Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:36 pm  

Heliocentric nonsense.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:42 pm  

bren2k wrote:

But who has ever suggested that the earth is perfectly spherical? In the same way, I don't suppose Flat Stanley and his YouTube pals would argue that it is perfectly flat. The point is, it isn't flat, flattish, a bit flat or even vaguely flat - it's a sphere, however imperfect, and it's positively mental to argue otherwise.

Flat Stanley doesn't believe half the things he says. I would have thought some of the smarter people in this thread would have figured this out by now.

I guess I overestimated their intelligence.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:50 pm  

bren2k wrote:

But who has ever suggested that the earth is perfectly spherical? .

Nasa did with their CGI blue marble

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:06 pm  

Why live in the real world when there is a much more exciting comic book world in which to live in?

They (the people who live in these fantasy worlds) do it because they are gifted, with brains the size of planets, and need to teach us thickies about our mental limitations and how we don't get it!

With such an important message to convey they choose a dark corner of the internet populated by neg heads to reveal it.
And the message is ... the world is fooked up and nothing is what it seems.
And when the message is poorly received they throw tantrums and threaten and throw insults around like confetti.

Lovely!

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:19 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Flat Stanley doesn't believe half the things he says. I would have thought some of the smarter people in this thread would have figured this out by now.

I guess I overestimated their intelligence.

You have never done that or would wish to ....

If you believe he's a troll ... sort him.
He acts as a good shield for you though, so he is handy as well as deluded.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:20 pm  

I used to be brainwashed like you heliocentrics before i saw the evidence of experiments pointing massively towards a geocentric earth. So don't worry i've been in your position. I saw through the bullshit pity you can't If the almighty told you himself you'd still believe the helio myth :

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:59 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

I used to be brainwashed like you heliocentrics before i saw the evidence of experiments pointing massively towards a geocentric earth. So don't worry i've been in your position. I saw through the bullshit pity you can't If the almighty told you himself you'd still believe the helio myth :

Talking about the almighty ... tells us about him/her/it.
What's he/she/it really like ?

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:10 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

I've often wondered what framework they employ to ensure that their 'evidence' can be tested, verified, and hold-up to scrutiny.

What framework do YOU employ? I mean, I quite openly state that I'm not in a position to make reliable judgements on issues such as Paris. Do those in this thread who confidently claim nothing suspicious took place in Paris know significantly more than I do? Are their opinions formulated in accordance with the "scientific model"? Do you even understand the scientific model? I'm not entirely sure that you do given that you are attempting to wrap it around just one of many fields of study which it is badly suited to.

It's ironic you should post this after I mentioned Mae Brussell because not only did she provide a conceptual framework for analysing conspiratorial events (complete with a volume of references and appendices no newspaper or television channel would dream of bothering with) - she also fulfilled another requirement of the scientific model - the provision of TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS and a PREDICTIVE MODEL. Do YOUR sources tick such boxes? I suspect not.

We've already seen criticisms that so-called "conspiracists" think "hundreds of thousands of scientists are all wrong". And yet it wasn't a conspiracy theorist which dictated that scientific theories can only be disproven.

Scientists simply love getting all misty eyed about "Scientific Truth". I've lost count of the number of eminent scientists who seriously think that science can somehow be divorced from human motivations. I never cease to be amazed by the elaborate forms of self-deception and ethical gymnastics which allow that hefty chunk of scientists engaged in the business of killing people to somehow claim that they were only ever motivated by the pursuit of "pure science" and never base human emotions such as greed, jealousy, vanity etc.

I mean, maybe you are satisfied by that empty maxim that "science is neither good nor evil". I'm not because it neatly avoids the uses that science HAS been put to throughout history. Perhaps the most celebrated period of scientific progress in centuries, The Manhattan Project, was entirely devoted to annihilating not just human life - but all life. Now, the likes of Edward Teller (as rabid an individual as you could ever hope to meet who showed very little value for human life throughout his career), Hans Bethe, Otto Hahn, Enrico Fermi, John Von Neumann, William Penny and company could claim they were only ever pursuing "pure science" solely for it's own sake - but that's just having your cake and eating it. The truth is they did what they did for myriad reasons - many of which were nowhere near as lofty as their ostensible idealism.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:36 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

What framework do YOU employ? I mean, I quite openly state that I'm not in a position to make reliable judgements on issues such as Paris. Do those in this thread who confidently claim nothing suspicious took place in Paris know significantly more than I do? Are their opinions formulated in accordance with the "scientific model"? Do you even understand the scientific model? I'm not entirely sure that you do given that you are attempting to wrap it around just one of many fields of study which it is badly suited to.

It's ironic you should post this after I mentioned Mae Brussell because not only did she provide a conceptual framework for analysing conspiratorial events (complete with a volume of references and appendices no newspaper or television channel would dream of bothering with) - she also fulfilled another requirement of the scientific model - the provision of TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS and a PREDICTIVE MODEL. Do YOUR sources tick such boxes? I suspect not.

We've already seen criticisms that so-called "conspiracists" think "hundreds of thousands of scientists are all wrong". And yet it wasn't a conspiracy theorist which dictated that scientific theories can only be disproven.

Scientists simply love getting all misty eyed about "Scientific Truth". I've lost count of the number of eminent scientists who seriously think that science can somehow be divorced from human motivations. I never cease to be amazed by the elaborate forms of self-deception and ethical gymnastics which allow that hefty chunk of scientists engaged in the business of killing people to somehow claim that they were only ever motivated by the pursuit of "pure science" and never base human emotions such as greed, jealousy, vanity etc.

I mean, maybe you are satisfied by that empty maxim that "science is neither good nor evil". I'm not because it neatly avoids the uses that science HAS been put to throughout history. Perhaps the most celebrated period of scientific progress in centuries, The Manhattan Project, was entirely devoted to annihilating not just human life - but all life. Now, the likes of Edward Teller (as rabid an individual as you could ever hope to meet who showed very little value for human life throughout his career), Hans Bethe, Otto Hahn, Enrico Fermi, John Von Neumann, William Penny and company could claim they were only ever pursuing "pure science" solely for it's own sake - but that's just having your cake and eating it. The truth is they did what they did for myriad reasons - many of which were nowhere near as lofty as their ostensible idealism.

In my post I was referring to Flat-earthers rather than the other conspiracy topics contained in this thread and thought it reasonable that when dealing with a subject such as the shape of the earth and planets, scientific methods are the only real methods of forming conclusions on this topic. How else can you prove otherwise regardless of your view?

You're quite right that it's the fallible human element in any system that can break it down, science included. Look at the scientists for hire to say whatever you want about Climate Change, for example. The difference is, facts are facts, and once shown to be correct it doesn't matter how many voices say otherwise. Facts can be added to and changed to reflect the gain of knowledge over a subject over time. It doesn't mean the original fact was wrong, just that understanding improves. The theory of relativity for example has been added to, and the Theory of evolution grown since Darwin first penned it to the point of it being one of the strongest theories in Science.

I'm not putting Science on a pedestal, because there's areas of science that poke hornets nests. But it is still the most reliable way for humanity to understand and make sense of reality.

My post has little bearing on other, ground and earth-based conspiracies such as JFK or false flag discussion. That wasn't my point. Flat earth ideas can only be confirmed or thrown-out with science.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:58 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

You have never done that or would wish to ....

If you believe he's a troll ... sort him.

I'm not a bloody night-club bouncer. And if I had to ban every troll which has visited this site I'd probably require surgery for RSI.

The oxygen for every troll is vanity. Is it fair or particularly smart to penalise one and reward the other? It's not that I'm advocating trolling. I just think saving people from their own stupidity isn't always the right option. And I've not even begun to talk about that subset of this discussion which knows perfectly well what Flat Stanley's game is and yet continues to debate the earth's flatness (Jesus Wept!) as though it were a matter of importance. I'd say there's a belting Ph.D. thesis on human psychology tackling what's taking place there...

He acts as a good shield for you though, so he is handy as well as deluded.

I've never required anyone's shield in the past and I'm unlikely to start now.