What makes something "debunked"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I do not know where anyone here has used Dawkins atheist beliefs as FACTS. I also don't see how anyone can debunk someone for being an atheist. I really don't try to debunk anyone for a religion. To me that is a fool's errand. I might snicker off line at someone that said that they were a Pastafarian or a Jedi Knight. I might try to convince a friend to not support the Church of Scientology or any other 'church' that I feel is 'ripping folks off' and that includes some Christian groups and the far fringe of the New Age movement.

That does not make other things he say wrong, no more than Carl Sagan's forecast of nuclear winter, made his astrophysics wrong.

Now that said, debunk Dawkins on his degrees or on a FACT that he has wrong. And where is your debunking of the moon landing footage?

It seems to me that you are more interested in starting arguments than you are in learning or sharing your knowledge.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is the last round of the "show me your evidence" shuffle.

Now you have your evidence. Now I want someone to step and explain why a guy with as poor a rep as Dawkins has for being busted doesn't get debunked here.

Well, never mind. Mick asked me to do it, so consider it done. Give him his Scarlet D, Mick.


Er, no. My query was "perhaps you could just list Dawkins misleading credentials?" All you did was give me a book by some people who disagree with him, and an essay by some other guy who disagrees with him. Neither of which, as far as I can tell, list any misleading credentials.

And your second link is not from Oxford University. It's just some guy, and very clearly someone who totally misunderstands Dawkins' work. Not that his qualifications matter, but I feel obliged to point that out, seeing as we are talking about misleading credentials.

Being disagreed with is not the same as having misleading credentials. People disagree with me all the time. I don't have misleading credentials (I don't really have any credentials).
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
<Sigh.> Ooh. This is gonna hurt, man.

http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins Debunked Summary.htm

Careful in there, if you are new to seeing the wood taken to poor Richard. It can be a rough go if you really thought he was some kind of exemplar for the reason. Fair warning.

Let's have a look at what Norman J. Lund, Ph. D. has to say about Dawkins...

Dawkins makes no veiled threats. On page 330 of The God Delusion, Dawkins questions mother Teresa's judgement and whether she alone is worthy of a Nobel prize.

Here's the excerpt:

 

MikeC

Closed Account
not sure which side of the argument this is supposed to support??

On one hand it looks like a case where Dawkins got it wrong.....but closer examination shows that eth supposed error of Dawkins as identified in the initial quote are not actually supported by the 2nd quote - he did not actually suggest that anyone who supports MT's view on the sanctity of life cannot be taken seriously at all - he said that the quote shows her to have "cock-eyed judgment"....and if it was down to just that one quote about abortion being the main threat to world peace then I'd agree with him!

so perhaps he should be accused of quote mining rather than veiled threat??

also of course the whole thing is an opinion piece - a value judgment - and as we have already noted it is pretty much impossible to "debunk" such.
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
People wrote whole books debunking him. You guy's don't remember all that? Ah, well. Again, my bad. Well, here ya go, since you are all so salivating for it:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism/dp/0830837213

Goodness, you mean Christian apologists don't care much for R.D.? Who knew? ;)
(Personally, I think he's much better at writing about science than he is philosophy or philosophy of religion, but that's beside the point.)

I'm familiar with Alister McGrath, I've read his arguments, I've listened to his debates, and I know his history where Dawkins is concerned. Having said that, is there any particular reason you would think copying and pasting snippets of book reviews from Amazon.com is convincing? Doing my best to be charitable here: that's not even a CliffsNotes form of argumentation.

So far, the bulk of this discussion - if you'll excuse a local colloquialism - appears to be all hat and no cattle.

Edited to fix typos.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
The god delusion is more an opinion piece than actual science though - I don't think anyone is using that as evidence to back a claim.

You can't be serious. There are legions of folks who think it's a slam dunk and the last word on the matter.

(I haven't read it, don't particularly care to, I will read what he has to say on evolution though.)

You can read it, just don't think it's anywhere near cutting edge. He stopped being a scientist decades ago and things have galloped past him. He's up in the booth doing commentary while the game on the field has evolved past him. He chose rock star and he got it, cultural icon and all that goes with it.

Things aren't nearly as unified within the NeoD camp as it projected to the outside world. The infamous civil war between the jerks and the creeps is legendary.

Here's a few infamous shots from Richard Lewonton:

Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.

Dawkins's vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing non-selective forces in evolution.

Who am I to believe about quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution."

Why anyone still regards this guy as a voice of substance is a mystery. Ok, no it's not. He lays out what folks want to hear and they scoop it up without question. But outside the tent is a different story and his stock has dropped dramatically.

Now, all that said, while it's clear I have no great for Dawkins and would be happy to expand elsewhere, please do understand that I have no problem at all if someone uses him as a source, depending on context. Just because he isn't right about everything doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. He's right about lots of stuff, things to so with this or that tree and such. He's not right about the forest, and that's where he's not a reliable source. I'd still hear what he had to say, though. I never do just dismiss stuff before checking it. You miss to much valuable data that way.

If I was stuck in the same box you guys have locked yourselves in, I wouldn't have learned half of what I have because so much of it has been from sources I don't agree with when it comes to their opinions, sometimes vigorously so. It makes no difference because I don't care what their opinion is. I care what their evidence is. The rest is optional.

If Alex Jones says somebody did x because he is yadda yadda yadda, all I care about is whether somebody did x. I take that fact and go check it. I leave the bullhorn behind because I don't care for that kind of approach.

My official take on AJ is that everything everybody says about him is pretty much true. I can point out his flaws as well as anyone. But he's right about a lot of stuff, too. Just like Bush and
Obama and Tesla and Icke and Dawkins, and I hope some of this is getting though.

If you don't know the game from more than one perspective, you are not getting a clear picture.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Goodness, you mean Christian apologists don't care much for R.D.? Who knew? ;)
(Personally, I think he's much better at writing about science than he is philosophy or philosophy of religion, but that's beside the point.)

I'm familiar with Alister McGrath, I've read his arguments, I've listened to his debates, and I know his history where Dawkins is concerned. Having said that, is there any particular reason you would think copying and pasting snippets of book reviews from Amazon.com is convincing? Doing my best to be charitable here: that's not even a CliffsNotes form of argumentation.

So far, the bulk of this discussion - if you'll excuse a local colloquialism - appears to be all hat and no cattle.

Edited to fix typos.

You've missed the point. To establish the claim that he had been debunked is all I was trying to demonstrate and have. He's been repeatedly drubbed for lack of knowledge and poor reasoning. If Oxford University uses his work as the exemplar of how not to reason, I think it's fair to say that carries some weight. But there's tons more out there for folks to wade through. You could take all the stuff you folks have decreed as debunked and tie it together and it wouldn't approach the output sent his way.

If Dawkins hasn't been debunked, nobody's been debunked. Now let's wrap this shit up so we can get back to the other stuff.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
You can't be serious. There are legions of folks who think it's a slam dunk and the last word on the matter.
...
Well that's their problem I guess. I enjoyed a couple of books, but I found it really hard to watch in the television show where he confronted religious leaders about their faith, I found him quite unlikeable and a little lost on that front.
But I'm sure he still manages to say things I would agree with.

Andrew Denton did it better.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You've missed the point. To establish the claim that he had been debunked is all I was trying to demonstrate and have. He's been repeatedly drubbed for lack of knowledge and poor reasoning. If Oxford University uses his work as the exemplar of how not to reason,

which it does not - the "oxford" link you used is not actually eth university at all, as has ben pointed out....so guess what - this particular argument of your has been debunke3d! :D

You can't be serious. There are legions of folks who think it's a slam dunk and the last word on the matter.

Which is not the same as "The God Delusion" not being opinion .....your lack of understanding of the matter is a bit obvious!!

Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.

Again you confuse issues - in this case you are saying that Dawkins poularisation of science is no good because some people don't like (or "have debunked") "The God Delusion" and his philosophical works.

It is actually possible for him to be perfectly accurate in one field and an abysmal failure in the other, and it seems to me that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing (at least I think this is what you have accused others of doing??) - you are "debunking" the person based upon works you do not like and then saying that "debunking" applies to works that aer perfectly fine.

As I say I THINK that is what you are accusing others of - but it's a bit difficult to be sure because you do not state your position(s) clearly.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
not sure which side of the argument this is supposed to support??

Lund, in that oxford link, attempts to debunk Dawkins by pointing out supposed logical fallacies in The God Delusion. However, it appears Lund has trouble understanding English.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Er, no. My query was "perhaps you could just list Dawkins misleading credentials?" All you did was give me a book by some people who disagree with him, and an essay by some other guy who disagrees with him. Neither of which, as far as I can tell, list any misleading credentials.

And your second link is not from Oxford University. It's just some guy, and very clearly someone who totally misunderstands Dawkins' work. Not that his qualifications matter, but I feel obliged to point that out, seeing as we are talking about misleading credentials.

Being disagreed with is not the same as having misleading credentials. People disagree with me all the time. I don't have misleading credentials (I don't really have any credentials).

For the last time. I don't care if you agree that this debunking has been successful, complete, or any of the stuff you use to qualify your stuff. You already told me that wasn't the point. I don't care if you accept that Dawkins has no qualifications or expertise outside his field. The debate he has chosen to blunder into is not the provence of any credential he has, as has been pointed out by all and sundry. If you dont' think that matters, all good for you.

It matters to others and it is a valid debunking because he in fact does lack those credentials. Because he doesn't know the turf, he makes elementary gaffes on par with why are their still apes and it's only a theory. Even other atheists are against him and many have said they are embarrassed by him. That's the home team, Mick. It's on record and it's common knowledge. What you think is immaterial when it comes to whether he's been debunked.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned

http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/
Welcome to the website for Oxford Tutorial Service (OTS). OTS is not officially associated with Oxford University (England), but is committed to the same high standards of scholastic excellence for which Oxford U. is famous and embraces the same Biblical motto adopted by Oxford U. almost five hundred years ago: Dominus illûminâtiô mea; Ps. 27:1- "The Lord is my Light." (Oxford Coat of Arms: History; Emblem).
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
You've missed the point.

No, I have not.

To establish the claim that he had been debunked is all I was trying to demonstrate and have.

No, you've just dug up some material that you may think constitutes debunking. Whether or not you're actually familiar with it is another proposition entirely, as is establishing whether or not what you've linked actually accomplishes what you're stating.

Have you personally determined that already, and if so, how? Show your work, what you've analyzed, and the conclusions you have drawn from it. Otherwise it just looks like you Googled up some convenient text to copy/paste, relying on the statements of others. In order to demonstrate what you're claiming, you'll simply have to put more effort in to show it's not just veneer. Same for Apollo. Same for "electric universe". Same for religious apologists, or whatever else.

Like I said, I'm familiar with McGrath, and as a result I dispute your assertion. To have that discussion we'd need to delve into specifics. Will that ever actually happen for any of the topics you brought up?
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Lund, in that oxford link, attempts to debunk Dawkins by pointing out supposed logical fallacies in The God Delusion. However, it appears Lund has trouble understanding English.

You could be right. I didn't grade the damn thing. I just pointed it out as an example of debunking. One of many. Judge them for yourself, as will I. Good bad or indifferent, it's still an example and no worse than lots of stuff I see.

Funny, the one piece of evidence I got about the moon stuff was odiously bad, almost a tutorial on how not to do it. Nobody is crawling up that person's ass and pointing out the glaring problems with it.

No evidence is ever good enough if it's against your position, nothing is too weak or too "just so" if it can be used as a band-aid for a gaping hole. Somewhere along the line, things got confused and somehow this came to be accepted as debunking.

Just like the old saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not evidence, the plural of "it could just as easily be" is not debunking.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Funny, the one piece of evidence I got about the moon stuff was odiously bad, almost a tutorial on how not to do it. Nobody is crawling up that person's ass and pointing out the glaring problems with it.

Perhaps you could point out the glaring problems in the evidence and provide an explanation on why they are wrong.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You could be right. I didn't grade the damn thing. I just pointed it out as an example of debunking. One of many. Judge them for yourself, as will I. Good bad or indifferent, it's still an example and no worse than lots of stuff I see.

So you picked one to support your case and you hadn't actually looked at it, and it is rubbish......

Funny, the one piece of evidence I got about the moon stuff was odiously bad, almost a tutorial on how not to do it. Nobody is crawling up that person's ass and pointing out the glaring problems with it.

moon landing hoax myths are old news .....perhaps look up some archives somewhere.....

No evidence is ever good enough if it's against your position,

I disagree. Good verifiable evidence will allow or REQUIRE me to change my position.

Just like the old saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not evidence, the plural of "it could just as easily be" is not debunking.

wow - glad you pointed that out or I'd never have realized.....:rolleyes:
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
Funny, the one piece of evidence I got about the moon stuff was odiously bad, almost a tutorial on how not to do it. Nobody is crawling up that person's ass and pointing out the glaring problems with it.

Someone posted that video for you hoping that it might be helpful, but it was a stab in the dark. You've never actually clarified what your "doubts" are about Apollo footage, so we have no position statement to look at, no claim(s) to analyze, and no idea if that video is even applicable. You could prevent such uncertainty by making explicit statements instead of nebulous assertions.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
No, I have not.



No, you've just dug up some material that you may think constitutes debunking. Whether or not you're actually familiar with it is another proposition entirely, as is establishing whether or not what you've linked actually accomplishes what you're stating.

Have you personally determined that already, and if so, how? Show your work, what you've analyzed, and the conclusions you have drawn from it. Otherwise it just looks like you Googled up some convenient text to copy/paste, relying on the statements of others. In order to demonstrate what you're claiming, you'll simply have to put more effort in to show it's not just veneer. Same for Apollo. Same for "electric universe". Same for religious apologists, or whatever else.

Like I said, I'm familiar with McGrath, and as a result I dispute your assertion. To have that discussion we'd need to delve into specifics. Will that ever actually happen for any of the topics you brought up?

Not if we keep doing this shit. So enough. Look, the stuff with the moon was an aside. I didn't bring it up. I made a passing comment and you jumped in. So let's go back to that. You going to start a new thread and we start over from the ground up. But it ain't about the moon landings hoax, as we all know by now that nothing I say or any evidence I put out will be good enough. Fine.

I said why I had my doubts. I still have them. Many do. Many doubt God, too, and we know how that goes. Endless lectures on the burden of proof and where it lies. And rightly so.

You are making the claim that moon landings and the footage are legitimate based on, well, I don't know what you are basing it on. But you can tell me why over there and I will see how it stacks up with your evidence and we can go into it from there. Along the way, all the stuff you asked about before will come into it, so I'm not trying to avoid that stuff because I'm really interested in discussing it, especially from the wide angle because it fits in with other stuff as well. But I'm not interested in being anyone's target practice for their rhetorical jousting.

I want to discuss the forest level, not play paintball in the trees. So bring the guy who was here the other day and leave this stuff about the sources behind. I'm interested in hearing your argument and how you arrived at it, not pouncing on your sources or any of that.
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
moon landing hoax myths are old news .....perhaps look up some archives somewhere.....

Joe apparently doesn't doubt that the landings or missions occurred, but he seems to think some of the footage is fake. He won't say which, of course, or why. I find that rather interesting, and hope that such a discussion might someday blossom out from underneath this smokescreen about semantics and methodology.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Joe, More times than not, most of the (I can't speak for everyone) skeptics here, will ask you to provide an explanation but would prefer that you provide linkable material to help support your claims that something or someone is wrong. This is something you will have to get used to, getting snippy about it will not keep people from asking. That is what this website is about, verifiable evidence, with out that, your opinions on what is right or wrong carry little weight! If you want to debate opinions don't make claims you either cannot or are unwilling to back up with evidence, at least don't get snippy if you're asked when you do.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Joe apparently doesn't doubt that the landings or missions occurred, but he seems to think some of the footage is fake. He won't say which, of course, or why. I find that rather interesting, and hope that such a discussion might someday blossom out from underneath this smokescreen about semantics and methodology.

Here's what Joe thinks. He thinks they went to the moon, but he doesn't think what they experienced was in the official story. He has reasons and would be happy to share them.

He doesn't think the footage is fake based on this or that clip and never for a second intimated as much. That's trees, my reasons are in the forest, in the bigger picture.
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
Here's what Joe thinks. He thinks they went to the moon, but he doesn't think what they experienced was in the official story. He has reasons and would be happy to share them.

He doesn't think the footage is fake based on this or that clip and never for a second intimated as much. That's trees, my reasons are in the forest, in the bigger picture.

Feel free to start a thread and state your positions. Please be specific, though -- e.g.: "I doubt the authenticity of the second EVA on Apollo 14, because < reasons > ...". The beating around the bush stuff gets old.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Joe I have been asked to find support for some of my comments and on one occasion I was not able to verify my comment.

I want to see you debunk any footage of the moon landing that you think is fake. What is the that you think they 'experienced' and why. And yes that means evidence.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Someone posted that video for you hoping that it might be helpful, but it was a stab in the dark

Right. Just like I did. I grabbed the first few things on the first page to demonstrate how easy they were to find. That's all it was. Yet, home team gets a "just trying to be helpful" while I'm getting the third fucking degree for doing the same thing. Enough.

You've never actually clarified what your "doubts" are about Apollo footage, so we have no position statement to look at, no claim(s) to analyze, and no idea if that video is even applicable. You could prevent such uncertainty by making explicit statements instead of nebulous assertions.

Been a little busy dealing with however many of you, while there's only one of me. No, I haven't clarified my doubts. Haven't had a chance. But you have it ass backwards if you think it's on me for the position statement. My position is that I have doubts about the legitimacy of the official story. Many do.

It's your claim it was legitimate. I really don't get that, so I want to hear your case for your claim. It ain't my job to prove the easter bunny is fake. It's your job to make a case for it being real. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Feel free to start a thread and state your positions. Please be specific, though -- e.g.: "I doubt the authenticity of the second EVA on Apollo 14, because < reasons > ...". The beating around the bush stuff gets old.

It sure does. So let me just grab the first page in the atheist playbook and be done with it. It works for them, it works for me. "I doubt the authenticity of the the of the official story because I have not seen evidence to show me the official story is accurate."

If you want to talk about it, go start the thread. If not, don't. I just commented on an aside. I didn't bring it up. If you want to hear why I think what I do, see ya there.

See my other threads. It's your job to get it going if you want to go there, for the reasons I stated. I'm all ears.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Since you have yet to offer any evidence, why shouldn't we keep questioning you.

You made the comment about the moon landing, now BACK up your OPINION or be willing to admit that it is just that an ungrounded opinion.

The old 'many do' is a FALLACY and I think you know that. Many folks think that New Mexico is a part of Mexico, that doesn't make it so.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
It sure does. So let me just grab the first page in the atheist playbook and be done with it. It works for them, it works for me. "I doubt the authenticity of the the of the official story because I have not seen evidence to show me the official story is accurate."
Perhaps, to make things easier, you could tell us what specific evidence you doubt the authenticity of.

No point in going over things we agree on.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Looking at the end of the Oxford "Dawkins debunked" shows a clear lack of rationality:

I am astounded that anyone would think that a human being is a work of art or a watch or a cathedral - and each of those did have simple antecedents.

And I see no way in which an egg is simpler than a chicken!

Joe your latest effort:

"I doubt the authenticity of the the of the official story because I have not seen evidence to show me the official story is accurate."

is an "argument from ignorance", (a common CT "tactic" when they have no argument).

It is also not true about atheism. Religious belief is a matter of belief, not a matter of fact.....although plenty of people in both camps will try to persuade you otherwise.

Of course if someone states something as FACT then you can argue the evidence - if I say "I KNOW there is/is not a god" they you can expect me to provide some evidence...or in the absence of that then lambast me for not doing so.....as you are getting for making claims here without providing evidence!

however if I state that "I believe here is/is not a god" then you can argue all you like but ultimately my belief is belief and not relying upon fact.

However the moon landings or otherwise are a matter of FACT - refusing to accept facts about them is not "belief" - it is ignorance.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
We haven't even begun, and already there's an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

To where it belongs. Someone asked me if I doubted something. I said yes. I gave some reasons why. I stated motivation from the pressure because of the failures. You chimed in to ask what failures. My answer in full at this point is because of the clips of one after another rockets blowing up on the pad and the document they cited underlining their fears that they wouldn't be able to land them without killing them and that wouldn't do on live TV, would it?

I'm watching footage of all the money spent on the simulation stuff and rehearsal stuff. I'm not digging into each and every clip and trying to determine if it's real or fake. I don't care about that. If that's what you want, wrong guy.

You want to talk about how this fits into the larger picture and the roots of NASA and all that wider angle stuff, I'm down with that because it's far more germane to why I don't believe the official story, not some reflector on some wing or a camera angle dispute or any of that.

If I somehow gave the impression that I was looking to go through that stuff, I apologize.

I would like to know why you or anyone believes the official story in the face of all the doubts raised. I'd like to know your thoughts on the stuff they said they saw, and whatever else ya have to share. But I don't want to play paintball.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's like saying 9/11 must have been a controlled demolition because it sounds like the type of thing they would do.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I would like to know why you or anyone believes the official story in the face of all the doubts raised.

Because I have seen lots of examinations of the doubts that have been raised, and they are much better at convincing me the doubts are not legitimate than the reverse.

There are a number of reasons for this, but they are mostly to do with the credibility of the sources, the completeness of their evidence, and that their evidence fits in with what I know from such direct personal experience of the world as I have had.

there have been times when I have thought some doubt to be "better" than others - but either it has been dispelled to my satisfaction, or it remains a doubt but is insufficient for me to change my conclusions.

it has been some time since I have looked at moon landing hoax doubts, so off hand I do not remember too many specifics sorry.
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
It sure does.

Could you please stop doing it then? An easy way to accomplish this would be to address points (which you introduced) directly. You're obfuscating.

So let me just grab the first page in the atheist playbook and be done with it. It works for them, it works for me. "I doubt the authenticity of the the of the official story because I have not seen evidence to show me the official story is accurate."

False equivalence. Belief in or acceptance of supernatural claims about deities has nothing whatsoever to do with human spaceflight. There's no basis for likening the Apollo program and the acceptance of well-established facts demonstrating its accomplishments to religious or theistic arguments. If you think the approach you've taken constitutes a legitimate argument, you're mistaken.

If you want to talk about it, go start the thread. If not, don't. I just commented on an aside. I didn't bring it up. If you want to hear why I think what I do, see ya there.

It's not my responsibility to jump through tactically-placed hoops simply to appease you, as you're the one who's expressed doubts about Apollo. If you are unwilling or unable to clearly state what those doubts are and why, then I have little reason to expect it's worth my time and effort. I reject your attempt to put the entire issue on me as if it were my responsibility to justify the sum of the Apollo program, or whatever you think "the official story" means. That's not only unreasonable, it's also dishonest.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
However the moon landings or otherwise are a matter of FACT - refusing to accept facts about them is not "belief" - it is ignorance.

Fine. Please explain how they are a FACT and how you arrived at that conclusion. That's all I want to know, and you have made a clear and specific position statement which can now be discussed. This is going to be the best I can hope for, so off to a new thread and we will see how well you or anyone can build a case for it and see where that goes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

MikeC

Closed Account
I think you misunderstand me - I do not have any direct factual evidence of the moon landings happening - however either the moon landings happened or they did not - one of those is a fact and not open to interpretation.

I have concluded that I believe they did happen - the evidence for the 2 has been presented over many years, and my conclusion is based upon the preponderance and the quality of evidence for that as above.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
To where it belongs. Someone asked me if I doubted something. I said yes. I gave some reasons why. I stated motivation from the pressure because of the failures. You chimed in to ask what failures. My answer in full at this point is because of the clips of one after another rockets blowing up on the pad and the document they cited underlining their fears that they wouldn't be able to land them without killing them and that wouldn't do on live TV, would it?

I'm watching footage of all the money spent on the simulation stuff and rehearsal stuff. I'm not digging into each and every clip and trying to determine if it's real or fake. I don't care about that. If that's what you want, wrong guy.
Perhaps you could provide the things I highlighted that you have reviewed so everyone here can look at them too?
You want to talk about how this fits into the larger picture and the roots of NASA and all that wider angle stuff, I'm down with that because it's far more germane to why I don't believe the official story, not some reflector on some wing or a camera angle dispute or any of that.
You can always make a thread about it, in fact you are being encouraged to.

I would like to know why you or anyone believes the official story in the face of all the doubts raised. I'd like to know your thoughts on the stuff they said they saw, and whatever else ya have to share. But I don't want to play paintball.


I'm going to play it your way with this last response.

I believe the Moon landing was real because every hoax explanation I've heard can be thoroughly explained away to someone that has just a basic understanding of physics and science in general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Critical Thinker Your views on 'What makes a source (of information) reliable'? General Discussion 9
skephu New tool ChimeIn makes all web sites commentable Practical Debunking 4
C Debunked: Boston bombing recovery photo makes no sense from medical point of view Conspiracy Theories 47
ssfor27 How Dutchsinse makes his "HAARP ring" forecasts.... HAARP 14
Critical Thinker The Anti Media, makes bogus claim that "CDC admits Ebola could be airborne" Conspiracy Theories 75
Pete Tar Debunking just makes people believe the bunk - 'motivated reason' Practical Debunking 67
Leifer Debunker makes a cloudbuster.... Contrails and Chemtrails 0
George B Poll . . .What makes people who believe in the Chemtrail conspiracy tick. . ?. . Choo Contrails and Chemtrails 76
PCWilliams The UCC makes our Constitution irrelevant? Conspiracy Theories 152
Mick West Debunked: "you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions." Quotes Debunked 2
P Dan Aykroyd: Making something out of nothing General Discussion 2
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Calculating the height of something in a P900 photo when distance is known Flat Earth 59
M Bornong "Something Strange" - Hurriyah car bombing video seems staged General Discussion 50
MyMatesBrainwashed Research can only prove that something exists Conspiracy Theories 0
DebunkingShills Orbs: Something the metaJUNK shills just can't debunk. Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Spongebob Something from Nothing Science and Pseudoscience 2
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 12
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 45
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top