree with either of your writing styles, for just a couple reasons: they are a bit too much about you, but it's not rewarding to the reader to find any personal logic within. ICfreely, I thank you again for your posts. They are appreciated. But please do take the slight constructive criticism (as lightly as you would) that perhaps occasionally you can offer some grounding and less total satire. Maybe I am wrong. Anyway, I am going to move the last few posts to the derailing room.

How you — Selene — managed to slide in two non sequitur "disagreements" with me without actually addressing those points in the available threads renews my feeling that you are not focused on arguing fairly or logically.

You say:

Hoi.pollois "attack on geology" by calling "archeological sites" is far below his standards and what he has accomplished on this forum and on 9/11.


This sentence doesn't actually make sense.

We may differ in personalities and levels of trust of other people (I consider "do not trust anyone but yourself" an impossible, cold, harsh and foolish way or living), I respect him for his work and intelligence.


You may say that, but nobody on the Internet has demonstrated anything close to a mastery of discovering who is or is not a real person using the simulation devices we have available to us. Therefore, it's a straw man to accuse anyone of using their Internet protocols as their philosophy on life.

I do appreciate your defense of "logic" or "reasoning". However, this discussion has gotten so obtuse, it really only can exist here in the Derailing Room or the CHATBOX.

Do you want to tell me what attacks you think I am making on what topics? I really do not get what I am being accused of here.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Malaysia Flight MH17

Postby Tarek701 on July 17th, 2015, 8:45 am

A new video appeared in media. The MH17 crash aftermath.

Video:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K70igRdKVhA

Source:
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/never-before-seen-footage-reveals-russian-backed-rebels-arriving-at-the-wreckage-of-mh17/story-fnizu68q-1227444676268
Tarek701
Member
 
Posts: 35
Joined: November 17th, 2013, 3:28 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby ICfreely on July 17th, 2015, 9:53 am

Fair enough hoi. Points taken.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: Malaysia Flight MH17

Postby hoi.polloi on July 17th, 2015, 2:40 pm

Tarek701, have you no original thoughts to add to your post? Or are we just posting videos from the media now? Please, can you add some critique when you post? Explanation? Anything? Otherwise, what's the point?

When topics turn into nothing but people updating each other on the latest YouTube videos, we have clearly lost the will to do actual research on a topic, and you may as well be on Facebook.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Selene on July 17th, 2015, 3:49 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:How you — Selene — managed to slide in two non sequitur "disagreements" with me without actually addressing those points in the available threads renews my feeling that you are not focused on arguing fairly or logically.

You say:

Hoi.pollois "attack on geology" by calling "archeological sites" is far below his standards and what he has accomplished on this forum and on 9/11.


This sentence doesn't actually make sense.


Imagine the following:

The topic is not dinos but dentistry. I post a piece of text where I state that dentistry is false, corrupt, all dentists are conspirators of a big hoax. In my rant against dentists I suddenly bring urology into the story.


Imagine you are a dental surgeon. Not really a dentist, but in a related field of expertise and you know dentists and have knowledge about dentistry.

I would be glad if you'd correct my stupid mistake of bringing into the story urology which is also medical but has nothing to do with the dental part of our bodies.

The dentist and dentistry is paleontology and urology is archeology.

Bringing "archeological sites" into a discussion about paleontology really is a basic completely laymans mistake.

I consider your intelligence higher, so it was not an "accusation" or "non-sequitur", but a word of warning to try to help you not making a fool out of yourself and a compliment in one.

It keeps amazing me how you take everything so negatively, how you start a defensive mode.

We may differ in personalities and levels of trust of other people (I consider "do not trust anyone but yourself" an impossible, cold, harsh and foolish way or living), I respect him for his work and intelligence.


You may say that, but nobody on the Internet has demonstrated anything close to a mastery of discovering who is or is not a real person using the simulation devices we have available to us. Therefore, it's a straw man to accuse anyone of using their Internet protocols as their philosophy on life.

I do appreciate your defense of "logic" or "reasoning". However, this discussion has gotten so obtuse, it really only can exist here in the Derailing Room or the CHATBOX.

Do you want to tell me what attacks you think I am making on what topics? I really do not get what I am being accused of here.


When I say "attack" in most cases I mean intelligently criticise "the official story". You may see the world in a different way, I stick to the reality that for 95% of the people the MSM version of things is the truth. We may not like that, but it would be foolish to deny reality. So, yes, in order to convince those people, we need "September Clueses", we need content, weight, coverage of all aspects of the hoax/fakery to counterweight the propagandised version of "reality". And as I mentioned; for many topics that is there. On the dinos it's not. It doesn't have the same status in an investigation, that's my only remark.

How you write about me or any other person for that matter astonishes me even more. You write about people on the internet like they are some entity or bots or shill community or I don't know what kind of They Live scene.

The reality is that the vast majority of people in the world is not corrupt, conspiring, lying all the time, immoral, faking, etc. etc. They are just normal human beings. On the internet that may be slightly distorted or tweaked, and indeed your entities are there, but how you keep putting me in that same category (but no worries; you do not discriminate, you do that to everyone), I really cannot comprehend.

That's what I mean with a completely opposite personality. People outside of these NASA/MSM/political corrupt world are both the majority and as I recognise all around the world; moral.

Creating schisms amongst these normal people I think is exactly what the powers in play want us to do.

I may differ in opinion with ICFreely, his style when attacking the right ones (AGW) is refreshing. I have no problem with him/her whatsoever, only the same point about the urology and the Inuit 9/11 terrorists; don't make a fool out of yourself by completely twisting and turning "the mainstream view" (there's no "official story" in geology) into a silly strawman.

All this is on top of the remaining questions I asked in the Dino Hoax topic. If you suppose Dinos are a Hoax (and (which) other fossils too?), then it should be a piece of cake to answer them.

Just like when you or Simon or another person gets interviewed on (internet) radio or so on other topics; you would not make the mistake to twist the official story (point 1) and you would be able to confidently answer critical questions on for most people in the world still incomprehensible views as "CGI fakery", "non-existing jumpers", "4 meter tall men" and freely (IC or not :P ) explain the vicsims, etc. You are strong in the discussion as your arguments count and stand.

In all honesty and objective view on the Dino Hoax, do you regard that of the same quality, strength and thus status in the battle for truth in the world?

A Dino Hoax is to me just as strategic, non-existing and sneaking into the real truth seeking community as Flat Earth. And both too silly to maintain as the invalidity of them are proven so easily.

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby hoi.polloi on July 17th, 2015, 4:48 pm

Once again, I think you are miscategorizing me, and this simply has to do with our policy of not getting into miscommunications, but instead asking people to work on accepting them, and when it's possible correcting them.

You also really exaggerate and assign emotions and motivations to me that aren't true. You read me "negatively" when I feel I am typing neutrally or simply making it plain what the problem is. Perhaps you can blame the flaws in my writing style. That's fine. I am always working to be better. But there is a point where I am annoyed that I am being asked to use artifice and artistry to make simple plain statements into flowery spoonfuls. I have cussed out shills or plain idiots for obvious reasons.

Case in point, this:

Bringing "archeological sites" into a discussion about paleontology really is a basic completely laymans mistake.

I consider your intelligence higher, so it was not an "accusation" or "non-sequitur", but a word of warning to try to help you not making a fool out of yourself and a compliment in one.

It keeps amazing me how you take everything so negatively, how you start a defensive mode.


I have no idea where you got this. I have been trying and failing to ask you to please reference this disagreement. You are inflating it into a little drama. Please reference what it is you are talking about. I haven't a clue.

Believe it or not, when I am moderating, I have to read all the posts on this entire forum. And I have to switch contexts frequently. So if you don't reference what you are talking about, to me, you appear to be dragging something out of context into the middle of other threads. I have to assume there are a million readers that are equally confused, if not more confused, by this forum. So your statements that assume everyone is on baited breath to read the next "useful quote" at the base of your posts are wasted. Please do not read anything I type to you (or other users) as negative or as personal attacks. I post to address posts, or — when it seems necessary — I post to challenge and identify and differentiate users that seem as though they will cause problems with the forum's message's readability.

Also, I am sorry but I don't think the thrust of your argument makes much sense. I am saying that none of us knows who is worthy of trust on the Internet and your point seems to be that it doesn't matter because even when people lie, shill, mess up posts or derail topics or when robots practice their artificial intelligence routines on us, they do so with "good intentions".

This makes it "okay" to leave lies, word garbage and topic derailments why? Do we have to be complacent about it when AI and/or military intelligence programs are tapping our site? It sounds like you are just arguing for neglect. Have you seen what happens to other forums on the Internet when they neglect their moderation? We are talking about very difficult topics here, on top of that. It would be really foolish of us to let any sort of shill, fool or bot ramble on and make the topics even harder to process.

As for dinosaur hoaxes being proven invalid, I am waiting for a single post from you that does anything of the sort.

Until you give us enough of a deliberate show of your honest intelligence to indicate to everyone that you understand that, and work to actually make a point, I doubt you would make any point about the Earth at all. This is just a statement about your behavior, since your motivations are not much our concern, but not your potential for actually being useful on this forum yet. I would like to see you be useful on this forum, but as it stands you seem to spend most of your time here complaining about your treatment.

This isn't an intellectual club. It's a forum for posting research into media fakery, hoaxes and so on.

If you have something intelligent to say about anything, which others can easily verify and research, will you please just make the post already? And stop wasting our time?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby Selene on July 17th, 2015, 5:24 pm

Hoi, you're jumping around as well.

What is this? Is this a forum, where people interact, criticise each other, where people try to figure out by using arguments with each other the truth, or is it a research posting platform, where isolated individuals post their findings and they are not discussed upon between us?

In my forum history you see I started off more on a forum side, then dived more into the posting research, and where the two come together, like in the Dino Hoax, I tend to do both.

But then please define, once and for all what is the idea of Cluesforum? Is it A), B ) or both? If it is both, then I think I nowhere crossed any line of reasonable, honest, respectful (see my word on transcendental world views) discussion considered useful on a forum.

I have never said or meant that "evil bots and shills are there with good intentions", I am honestly offended and hugely surprised why you keep putting me in that category? What is your problem with me in particular? I do not see the responses you give to me to others. Anyone reading along can see this.

Insulting me by "you haven't added anything useful to this forum" is really out of the boxing ring of reasonable intelligent debate.

Hoi, check the posts in the last months and compare the volume and variety of contributions to Cluesforum we both have done. Your research from the past still stands, but you cannot hold it against me that before Jan 2015 I haven't contributed anything...

Because the style of Cluesforum is not of the interacting, commenting way, there's no way to say, other than your authoritarian one, if my contributions were useful or not. They may have been to many readers or everyone would want me to shut up, without interaction, reflection, discussion, communication, debating, using arguments, there's no way to verify your statement from "authority".

The questions for the Dinos I have restated in a new post, on the clowns of the community, that unfortunately, yes, are there.

But are all photographers corrupt 'cause Boston ones faked theirs?
Is astronomy as a whole a fraud because too many of the perps are "photographing ISS"?
....

You said in your last post in the Dino thread this:

From my perspective, "dinosaurs" as a creature, timeline and fossil record are all clearly hoaxed where they aren't creatively invented and speculated about whole-cloth, and I haven't yet seen a convincing archaeological "site" and that is confusing and distressing, if dinosaurs are supposed to be at all real. The leading discussions about it in newspapers are ridiculous. Birds and diets and hunting patterns of invented fantasy worlds and time periods.


My focus is on the mistake you make, please be a mature and intelligent individual, like your work is showing, Hoi. It shows you lack a complete interest in the topic, otherwise you wouldn't make such a laymans mistake. If my two examples on Inuit terrorists and urologists at the dentist do not come across, I am sorry, I've tried the most polite way possible.

You do not do that in your words against a complete scientific community, where you project the clowns on.

Newspapers ARE ridiculous, can't we f*cking agree on that??? Their silly re-interpretations of the words of serious researchers do not in any way reflect the real science behind it!?

Have you read the original publications behind those findings, announced in the media? What are their words, how is it written there? Most of these stories are so twisted and raped by the media that it does not coincide with anything a serious scientist would write down in a report.

It's a false argument. It's taking NASA pictures to disgrace a non-NASA-related person. Taking the Daily Fail as "authority" on "what those darn archeologists paleonto-anything-can't-pronounce-any-of-those-hard-Greek-words say". That's not fair, can we agree??

It really comes across like "you're some guy from the Mid West, watching telly all day, not knowing anything at all, grumpily 'doubting' Dinos". And hoi, despite all our differences, I do NOT (want to) see you as one of these stereotyped people. So please, no urology, Inuit terrorists, or archeology in a paleontological discussion/topic...

Cheers man,

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby Selene on July 17th, 2015, 5:44 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Instead of just casually linking off site in the middle of your post, try to use your own words to explain your reasoning for believing even one example of "Lists of dinosaur-bearing stratigraphic units".

That would be a good place to start proving dinosaurs existed. Just one site out of under one hundred stong cases listed on Wickedpedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... dy_fossils

Or even among the 300 or so weaker cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... aur_genera

And please don't make us snicker about "dinosaur tracks".

We have more so-called "terrorist" events and "galaxies" than we do the above. If you are not confident enough to do so, how can you say with so much certainty you simply believe them all?


Sorry, but what?? These are places you can visit, you can go there, touch the rocks, take samples, do research, perform tests, take photos and publish about it.

This silly "debate" goes like "NYC doesn't exist, 'cause I haven't/till I have been there".

As indicated in the earlier post are the coordinates of a site in the Spanish Pyrenees where I have been. I have found thousands of fossils in my life, no dinosaur ones though. Dinosaur eggs I have seen there in Spain in a secret location, in that neighbourhood indicated in the link. If you'd spend a week there, you should find them.

Famous fossil Lagerstätten (rich fossil sites) are well-studied by literally thousands of researchers, professionals.

How many of these sites have you visited and verified beyond a shadow of a doubt they were all fake??

I have posted photos of some microfossils in the topic; the only reaction "what about ém", there seems no room for me to convince you of anything?

You think the complete paleontological research community, both amateur and professional is a fraud?

And the other questions stil stand. No dinos, so what animals occupied the lands, seas and skies in the Jurassic and Cretaceous?? :ph34r:

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Selene on July 17th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Image

The Earth is not spherical because NASA says so

but also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQt9vq3sdtQ - please note, I do not want to promote any of these scamdalous videos, this is just a quick example, read this description and we all can agree Simons topic is hitting the nail on the head:

Matthew Boylan, former NASA operational graphics manager, worked for years creating photo-realistic computer graphics for NASA. Now a vocal Flat-Earther, Boylan claims that NASA’s sole reason for existence is to propagandize the public and promote this false ball-Earth heliocentric worldview. Originally recruited because of his skills and reputation as a hyper-realist multi-media artist, he started doing projects like photoshopping various lighting and atmospheric effects onto images of Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Europa, etc. Having proved himself, and wanting to promote him to do more classified work, a room of NASA higher-ups during a party, as a type of initiatory-rite, explained to him and a few others in detail the reality of the Geocentric Flat-Earth model and how they have fooled the entire world!


The Earth is not flat because NASA says so

==========

How to prove the Earth is spherical?

1 - Book a couple of flights around the world and check it out or if you have a lot of time do it by boat
2 - The Moon, Sun, stars and planets all appear round (2D representation of spherical) to us and the Moon has been studied extensively by old non-NASA astronomers and more than 50% of the surface of the tidally locked Moon has been studied. From Earth, telescopes, no Disney Space Scheisse. It certainly appears a sphere, a ball, a globe. Why would the Earth be an exception?
3 - If a solar eclipse is not "the spherical Moon is blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on Earth" and a lunar eclipse is not "the spherical Earth blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on the Moon", then what are those well-studied phenomena??
4 - all other curved (spherical-based) phenomena like rainbows, hurricanes, auroras, etc.
5 - Again, long before the NASA scumbags came into existence, the Earth has been studied and mapped as well.

Image
Map by Hendrik Hondius (1630)

If these maps were produced then, the shapes of Africa and South America are true, not made up by our post WWII "geostationary satellite" preachers.

So, we suppose plate tectonics is a valid model explaining these obvious shape similarities?

How do you get plate tectonics to work on a non-spherical object? How does "Flat Earth Scamtheory" explain this away? Just ignore it, an infamous NAStrategy?

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Postby hoi.polloi on July 17th, 2015, 7:26 pm

But are all photographers corrupt 'cause Boston ones faked theirs?
Is astronomy as a whole a fraud because too many of the perps are "photographing ISS"?


Well, right, but I think we agree these rhetorical questions are topical to CluesForum.

We have the right to doubt photographers. We have the right to doubt vast understandings about astronomy.

It doesn't mean all photographers are fake. It doesn't mean stars are fake. There is a crucial difference. That difference seems to be where your confusion lies. We are more permissive of doubt because this forum is about exercising the right to doubt speech made in the interest of free speech.

I see what you meant about my mistake in using a word that implies human activity. Whoops! However, this was a sarcastic comment on my part that you took way seriously. And even if I were to literally use a word seriously appropriate to the discussion, it could have been a simple correction. I never saw you post such a thing. Instead, it took you several long posts to make this point? You could have just said, like fbenario or other mods do, "You obviously mean geological or something else". Why not?

I don't know why you keep thinking I'm picking on you. I'm not. If anything, the least we could take from our miscommunications is that we have different styles of writing. I don't think that has anything to do with a grudge or anything else. Anyhow, I can go correct that post now.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby hoi.polloi on July 17th, 2015, 7:37 pm

Selene wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:Instead of just casually linking off site in the middle of your post, try to use your own words to explain your reasoning for believing even one example of "Lists of dinosaur-bearing stratigraphic units".

That would be a good place to start proving dinosaurs existed. Just one site out of under one hundred stong cases listed on Wickedpedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... dy_fossils

Or even among the 300 or so weaker cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... aur_genera

And please don't make us snicker about "dinosaur tracks".

We have more so-called "terrorist" events and "galaxies" than we do the above. If you are not confident enough to do so, how can you say with so much certainty you simply believe them all?


Sorry, but what?? These are places you can visit, you can go there, touch the rocks, take samples, do research, perform tests, take photos and publish about it.

This silly "debate" goes like "NYC doesn't exist, 'cause I haven't/till I have been there".

As indicated in the earlier post are the coordinates of a site in the Spanish Pyrenees where I have been. I have found thousands of fossils in my life, no dinosaur ones though. Dinosaur eggs I have seen there in Spain in a secret location, in that neighbourhood indicated in the link. If you'd spend a week there, you should find them.

Famous fossil Lagerstätten (rich fossil sites) are well-studied by literally thousands of researchers, professionals.

How many of these sites have you visited and verified beyond a shadow of a doubt they were all fake??

I have posted photos of some microfossils in the topic; the only reaction "what about ém", there seems no room for me to convince you of anything?

You think the complete paleontological research community, both amateur and professional is a fraud?

And the other questions stil stand. No dinos, so what animals occupied the lands, seas and skies in the Jurassic and Cretaceous?? :ph34r:

Selene



I don't think those arguments are very good.

You misconstrued my statement from "These sites are doubtfully evidence of dinosaurs" into "These sites don't exist"

Will you fucking stop doing that?!

Then, on top of constantly misconstruing my statements and blaming me for it, you basically just said something like, "I have never seen any evidence of dinosaurs at these sites."

So ... what, exactly, are we supposed to take as evidence of dinosaurs?

Let's start over.

This time, answer my questions. And this time, do it without contorting your image of me into a cartoonish monster. I am not evidence of dinosaurs, though you seem to see them everywhere without offering any proof.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby hoi.polloi on July 17th, 2015, 7:48 pm

Selene wrote:
The Earth is not spherical because NASA says so


You are the only one making this point. You set up a straw man to tear it down.

So what can you possibly mean by adding, "but" to your next statement? Plus, you throw a clearly fake NASA image in our faces ... why? What is your point? NASA fakes the globe images. We know this.

but also:


But also?

How to prove the Earth is spherical?

1 - Book a couple of flights around the world and check it out or if you have a lot of time do it by boat


1. Bad argument. No clear explanation.

2 - The Moon, Sun, stars and planets all appear round (2D representation of spherical) to us and the Moon has been studied extensively by old non-NASA astronomers and more than 50% of the surface of the tidally locked Moon has been studied. From Earth, telescopes, no Disney Space Scheisse. It certainly appears a sphere, a ball, a globe. Why would the Earth be an exception?


2. A fine argument, but not good enough if it's your only argument.

3 - If a solar eclipse is not "the spherical Moon is blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on Earth" and a lunar eclipse is not "the spherical Earth blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on the Moon", then what are those well-studied phenomena??


3. The right questions to ask.

4 - all other curved (spherical-based) phenomena like rainbows, hurricanes, auroras, etc.


4. Bringing up the fact that "round things happen" is a pretty beautiful way of studying nature. But I'm not sure it's a strong argument against or for anything. Many shapes happen in nature.

5 - Again, long before the NASA scumbags came into existence, the Earth has been studied and mapped as well.

Image
Map by Hendrik Hondius (1630)

If these maps were produced then, the shapes of Africa and South America are true, not made up by our post WWII "geostationary satellite" preachers.


That's really weak arguing. If they were brought up then, they must be true now. Hmm. Shouldn't we study things with the best available direct data?

So, we suppose plate tectonics is a valid model explaining these obvious shape similarities?


Tectonics was even a largely panned and controversial theory when I went to school. I am not sure we should just embrace it because it justifies certain modern models.

Sorry, but I just don't see a lot of evidence you really think your arguments through. Again, I am not picking on you in particular. It is just the kind of argumentation we don't need.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Einstein and other gods of science

Postby Selene on July 17th, 2015, 8:27 pm

On the archeological intended use/sarcasm, I really didn't see that, no, sorry for any confusion then.

On this

It doesn't mean all photographers are fake. It doesn't mean stars are fake. There is a crucial difference. That difference seems to be where your confusion lies. We are more permissive of doubt because this forum is about exercising the right to doubt speech made in the interest of free speech.


Glad we agree then; that's exactly what I'm saying the whole time (not even restricted here, also Nepal and with Nazca). Do not take the impossible leap from "some faked examples" to the absolutist view on "everything is fake without ever seeing the samples/evidence".

And I am all in favour of free speech, I am anarchist, a libertarian, what do you think? But then logically also the free speech to correct speech that makes a fool out of one, one who I consider a serious investigator (you, ICfreely and Ataraxia as the examples I mentioned). ;) There's no bad motive involved in any of my comments, trust me. Can you try to trust me as a normal person, using the internet to express his thoughts?

hoi.polloi wrote:
Selene wrote:<yes, of course this is a fake image, it may even serve some reading researchers to spot and point out the fakery and have one more clue in our hands>

The Earth is not spherical because NASA says so


You are the only one making this point. You set up a straw man to tear it down.

So what can you possibly mean by adding, "but" to your next statement? Plus, you throw a clearly fake NASA image in our faces ... why? What is your point? NASA fakes the globe images. We know this.


It is still a type of reasoning used. It comes from NASA, so...

but also:

But also?

How to prove the Earth is spherical?

1 - Book a couple of flights around the world and check it out or if you have a lot of time do it by boat


1. Bad argument. No clear explanation.


*sigh*, for the sake of completeness then:

- book a couple of flights
- stay awake during these flights, looking out of the window
- observe day and night
- use the velocity and angular velocity to calculate distances
- see if you can fly EW all around
- see if you can fly across the poles
- map out everything you see
- build a model consistent with all your observations
- let's discuss that model and how you came from your observations to that specific spherical/flat/cylindrical/butterfly-shaped/whatever model for the Earth

That doesn't seem a proper workflow to you?

2 - The Moon, Sun, stars and planets all appear round (2D representation of spherical) to us and the Moon has been studied extensively by old non-NASA astronomers and more than 50% of the surface of the tidally locked Moon has been studied. From Earth, telescopes, no Disney Space Scheisse. It certainly appears a sphere, a ball, a globe. Why would the Earth be an exception?


2. A fine argument, but not good enough if it's your only argument.


Are we exercising a course in sofistry or trying to find out the truth about our blue-green planet (or whatever it is supposed to be in another model)?

3 - If a solar eclipse is not "the spherical Moon is blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on Earth" and a lunar eclipse is not "the spherical Earth blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on the Moon", then what are those well-studied phenomena??


3. The right questions to ask.


Thanks! Positive words. :wub:

4 - all other curved (spherical-based) phenomena like rainbows, hurricanes, auroras, etc.


4. Bringing up the fact that "round things happen" is a pretty beautiful way of studying nature. But I'm not sure it's a strong argument against or for anything. Many shapes happen in nature.


It draws the attention. Consciously and unconsciously we describe, analyse and investigate everything around us on the premise the Earth is a (flattened/near-) sphere. All those phenomena we now explain using that spherical model have to be satisfactorily explained in another model as well, do we agree?

5 - Again, long before the NASA scumbags came into existence, the Earth has been studied and mapped as well.

<map of Earth published in 1630>

Map by Hendrik Hondius (1630)

If these maps were produced then, the shapes of Africa and South America are true, not made up by our post WWII "geostationary satellite" preachers.


That's really weak arguing. If they were brought up then, they must be true now. Hmm. Shouldn't we study things with the best available direct data?


Now you're creating a straw man and tear it down.

My reasoning IS NOT: "It was true then, so it must be true now", please...

My reasoning IS: "If the shapes of the continents were studied, mapped and used for 450+ years and we have uncorrupted evidence of it, why did NOBODY in the last 450 years who was sailing those vast oceans between the continents complain "these maps are fraudulent"?"

Dear ex-contributor Heiwa (I still miss his witty well-argumented posts) was sailing the oceans for years. Do you think he's part of some cover-up to hide the real shapes of the continents or can we at least agree on relying on some hard data in life??

So, we suppose plate tectonics is a valid model explaining these obvious shape similarities?


Tectonics was even a largely panned and controversial theory when I went to school. I am not sure we should just embrace it because it justifies certain modern models.


I am wondering about scientific arguments against plate tectonics or tectonics, do you have some to share? I don't know them?

It's not "embrace". Why you use wording like that? Which other mechanism you propose to explain the observations? Faults, fractures, folds, foreland basins, orogens, uplift, erosion, up to the tiniest mineral growth observed indicating historical fault slip, which model do you propose to explain all that, if tectonics is not the mechanism??

Sorry, but I just don't see a lot of evidence you really think your arguments through. Again, I am not picking on you in particular. It is just the kind of argumentation we don't need.


That's the whole problem. The beauty of the Earth compared to astronomical subjects is that you are able to study it yourself! You are free to visit fossil sites, ask questions to paleontologists (not the Horner-Sereno clowns) and all. It's all open and available, for the most part; fossil sites in North Korea may be a challenge.

And as evidence there are thousands and thousands of publications. To say "there's no evidence" shows a lack of interest in the topic. But if you reject every publication, because you already have your own position carved in 90 million years old limestone, then nothing will ever convince you...

And the one who keeps evading my questions is not me.
  • Which animals lived during these times??
  • Where are their fossils?
  • Dinos no, what then?
  • Birds didn't evolve from reptiles, so where do they come from?
  • Who faked aaaallll those fossil sites, fossils, everything. Up to a level serious scientists are fooled by it!
  • Nobody speaks up, out, every individual paleontologist, amateur or professional, is part of the scam? With the "huge" financial gains involved, yeah....?
  • What's the motive, the gain, the benefit worth the risk and the huge investments?
Paleontology is not a FOX fakery factory. Even if clownesque creeps with that field of experience (Sereno, Horner, the Jurassic Park/World propaganda) appear on that channel. Or any other that doesn't allitterate that well...

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Postby Selene on July 17th, 2015, 9:31 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Instead of just casually linking off site in the middle of your post, try to use your own words to explain your reasoning for believing even one example of "Lists of dinosaur-bearing stratigraphic units".


Why do I "believe" certain geological formations that hold more fossils than others exist? Because I've seen them with my own eyes in dozens of countries on multiple continents? I've posted some microscopic photos in the topic.

Formations I've seen with my own eyes above ground and reflected in seismic data below? Realising how much modeling and connection with the field is needed to properly describe the Earth's behaviour and structure?

I have been fossil hunting for 25+ years, studying the Earth for some 20 so you wouldn't mind asking for a bit more evidence to convince me "dinosaurs are a hoax" than a few faked examples?

Or, to go back to the dentist analogy; being a dentist with quite some experience do you mind asking me for a bit more evidence that wisdom teeth are a hoax?

That would be a good place to start proving dinosaurs existed. Just one site out of under one hundred stong cases listed on Wickedpedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... dy_fossils

Or even among the 300 or so weaker cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... aur_genera

And please don't make us snicker about "dinosaur tracks".


Animals leave tracks and tracks can be fossilised. Animal tracks are a hoax?? Sorry, but what?

We have more so-called "terrorist" events and "galaxies" than we do the above. If you are not confident enough to do so, how can you say with so much certainty you simply believe them all?

Glad you make the comparison and I will try to explain why both are flawed examples:

1 - "terrorist" events are staged by people we cannot control, areas have been shielded off either actively or passively by fearmongering (who goes to Syria now to check out if those ISIS clowns really exist).
- "terrorist" events are singular events, planned, orchestrated, controlled
- the tools are completely in the pockets of the perpetrators; the media as preaching "truth"
- the only control we can apply to it, is by exposing the lies like here with photo & video analysis

2 - galaxies are mostly part of "what's up there and inaccessible to the normal human being". We know galaxies do exist from discoveries way back in the beginning of the telescopes with the Great Magellan Cloud as most famous example. Does that mean every galaxy "discovered" exists? No. Does it mean the whole astronomical science is bogus? Absolutely not. The astronomers watching the skies from Earth are not (necessarily!) part of the NAScam. So are not the many (amateur) paleontologists part of an even more giant hoax.

How can you claim "not believing any of these sites" without ever visiting one of them? What's the point in that? Hence the comparison to NYC; it's a silly position to hold.

You are US American if I recall well, what about we go on a trip to one of those sites? Field trips are a great way to talk man to man, to clear any cloud that now seems to block our mutual understanding.

You may pick any place, I'll accommodate. And as I said, my personal experience with dinosaur fossils is extremely limited, so hunting for a bone or two would be very welcome.

What about the Antlers Formation? Cretaceous fish, amphibians, reptiles (dinosaurs and turtles) and even mammals? Arkansas-Oklahoma-Texas?

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests