Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   DVD Video (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f40-dvd-video.html)
-   -   Re: Landing on the Moon (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t264709-re-landing-on-the-moon.html)

Abraxas 12-10-2003 07:01 PM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
jack wrote:

>>>Proving things ARE real or exist, like Santa, God, Moon Landings is what is
>>>difficult. And anyone who claims any of those things are real are those
>>>that need to prove them.
>>>
>>>It is not up to someone to try and prove that Santa or the Moon Landings were
>>>real, but up to the person who makes such a far out claim to prove it.
>>>
>>>Interesting that it was not said: "Next - proof that Santa Claus is not
>>>real too." if you wanted to make the analogy correct.
>>>
>>>

>>
>>There is always a burden of proof against the status quo, not -with-.

>
>
> Incorrect. What if the status quo changes to the other viewpoint? Does
> reality and facts change along with the status quo? Of course not.
>

What does reality and facts have to do with who is expected to prove
their side of an issue? The burden of proof is not NECESSARILY with the
wrong person.

> The status quo at one time in this country is that blacks were not equal to
> humans, women have no right voting, people could be burned if they were believed
> to be witches.
>

And it just so happened that they were wrong on the former, right on the
second and third. But it also happened that the burden of proof on the
first issue -was- with people who felt blacks should be considered
equal. You could say otherwise, but they'd just walk right over you.

The second and third are societal legality. Like it or not, they were
right. Until suffrage, woman -had- no right to vote, and people like me
-could- be burned for being witches (I in fact -am- a witch).


> The person or group of people making up a theory, are the ones that must prove the
> theory, and until it is proven, the theory is not believed.
>

Exactly. The people make up a theory and it opposes the status quo.
They must convince the status quo with "proof". The status quo cannot
be -assumed- to be right by default... yet in most cases, they have the
right to assert their position until other evidence is shown.

Everyone thought the earth was flat, so the burden of proof was on it
being round... Everyone thought there was nothing west of the ocean, so
the burden of proof was on the explorers.

> Who says that there is a god or santa claus? Until they can prove it, it is not
> to be believed.

Yet, laws have been passed granting freedom of religion..making an
assumption that there's a good chance to be a god... As long as the
status quo believes in a god, reality will be based upon that belief...
The burden of proof, to the status quo, is the dissenters who had this
"new idea" that there isn't one

> Who says that men landed on the moon? Until they can prove it, it is not to be
> believed.

Who says there's gravity? Until you can prove it to me (beyond the fact
that I'm pulled down, which may just be an illusion), it's not to be
believed.
> Who says that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Until they can prove it, it
> is not to be believed.
>

Bringing in politics? The status quo of the world says Iraq doesn't
have weapons of mass destruction. The status quo of the US says it
does. Therefore, GW Bush is gaining popularity in the US and the rest
of the world thinks we're as bad as we used to think Soviet Russia was.

> If someone, like the government, is caught in just ONE lie, how can anything else
> they say is true be believed?
>

Because the government is a "they", not an "it". We know watergate
happened. So what? Do we suddenly have to put the burden of proof on
every single thing the government says or does, ever? The government
-is- the status quo. MOST of the time, they tell the truth. They
should not be expected to include authoritative sources for everything
they ever say, or cooperate with every weird thing ever said about them.

>
>
>>NASA, too, is innocent until proven guilty.

>
>
> So if NASA says there are giant pink polka dot monsters living on planet Pluto, we
> are to believe that until someone can prove it false?
>
> Your way of thinking is completely opposite to logic and common sense.
>

NASA didn't say something against the quo. They simply said their
previously successful space-travel system was successful to the next
level. You're saying it was a hoax. That's like people saying that
NASA really DID find those polka dot monsters and is hiding it!

Your attacks on my way of thinking are un-backed and pointless. You say
that my assumption that it is a conspiracy theorist, simply by stating
the theory, makes the government responsible to spend lots of money to
prove itself or else be assumed wrong. You give no evidence of that.

....Or upon you attacking my logic, am I suddenly burdened to prove I am
capable of logic?

>
>>Yes, it's hard to oppose the government in something without being
>>called a conspiracy theorist.

>
>
> That is called the conspiracy conspiracy. And the reason the government can
> get away with anything, so long as it is so far out from normal behavior that most
> people would never believe it was being done.
>

Prove it. Not only are you against the status quo, you're assuming a
relatively chaotic governmental force can conspire to create a setup
that allows them to conspire about anything else fearlessly. In most
such cases, would there be enough of an opposing faction to make the
attempt known.
>
>>They do not have to produce evidence that the landing was legit.

>
>
> Then I don't have to prove that Santa and flying reindeer are real either. It is
> up to you to prove that they don't exist, right?
>

The status quo seems to think they don't exist. My whole argument is
that the status quo defines the burden of proof, and thus far you have
failed to logically oppose the statement.
>
>> Why don't you
>>produce evidence that -you- exist?

>
>
> Would you be communicating with someone that didn't exist?
>

Your answer is out of the statement's context. And that you're speaking
doesn't count as evidence. The context is that I would be the one
burdened to prove you -don't- exist. Just as you would be burdened to
prove there wasn't a legitimate landing.

> You sound a lot like that idiot Bush. He tells Iraq that Iraq has to prove that
> weapons of mass destruction do NOT exist, or Bush will attack with Bush's weapons
> of mass destruction. How can Iraq PROVE that they don't have something? That
> is impossible, thus Bush knew he could attack with such a ridiculous threat.
>

Pleasant. This is both a personal attack and a straw man. Call a guy
(a guy I happen to personally very much oppose and consider a dangerous
person) an idiot then say I'm just like him. He was going -against- the
status quo saying Iraq had to prove what everyone currently felt Bush
was responsible to prove.


> If I make the claim that YOU have a gun hidden in your house, and you claim you
> don't, and I tell you to PROVE you don't or I will invade your house and shoot your
> family, how are you going to PROVE you don't have the gun that I claimed you
> did? You can NOT! Thus I have free reign to invade your house and kill your
> family just like Bush did!

Again, that is fully unrelated to my argument, straw manning me in
attempt to damage my argument. You've paralleled me to a monster and
simply respond to how the monster might act. I won't go a step milder
and parallel you to Hitler, as much as I feel pressured by my own bad
sense of humor to do so.

>
> Bush's "heads I win, tails you lose" theory is a no win situation for any country
> that doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Bush is now making the same
> accusations on Syria now. The sanctions have already begun, war with them is now
> certain, as how can they prove they don't have any WMD? No one can prove they
> don't have WMD.
>

*Repeats last statement* Odd that half your entire post is based on
something that I would agree with you on, but that you've already
paralleled me with the logically wrong side of. My argument is in NO
way related to this, but since I'm playing the devil's advocate
regarding a single government program, you seem to think it fitting to
parallel me to any other government figure.

Besides, you're not even accurately representing the situation. It
-started- that Iraq began refusing to let inspectors see certain things.
It went out of hand when Bush refused to believe ther was something
other than a WMD that Iraq wanted to hide.

> It is the person who SAYS that there are weapons in the first place that need to
> prove their statement, else everyone can just go around making up false statements.
>

Exactly..the person who comes UP with the idea and opposes the status
quo. The best time to question the moon landing would be at the time of
the "landing" by immediately opposing the evidence. There -was-
evidence and it was accepted, making it the status quo. Now it takes
evidence strong enough to change the status quo to oppose it. The
majority may not have much power in the US, but they have the power to
help define the status quo and what is believed to be "true".

> (by the way, why is it ok for the US to have weapons of mass destruction?) Iraq
> never used any, but the US uses them every year.
>

By the way, what the heck does this have to do with the previous argument?
If it matters, I agree that WMD should not be used as willingly as they
are nowadays. I personally, being an anarchist, don't trust the US with
even one, but someone does need one to oppose the threat of another one.

> If YOU want to make the claim that men were on the moon, then YOU need to show
> proof. I never made such a claim, so I don't need to prove anything. Nor is
> it possible to prove that something doesn't exist, as was just nicely shown by
> example,
>

Who said I want to make that claim. I am neutral on the issue,
actually. Evidence was shown that men landed on the moon, though, and
the status quo now accepts it. No matter what you say or think, no
matter how you flame or attack me for my response, you will be
considered a conspiracy theorist unless you can show convincing evidence
that man wasn't on the moon. Why don't you go to the moon and prove
that there's no flag there?

>so my trying to prove that the moon landing never happened, is like
> trying to prove that there are no pink monsters on planet Pluto!


Really? All you gotta do to prove there's no pink monsters on Pluto is
to go there and do a search. While that wouldn't be a universal
disproof, it'd disprove it in all but extreme cases (like that they're
microscopic).
That said, the pink-monster-proof burden is entirely upon the
proclaimer..unless they bring solid evidence of the monsters. To
destroy that evidence you would be burdened to prove that the photos
were doctored.

> Can YOU prove that there are no pink monsters on Pluto? If you can't prove
> there are none, then does that mean I am right and they really do exist?
>

You do realize this argument is factually unrelated to NASA's argument.
I should have mentioned earlier, but it's very much a straw-man of
NASA's photo-backed claim of having landed on the moon.

The real parallel is this. I'm going on a trip to Illinois this month.
While I'm there, I'm going to take a photo or two of myself there,
maybe of some people there. Then I'm coming back to MA. By your logic,
the burden of proof is upon me, even with photographs, plane ticket,
etc, to show that I really went there.

> Likewise, no one can prove that a fictional god does not exist for the same reason
> you can't prove the pink monster does not exist! Until someone can prove that a
> god exists, we are all to assume that there is no god. That is only common
> sense.
>

You cannot argue religion with logic. That inability has been
scientifically proven as no scientific equation or theory has ever been
able to accurately describe a spiritual or sub-energy level. Science
admits they don't even know the whole of the physical world, and so
cannot say if there is or is not another world. Thusly, you DON'T argue
religion in science.
In reverse, I and many others have personal experience that science
cannot possibly explain, yet science cannot use any of that for gain or
loss. Science is suddenly at a loss on BOTH sides of the issue,
destroying its ability to be used in logic. Also, religion is
COMPLETELY unrelated to the issue at hand
> And you can't laugh at the idea of someone believing in Santa if you believe in
> gods!
>

Really? Santa is supposedly a physical being who inexplicably uses time
magic for non-profit to give presents. The questions become a) is there
time magic that powerful, b) is there a motive to using that kind of
magic to give presents out, and c) since the claim INCLUDES presents as
evidence, can you find even one present where NOBODY can possibly lay
claim to be the one who really gave it? If so, find another million...
>
> Without man, what would god's purpose be? Think about that for a while and you
> can see how silly the whole concept of god is. Without man, god would have no
> purpose to exist. In fact, what the hell would a god do without us? Seems a
> god would need us more than we would need a god.
>

This doesn't show the concept of god to be silly, or pointed. It's
simply a tangent with no useful information. Though I see another 1/3
of your post is about god... 1/3+1/2 = 5/6 of this post unrelated to the
topic at hand.

> The reasoning that something as complex as humans and the earth could only exist
> via the design of a superior great mind and being, only leads to the same
> conclusion that something even MORE complex as the mind and existence of a god so
> powerful surely would ALSO only exist via a design by an even MORE superior great
> mind and being! If your argument is that human life could not just have come
> from nowhere without a creator, then the same argument must be applied to god which
> would be even more complex than humans! How could god just have evolved from
> apes or appeared by accident? See the problem with idiot logic?
>

Ah-ha! So anyone who thinks NASA really put man on the moon MUST agree
that Bush is a great man and that creationism is absolute! Therefore,
I'm a paradox. I consider logic forefront, Bush a moron, and
creationism a farce. Did I mention I'm still neutral on the moon
landing issue?
> Why is it that the universe has to have a beginning and a creation, yet god does
> not? That is contradictory. The fact that anyone can accept a god just having
> been forever, means you can accept that the universe can just have existed
> forever. Solar systems come and go, there were planets and life long before the
> earth and there will be long after our Sun dies and our planet gets sucked into it.
>

Only if you assume god to be physical -and- ignore the third law of
thermodynamics which in a loophole allots for a physical manifestation
to be infinite....
Who says creation occurred -in- time. If you're going to flame
creationism this off-topic, at least get the argument completely right.

> The Universe is not a container, it is existence. You can not create existence,
> as you would need to exist before you could create it, thus it was already there.
>

The universe is a physical manifestation of infinite size. That's all
science can prove. There is no acknowledgment regarding what could be
outside the universe, nor does science assume that there is nothing
outside it.

> The big bang theory? How can there be a bang or explosion without a universe
> for the bang to take place in? If the universe is expanding, then what the
> hell do you call the area that it is expanding into? You can't blow up a balloon
> without existing area outside the balloon for it to get larger in. Saying only
> the area inside the balloon exists is idiotic.
>

Again, misrepresentation of an off-topic theory. Big Bang ASSUMES
something was already there in the third law of thermodynamics'
assumption that nothing can be created or destroyed. In fact, science
has found evidence of the big bang theory in the form of planetary
movement in a general direction. It also explains how this perpetual
motion machine that is the universe MAY HAVE BEEN triggered, at least on
this cycle.

> Hope this helps wake some people up.
>
>

Yeah...I'm awake and quite sure that I still hate Bush and
Creationalism, and that your argument is the worst use of logical
fallacy and personal attacks I've ever seen.

I'm still fighting the thought of countering by paralleling you with
Hitler. I just REALLY hate Dubya.

--
To email me, remove "NOMORESPAM". I'm sick of the spam I keep getting
from using this.


Troy 12-10-2003 08:48 PM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
In response to message news:24KBb.9601$Ho3.778@newsread1.news.atl.earthli nk.net,
written by Abraxas <charlesmartinNOMO@RESPAMmindspring.com> on 12/10/2003 11:01:18 AM in alt.magic.secrets:

> Who says there's gravity? Until you can prove it to me (beyond the fact
> that I'm pulled down, which may just be an illusion), it's not to be
> believed.


It is an illusion. We're all connected to Earth via IT.

--
Troy




Justin 12-10-2003 08:52 PM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
Troy wrote on [Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:48:15 -0800]:
> In response to message news:24KBb.9601$Ho3.778@newsread1.news.atl.earthli nk.net,
> written by Abraxas <charlesmartinNOMO@RESPAMmindspring.com> on 12/10/2003 11:01:18 AM in alt.magic.secrets:
>
>> Who says there's gravity? Until you can prove it to me (beyond the fact
>> that I'm pulled down, which may just be an illusion), it's not to be
>> believed.

>
> It is an illusion. We're all connected to Earth via IT.


Wow. No wonder the IT industry is growing

MR_ED_of_Course 12-10-2003 10:02 PM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
I have the DVD and the IMDB is correct, and Capricorn One *is* in the OAR of
2.35:1. So that pretty much ends all debate on this thread...at least as
far as alt.video.dvd is concerned.


Abraxas 12-10-2003 10:22 PM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
Troy wrote:

> In response to message news:24KBb.9601$Ho3.778@newsread1.news.atl.earthli nk.net,
> written by Abraxas <charlesmartinNOMO@RESPAMmindspring.com> on 12/10/2003 11:01:18 AM in alt.magic.secrets:
>
>
>>Who says there's gravity? Until you can prove it to me (beyond the fact
>>that I'm pulled down, which may just be an illusion), it's not to be
>>believed.

>
>
> It is an illusion. We're all connected to Earth via IT.
>

yes..via IT...via Information Technology...computers rule the
earth..>Terminator 3 is here....*coughs a laugh*

Ok, maybe I'm just a geek

--
To email me, remove "NOMORESPAM". I'm sick of the spam I keep getting
from using this.


Waterperson77 12-11-2003 04:23 AM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
>Who says there's gravity? Until you can prove it to me (beyond the fact
>>> that I'm pulled down, which may just be an illusion), it's not to be
>>> believed.


actually, some scientists have now said that they have discovered that our
whole univverse and our whole reality is indeed an illusion.

No, I'm not making this up. Believe it or Not.

I'm not saying that they're correct, but they have said that.

Something about doing something to two separate electrons in separate chambers
some distance apaart, and when they did something to one electron, the other
(non-connected electron) did the exact same thing. without any cause for it.

Therefore, the scientists concluded that the two separarate electrons must be
connected in some way and that our whole reality is only an illusion.

and that there must be some other more real reality out there that we can't
percieve (yet)

Well, that was their conclusions.



Little Paul 12-11-2003 11:45 AM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
Abraxas wrote:
> I'm still fighting the thought of countering by paralleling you with
> Hitler.


But that would end the thread right?

-Paul



Abraxas 12-11-2003 03:44 PM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
Little Paul wrote:

> Abraxas wrote:
>
>> I'm still fighting the thought of countering by paralleling you with
>> Hitler.

>
>
> But that would end the thread right?
>
> -Paul
>
>

Nah..it'd just make me like him :P
I think the thread's pretty much dead anyway. :P

--
To email me, remove "NOMORESPAM". I'm sick of the spam I keep getting
from using this.


Little Paul 12-11-2003 04:00 PM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
Abraxas wrote:
>>> I'm still fighting the thought of countering by paralleling you with
>>> Hitler.

>>
>> But that would end the thread right?

>
> Nah..it'd just make me like him :P
> I think the thread's pretty much dead anyway. :P


I am (of course) refering to Godwins law. See
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ for the full and gory
details.

-Paul


Abraxas 12-11-2003 04:22 PM

Re: Landing on the Moon
 
Little Paul wrote:

> Abraxas wrote:
>
>>>> I'm still fighting the thought of countering by paralleling you with
>>>> Hitler.
>>>
>>>
>>> But that would end the thread right?

>>
>>
>> Nah..it'd just make me like him :P
>> I think the thread's pretty much dead anyway. :P

>
>
> I am (of course) refering to Godwins law. See
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ for the full and gory
> details.
>
> -Paul
>

ROFL...well looking back, having simply mentioned it made it work really
well to kill the chat! Now I have to read Godwin's Law in depth :P

Thanks for the interesting link! :)

--
To email me, remove "NOMORESPAM". I'm sick of the spam I keep getting
from using this.



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.