Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[idrankyourbeer]

!Ay, coño! Me encanta cómo Ecuador es el ano del mundo.

coño is the only word i recognize out of that and i am all about the coño ese. i'm not quite sure what else you are saying but chupa mi verga pendejo. hijo de puta.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

He's proven himself time and again to be trolling. Don't feed him.

Shut it dipshit, you refused to answer my point that you initially denied was true. About the laser becoming much wider by the time it reaches the moon etc.
Just stop talking if you're going to make stupid claims then tap out while moving onto other forms of attempting to seem like you're not a clueless idiot.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

The fundamental problem with these threads is that the CT posters doesn't know what they don't know, and refuse to admit or acknowledge that as a real possibility. Cyberduck is the perfect example of this - he once went back and forth on here for pages on end arguing with a literal PhD in physics about Newtons 3rd law. He fundamentally didn't understand it and was completely wrong, but was convinced that it was the guy with a Phd in that very subject that didn't understand it, and he refused to acknowledge even the possibility that he was wrong. Nevermind the fact that multiple other posters, many of whom also have degrees in physics or similar technical fields all agreed he didn't know what he was talking about, nope, everyone else is wrong - its not possible there's a depth to the field beyond his trivial understanding.

You see this pattern over and over - guys who have at best a trivial, surface level understanding of a topic, arguing with folks who have a much deeper understanding - the guys with the deeper understanding try to point out the flaws in the thinking/understanding/whatever of the guys with the shallow understanding, but they refuse to acknowledge that they might not know what they're talking about. I think you're a good dude and am always interested in reading your stuff about mediation and spiritual practices, but you frequently do the same thing. In many of the threads on UFO stuff I've tried to explain to you how there's absolutely no rigor in the 'science' being done at places like Skinwalker ranch, but you refuse to acknowledge that you don't really know what would constitute scientific rigor or why its so important. I've pointed out that there are legit scientific organizations seeking to find aliens like SETI, and that those organizations dismiss all of this stuff for that exact reason - there's no rigor to it - its not real science. I've even posted articles from NASA debunking the Fravor videos, and the central theme is that none of those videos can be taken as real evidence of anything because its haphazard data. You did the same thing with the debunking of the bigfoot article - they presented real, valid criticisms of his work, specifically focusing on both the lack of rigor and the common elements of pseudoscience like going outside your field of expertise that were present in his work. You don't understand the degree to which eye witness accounts can easily be manipulated, or how that's an entirely different branch of science and should be treated as such, and thus don't understand why it's so important to have someone well versed in that topic generating and evaluating a dataset of eyewitness accounts. I'll acknowledge that you do often admit to not knowing much about certain subjects which is more than I can say for many of the other posters with similar positions, but when it comes to having your views challenged you very frequently do the same thing - refuse to admit that you might be wrong or don't fully understand what is being pointed to.

These threads are certainly fun and amusing real life demonstrations of the dunning kruger effect, but I'm not sure what else there is to be learned here.

I agree with you completely about the CT people not understanding real science or even just the basic use of logic and reason and sometimes making ridiculous arguments. lAthough that is a case-by-case basis as they are not all the same.

But that is just the flip side of the coin of people who refuse to actually look into a topic because they think they already know and have judged the source of people who believe in it. This dynamic is the topic that truly interests me and I can watch it play out in almost every thread on sherdog....

As to skinwalker ranch, I'm sorry but I just don't agree with your assessment of our conversation. There has been a misunderstanding possibly due to my own inaccurate use of language and misjudging your stance in that conversation. I would like to just take a moment and clarify so there is no misunderstanding.
For skinwalker ranch, I have no problem at all admitting that the television show and the investigations they are doing are sometimes legitimately science-based and sometimes a different kind of investigation. I'm not sure what you would call it... more like a documentary with some observational scientific experiments throw in.. They're setting up conditions in which to observe a phenomenon basically. But again none of those people are claiming that anything on the show should be taken as a scientific paper... at least not that I know of. And if you listen to their plethora of commentaries on the show, they repeat that kind of thing often. Maybe I've missed something they have said and I'd be glad to be corrected on that, but they seem to be pretty well aware of what they are really doing over there. They all say that none of this is a scientific paper and i don't think it is either. If I did not make that clear in our previous conversation, let it be clear now.

They have also said that they plan on compiling data and presenting it to the scientific community and we will see if that is true or not eventually.

But on the other hand, if you are saying that everything that they have done has been debunked that would not be accurate. And if I'm wrong about your stance I'm sorry but I interpreted your line of reasoning in that other thread to be coming from that place. My comments should be taken in that context and perhaps I should have been much more clear. There is a genuine toxicity and dishonesty coming from a certain crowd on these topics and you know that's true and I took you to be a part of that toxicity in that thread, perhaps mistakenly.

On the other hand, they are documenting legitimately unexplainable phenomenon and that's obvious to anyone who's paying attention despite history channels propensity for flare in order to make money.

But I think it's the same mistake you made when you posted that dishonest article debunking Jeff Meldrum. That was not a scientific debunking of a scientific work. It was a hack job debunking a book as if it were meant to be a scientific paper.... How did you miss that?

Those guys refused to review his actual scientific papers while calling him a pseudoscientist and treating a book written for the public and intentionally dumbed down as if it was meant to be a scientific paper. That is directly lying man....

They know better than that. They are lying outright in the name of science and intentionally misleading people as to the content of Jeff Meldrum's work. All that in the name of truth supposedly... And as dumb as you think the CT people are many of them have read the source material on things like that and they know a lie when they see it and when they see people supposedly coming in the name of science lying and shaming and being hacks and slandering and misrepresenting truth, who is to blame when they doubt all the experts?

This right here is the much more interesting conversation in my opinion and the main thing I am observing whenever I am a part of any of these kinds of threads. I literally could not care which of the many hypotheses presented in this threat is accurate ... The dynamic between the two extreme polarities, both of which have abandoned reason in their own ways is the main interest for me on all fringe topics, especially topics where I have direct knowledge and enough knowledge to evaluate what people are saying.

So I'm glad I got the chance to clarify my position with skinwalker ranch. I hope you will accept that in good faith.

I would like to give you the same opportunity to clarify your position about that article you posted which was terribly written and didn't even take into account his scientific papers and treated his book as if it was a scientific paper and omitted aspects of the evidence that cast him in a bad light such as the fact that he has castings with dermal ridges that he himself took and saw the prints of and the dermal ridges before the casting so it couldn't have been an artifact. Let's not forget that happens to be his exact area of expertise ffs!!!

Maybe you posted the wrong article. Maybe the article you have read is no longer findable by Google and maybe you just skimmed that article and threw it in without thinking about it. All of those are acceptable. But I think you owe it to me to address that fact and which one it is.


Because our discussion is really about that right there. I said there's no serious debunkings of meldrum's work and you said there are. Well you still haven't posted any and I think that part of the conversation, not this sidetrack we've gotten onto, is the interesting conversation. How is it that scientifically-minded people who stand for the scientific method who believe in logic and reason can absolutely miss things right in front of their face and abandon their stated principles and be so far off the beam?

It's because they're human beings and they do not stand apart from humanity and nothing about their training keeps them from their biases and emotions and tribalism and petty judgments and social instincts standing in the way of seeing the truth. Some very prominent scientists today try to act as if they stand apart from the fray but nothing about their behavior language and demeanor suggests that is the case.

The online scientific crowd just follows those arrogant assholes and acts the same way they do and repeats the exact same mistakes they do.

You might ask why do I criticize them more than the CT people? Well, it's because I think there's more damage to be done when the scientific crowd is so biased and I also think that they actually stand for reason and logic and should be held to that higher standard. And also because I think the scientific method and process and the insights and technologies it has produced warrant being held to the fire when they're not holding themselves to their own principles. I would personally rather punch up than down.

Maybe wrongly? I think they would be the first to see their part in creating the divide that so many scholars and philosophers are speaking about today between experts and lay people.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

The fundamental problem with these threads is that the CT posters doesn't know what they don't know, and refuse to admit or acknowledge that as a real possibility. Cyberduck is the perfect example of this - he once went back and forth on here for pages on end arguing with a literal PhD in physics about Newtons 3rd law. He fundamentally didn't understand it and was completely wrong, but was convinced that it was the guy with a Phd in that very subject that didn't understand it, and he refused to acknowledge even the possibility that he was wrong. Nevermind the fact that multiple other posters, many of whom also have degrees in physics or similar technical fields all agreed he didn't know what he was talking about, nope, everyone else is wrong - its not possible there's a depth to the field beyond his trivial understanding.

You see this pattern over and over - guys who have at best a trivial, surface level understanding of a topic, arguing with folks who have a much deeper understanding - the guys with the deeper understanding try to point out the flaws in the thinking/understanding/whatever of the guys with the shallow understanding, but they refuse to acknowledge that they might not know what they're talking about. I think you're a good dude and am always interested in reading your stuff about mediation and spiritual practices, but you frequently do the same thing. In many of the threads on UFO stuff I've tried to explain to you how there's absolutely no rigor in the 'science' being done at places like Skinwalker ranch, but you refuse to acknowledge that you don't really know what would constitute scientific rigor or why its so important. I've pointed out that there are legit scientific organizations seeking to find aliens like SETI, and that those organizations dismiss all of this stuff for that exact reason - there's no rigor to it - its not real science. I've even posted articles from NASA debunking the Fravor videos, and the central theme is that none of those videos can be taken as real evidence of anything because its haphazard data. You did the same thing with the debunking of the bigfoot article - they presented real, valid criticisms of his work, specifically focusing on both the lack of rigor and the common elements of pseudoscience like going outside your field of expertise that were present in his work. You don't understand the degree to which eye witness accounts can easily be manipulated, or how that's an entirely different branch of science and should be treated as such, and thus don't understand why it's so important to have someone well versed in that topic generating and evaluating a dataset of eyewitness accounts. I'll acknowledge that you do often admit to not knowing much about certain subjects which is more than I can say for many of the other posters with similar positions, but when it comes to having your views challenged you very frequently do the same thing - refuse to admit that you might be wrong or don't fully understand what is being pointed to.

These threads are certainly fun and amusing real life demonstrations of the dunning kruger effect, but I'm not sure what else there is to be learned here.

Not that I recall arguing with someone supposedly with a PhD on the subject (which PhD did he have exactly that was relevant to Newton's laws?), but even if I did argue with such a person, they failed to demonstrate what they were saying was true.
My simple claim on that law of motion was not that Newton was wrong (as you loved to claim I was saying) but that for his law of motion to be applicable, you needed to apply resistance to the scenario. This is true and demonstrable in every earthly example. You failed to provide an example where it works without that. Appealing to authority is a cheap tactic especially as like you know, I believe much of what is written in certain text books, is fundamentally flawed.
You never did get past that stage of the argument.

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

he's right

 

[Copper Burner]

I still cannot believe that there isn't a live feed camera on the moon sending signals back to earth yet.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Yes but it didn't state anything I don't already know is claimed. Stating it again doesn't give it any more validity. It's all just "in theory......".
Yes I agree in theory of course it's 'possible'. But there is far too much room for error to make it even slightly likely.
Plus that chump earlier failed to respond to my point about the laser beam that is sent from Earth to the moon spreads out over a large area, resulting in a huge loss of signal strength. By the time the beam reaches the moon and reflects back, it is extremely weak. This can make it challenging to detect and measure it accurately, especially over long distances.
He simply wants to believe it's not true and just ignore it.

Ok.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

he's right

Sean Strickland?

 

[AZ103]

Did you see any of my photos ITT? I mean the ones I personally took, that is.

No I have been super busy the past two days and basically just look at the bell button. I will get some time and go through the thread

 

[dirtypablo]

Not that I recall arguing with someone supposedly with a PhD on the subject (which PhD did he have exactly that was relevant to Newton's laws?), but even if I did argue with such a person, they failed to demonstrate what they were saying was true.
My simple claim on that law of motion was not that Newton was wrong (as you loved to claim I was saying) but that for his law of motion to be applicable, you needed to apply resistance to the scenario. This is true and demonstrable in every earthly example. You failed to provide an example where it works without that. Appealing to authority is a cheap tactic especially as like you know, I believe much of what is written in certain text books, is fundamentally flawed.
You never did get past that stage of the argument.

I didn't say you said Newton was wrong, I said you don't understand Newtons third law, which you don't.

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

I didn't say you said Newton was wrong, I said you don't understand Newtons third law, which you don't.

Do.

And you didn't answer the rest of my post.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

Not that I recall arguing with someone supposedly with a PhD on the subject (which PhD did he have exactly that was relevant to Newton's laws?), but even if I did argue with such a person, they failed to demonstrate what they were saying was true.
My simple claim on that law of motion was not that Newton was wrong (as you loved to claim I was saying) but that for his law of motion to be applicable, you needed to apply resistance to the scenario. This is true and demonstrable in every earthly example. You failed to provide an example where it works without that. Appealing to authority is a cheap tactic especially as like you know, I believe much of what is written in certain text books, is fundamentally flawed.
You never did get past that stage of the argument.

Are you talking about air resistance? If so, there are many applications where air resistance is not applicable, such as space travel. The basics of Newtons 3rd law need to be understood at a fundamental level before other variables, like friction, are introduced.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

I still cannot believe that there isn't a live feed camera on the moon sending signals back to earth yet.

Even if there was, most Flerfs would say it’s fake or CGI. Direct TV had a satellite feed of Earth 24hrs a day for over a decade and the Himawari satellite can be accessed by the public for a live stream of Earth, and has been used to detect weather patterns and natural disasters. But again, Flerfs hand wave it away.

 

[Copper Burner]

Even if there was, most Flerfs would say it’s fake or CGI. Direct TV had a satellite feed of Earth 24hrs a day for over a decade and the Himawari satellite can be accessed by the public for a live stream of Earth, and has been used to detect weather patterns and natural disasters. But again, Flerfs hand wave it away.

No, we could shoot lasers at the camera from earth in real time to prove its real for example. Maybe there's better methods for proving that the camera is on the moon idk.

Satellites could be nothing more than lighter than air balloons for all we know.

I would think putting a camera on the moon would be something everyone would be excited for. Not, oh well they won't believe it anyways so we won't try. Globers shouldn't have anything to prove to flat earthers if what they say is true.

There's still no concrete evidence. Combine that fact with all of the fake photos and fake depictions that one can find everywhere, people have questions.

How about designing a telescope that can see the US flag sticking into the moon's surface? That's something concrete.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

No, we could shoot lasers at the camera from earth in real time to prove its real for example. Maybe there's better methods for proving that the camera is on the moon idk.

Satellites could be nothing more than lighter than air balloons for all we know.

I would think putting a camera on the moon would be something everyone would be excited for. Not, oh well they won't believe it anyways so we won't try. Globers shouldn't have anything to prove to flat earthers if what they say is true.

There's still no concrete evidence. Combine that fact with all of the fake photos and fake depictions that one can find everywhere, people have questions.

How about designing a telescope that can see the US flag sticking into the moon's surface? That's something concrete.

Lighter than air balloons that can be in geosynchronous orbit with the earth? Don’t not see how unreasonable that is? Why are satellites tv dishes all pointing in the same direction if a ballon in our atmosphere is providing the feed?
So you want NASA to make a special trip to the moon just to install a camera to prove something to Flerfs that satellites can do? Again, that is ridiculous.
NASA has produced thousands, if not 10’s of thousands, of photos and videos as well as documented missions into space. If you don’t believe all of this, why would bouncing a laser off of a camera change your mind.
How do you explain satellite feeds that can be matched to weather patterns on earth?
How do you explain the ISS traveling at 17,000 at the exact locations that NASA informs us it would be? I have personally tracked it and so can you.
You seem to have a belief system that won’t allow any evidence to sway it.

 

[Andy Capp]

Shut it dipshit, you refused to answer my point that you initially denied was true. About the laser becoming much wider by the time it reaches the moon etc.
Just stop talking if you're going to make stupid claims then tap out while moving onto other forms of attempting to seem like you're not a clueless idiot.

Tell me the difference between the light emitted by a laser and the light emitted by any other source of light, like a flashlight, for example.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

Tell me the difference between the light emitted by a laser and the light emitted by any other source of light, like a flashlight, for example.

He can't. And when he can't, he'll deflect to something else that he thinks you should've answered whilst hypocritically not answering questions or responding to things that he chooses not to.

Best not to feed the dummies and move on.

 

[Copper Burner]

Lighter than air balloons that can be in geosynchronous orbit with the earth? Don’t not see how unreasonable that is? Why are satellites tv dishes all pointing in the same direction if a ballon in our atmosphere is providing the feed?
So you want NASA to make a special trip to the moon just to install a camera to prove something to Flerfs that satellites can do? Again, that is ridiculous.
NASA has produced thousands, if not 10’s of thousands, of photos and videos as well as documented missions into space. If you don’t believe all of this, why would bouncing a laser off off a camera change your mind.
How do you explain satellite feeds that can be matched to weather patterns on earth?
How do you explain the ISS traveling at 17,000 at the exact locations that NASA informs us it would be? I have personally tracked it and so can you.
You seem to have a belief system that won’t allow any evidence to sway it.

Yeah, putting a camera on the moon while they are up there is a stupid idea. What was I thinking.

I don't think we should develop a telescope to be able to view the flag sticking into the moon either. That would be a waste of time.

I think we should request that Nasa put out more cgi and fake stuff instead.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Tell me the difference between the light emitted by a laser and the light emitted by any other source of light, like a flashlight, for example.

This is when you just smile and walk away slowly backwards while waving...

 

[CyberRubberDuck]

Tell me the difference between the light emitted by a laser and the light emitted by any other source of light, like a flashlight, for example.

Is that you diving in to save your dipshit mate who is now being a coward and refusing to reply because he clearly wrote something stupid, got his 'facts' totally wrong and has now resorted to reading and just reacting to posts so he doesn't have to perform a big back peddle?
Incase you didn't notice, that is who the post you are quoting was replying to.
I'll answer you when he addresses what I'm pointing out. You don't get to just redirect away from dipshit I'm afraid.