Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 What about the two former astronauts Strange? How can You make an appraisal after only about a minute looking at this? What evidence do they have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 Who the Astronauts, Paul Hellyer or Phil Schneider ? There are more well known names to come yet Strange - will they all be "fantasists" ? I don't know about him, but that web page is insane! Until someone has some evidence, rather than tales about what they "believe". I see no reason to take any of it seriously. I didn't make the comparison to the crazy views of David Icke before, because I thought they were too ridiculous even for this thread. But now you have brought it up, do you also believe that the British royal family are baby-eating lizards in disguise? I didn't bring David Icke up Strange You just did, whether the Royals are Baby Eaters I don't know because I've never had lunch with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Who the Astronauts, Paul Hellyer or Phil Schneider ? There are more well known names to come yet Strange - will they all be "fantasists" ? Famous names mean nothing. Evidence? Evidence? Evidence? (None, none, none.) I didn't bring David Icke up Strange You just did, whether the Royals are Baby Eaters I don't know because I've never had lunch with them. It was on the web page you linked to (along with a lot of other batsh*t crazy stuff). Do you give it all equal credence? Edited March 20, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 All I'm asking is that it is given consideration, You seem to have jumped into a massive defensive stance, why?, when You haven't even had time to even watch the videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 All I'm asking is that it is given consideration, You seem to have jumped into a massive defensive stance, why?, when You haven't even had time to even watch the videos? It is extremely inconvenient for me to watch videos so I have to be certain there is something worth watching. Having a bunch of people telling me about their unsupported beliefs doesn't meet that criterion. Produce some evidence and I will consider it. If there is no evidence, why are you so convinced by these stories? If I told you I have a pet unicorn in my garden, would you believe me? If a Nobel Prize winner told you she had a pet unicorn in her garden (but was unable to provide any photos, hoofprints, dung, hair, blood samples, etc) would you believe her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 It is extremely inconvenient for me to watch videos so I have to be certain there is something worth watching. Having a bunch of people telling me about their unsupported beliefs doesn't meet that criterion. Produce some evidence and I will consider it. If there is no evidence, why are you so convinced by these stories? If I told you I have a pet unicorn in my garden, would you believe me? If a Nobel Prize winner told you she had a pet unicorn in her garden (but was unable to provide any photos, hoofprints, dung, hair, blood samples, etc) would you believe her? Does evidence in a court not come from witness statements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Does evidence in a court not come from witness statements? And for minor details, that may be enough (e.g. a person was at home on a particular day). But when it comes to more serious matters, then objective evidence is required: fingerprints, DNA tests, etc. If a witness stood up in court and said that the murderer was riding a unicorn, then I suspect their evidence would be discounted. Unless the forensic team came up with some pretty extraordinary evidence because, as I have said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the other hand: I have a unicorn in my garden. There, that must be true because I say so and it is a witness statement and therefore evidence. Edited March 20, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 And so would it follow that if Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper were the only witnesses to a murder but had no video footage that a judge wouldn't take them seriously from the dock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 And so would it follow that if Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper were the only witnesses to a murder but had no video footage that a judge wouldn't take them seriously from the dock? If there was no body, no murder weapon, no sign of any violence, no victim, no blood, in short no evidence that a murder had occurred then I imagine it wouldn't even get to court. So, do you believe I have a unicorn in my garden? If not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Ok, if there was a dead body and blood, and it was in an American Court Room with those two Outstanding Gentlemen ? Edited March 20, 2015 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Ok, if there was a dead body and blood, and it was in an American Court Room with those two Outstanding Gentlemen ? There is no body or blood, that is my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 Below is a link to a web page, in this page there is a video with Phil Schneider, it is claimed that Phils' Father was a Captain in the US Military, it is also claimed Phil worked for the US Military as a Geologist. Is He another wing-nut or telling the truth?http://beforeitsnews.com/strange/2013/09/us-military-reptilian-symbolism-2451612.html Below is a video of Dr Edgar Mitchell a former Astronaut discussing aliens on CNN, also in this video is another former Astronaut Gordon Cooper stating He'd seen UFOs.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nqe1dgpoUtA My point is they are Fine Outstanding Gentlemen of International Renown! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 My point is they are Fine Outstanding Gentlemen of International Renown! So what. They have no evidence. (This is getting tedious.) Do you believe there is a unicorn in my garden? If not, why not? Are you saying I am not a fine upstanding gentleman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 So what. They have no evidence. (This is getting tedious.) You are correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 So we can leave it there with the conclusions that: a. You will believe anything someone says as true, provided they are sufficiently famous (and you must therefore believe David Icke's lizard stories) b. I require some minimal level of evidence before accepting something. OK? Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 So we can leave it there with the conclusions that: a. You will believe anything someone says as true, provided they are sufficiently famous (and you must therefore believe David Icke's lizard stories) b. I require some minimal level of evidence before accepting something. OK? Done. 1) I do not believe anything that certain famous people say. 2) As stated before witness statements do count, even in a court of law. 3) We are not done as there is a lot more to follow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) 1) I do not believe anything that certain famous people say. You are selective in your gullibility, then? 2) As stated before witness statements do count, even in a court of law. Not without corroborative evidence. 3) We are not done as there is a lot more to follow! Will that include evidence, by any chance? Edited March 20, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 https://m.youtube.co...h?v=nqe1dgpoUtA Are these Three Fine Gentlemen not corroborating each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I can't watch a video. But <sigh> I assume there is still no evidence. Why should I believe them and not the guy down the road who insists he has a pet unicorn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Because one of them is the ex-Canadian Minister of Defence and the other two are former Astronauts maybe? " <sigh>" Edited March 20, 2015 by Ant Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 My point is they are Fine Outstanding Gentlemen of International Renown! Until his arrest in 2008, so was Bernie Madoff. I'm not comparing anyone you're talking about to Bernie, I'm just trying to show that this is an Appeal to Authority argument, and it's fallacious to assume something they've said is true just because they're F.O.G.O.I.R. By the same token, we don't assume that a person claiming to have discovered a new molecule is wrong just because they're ten years old. In both cases, it's the evidence we look at. It always comes back to the quality of evidence. That's one generalization I don't mind making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Because one of them is the ex-Canadian Minister of Defence and the other two are former Astronauts maybe? " <sigh>"IMHO that is a Fallacious Appeal to Authority, which apart from being wrong, is not allowed according to our Forum Rules. Fallacy: Appeal to Authority When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Section 2: Posting 4. The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating. ScienceForums.Net Forum Rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Because one of them is the ex-Canadian Minister of Defence and the other two are former Astronauts maybe? " <sigh>" Ant, it doesn't matter who says what. Putting more faith in a person because of their title or history or reputation is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html I will agree that this is not the easiest one to navigate, because every one of us has to defer to experts every day. If you take your car to a repair shop, you are deferring to the mechanic's expertise. If you call a plumber, you are deferring to the plumber's expertise. When you go to your general practitioner, who then may then refer you to an internist, an so on... you are deferring to the doctors' expertise. Nevertheless, every one of these experts should gladly show you why they recommend what they recommend. A good car mechanic will show you the damaged parts, and tell you the repercussions of not fixing it, etc. A good plumber will show you the leak. A good doctor will show you the test results. Etc. This is what Strange is asking for. Not people with storied histories or titles. But, what is the actual facts? Where is the broken car part, the leak, or the blood test result? What is the actual evidence. If there isn't any, we're back the logical fallacy of trusting someone just based on their name. And on a science forum, that doesn't fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Sinclair Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 Iam most proud of anything I have ever done in My life in the fact that I have saved six lives all at different times and all from drowning, one of these people even bullied Me when were young and I still pulled Him out of the water. If there are only Human Beings on this planet how can other Human Beings be so cruel to others and treat them like they do. Absolutely every problem on this planet could be corrected in a better way by scientists and science rather than by belligerance and those that seem to like it. I honestly can't comprehend that Man-Kind alone could become so "Evil". I realise there are many amazing minds on here so please explain to Me why all the terrible things that happen do if there is no outside influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Iam most proud of anything I have ever done in My life in the fact that I have saved six lives all at different times and all from drowning, one of these people even bullied Me when were young and I still pulled Him out of the water. If there are only Human Beings on this planet how can other Human Beings be so cruel to others and treat them like they do. Absolutely every problem on this planet could be corrected in a better way by scientists and science rather than by belligerance and those that seem to like it. I honestly can't comprehend that Man-Kind alone could become so "Evil". I realise there are many amazing minds on here so please explain to Me why all the terrible things that happen do if there is no outside influence. Did you post this in the wrong thread? It doesn't seem to have any bearing on this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now