I'm not a NASA freak. I have zero connection with NASA. They do provide a wealth of info / data / images but then as the largest such organisation in the world, they would. However, there have been and are almost countless other scientific sources, none of which except 1 are NASA.

I have no claims. I know my scientific facts. You are the one who presumably claims nothing happened - but then you're the one who claims Sky satellites don't exist, and that the ISS is a holograph, and that the Earth is flat, amongst your myriad delusions. You are the one therefore behaving like a delusional, and if you persist in such claims then it's up you you to prove them. Which of course you have no desire to try.

FLAT STANLEY wrote: All you have to rely on is what you have been told, heard, and pictures you have seen.

Well, all any human can go on is information which reaches their brain from extraneous sources. The trouble is, I analyse the input from a scientific viewpoint, and weigh and categorize accordingly, whereas you are both gullible and weak-minded, and prone to "beliefs" instead of scientific proofs. This has many results, one of which is "belief" trumps "proof" and in turn means that any scientific evidence that conflicts with your mad beliefs you will always dismiss as "fake" or "CGI" or some such, without a shred of evidence for that, because if in conflict with your unscientific worldviews, then ... it just is.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:Which has been expertly disembowelled.

that's ironically the funniest of all. When the hoax theories came out in fact I did look at them with interest, because unlike you I have an open mind, and the scientific method works simply because any proposition is constantly challenged, and if the challenge supports it then the proposition is strengthened.

But it became very quickly every apparent atht the hoax theories were largely by raving nutters, supported by grossly unscientific numbskulls, aided and abetted by people who thought they knew a bit about this, or that, and had promoted themselves to experts. People who (for example) had not the slightest clue about how a camera works, or albedo, or luminosity, or reflectivity, or perspective, yet risibly claimed photos were "fake" because "the shadows are wrong" or some such instantly recognisable drivel.

So it is not that I ignore the "evidence " of such theorists, it is that it is drivel.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:You really have nothing solid to go on other than relying on the premise that the media has been honest

The media? Honest? Which media do you mean? Which media have I taken my science from that is dishonest, then?

For example, I subscribe to Astronomy magazine. That is media. Do you claim they are dishonest? Give me examples as to lies they have published with your evidence that they are lies, so i can further consider your claim.

In fact, you have NO IDEA what media I have read over the past few decades and so you can't possibly make such a risibly outrageous sweeping statement.

Finally, YOU in contrast seem to get ALL your beliefs from the media, but in your case that media is restricted to
(a) some version of a collection of writings called the Bible ; and
(b) endless puerile pseduobabble contained in cringeworthy YouTube media.

How ironic that you swallow the contents of your highly restricted media diet wholesale, and ignore the overwhelming weight of scientific media that is available, if you would only look.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:Not much of a basis for believing when you have to rely on just your faith.

You are the one who tells us we are all doomed to hellfire because unlike you we aren't ruled by "faith". You're the one who says your faith is the be-all and end-all for you. So how can you then make such a ludicrous statement?


Only if you have absolutely not the slightest clue what Occam's razor does, or how it works.

Occam would tell you that if there are thousands of Sky dish installers (150 advertised just in Bradford yellow pages) and if any one of them will come to your house and fit you a dish and tune it to the satellite, and if it will then all work; and if you then slightly move the dish, or obstruct the line of sight of the satellite, or cut the cable, then it won;t work, Occam would tell you that yes, there is a satellite and yes your images are being beamed in from the satellite.

Your alternative presumably involves the thousands of installers and engineers being NASA spies and agents, who are all in on the secret that in fact the dishes and receivers don't work, which YOU have said you believe. Occam would walk away shaking his head, so don't ever talk to me about Occam

Cracking thread, best on both forums atm, some real ' loons ' out there

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:, whereas you are both gullible and weak-minded, and prone to "beliefs" instead of scientific proofs. For example, I subscribe to Astronomy magazine. That is media. Do you claim they are dishonest? Give me examples as to lies they ahve published with your evidence that they are lies, so i can further consider your claim. You are the one who tells us we are all doomed to hellfire because unlike you we aren't ruled by "faith". You're the one who says your faith is the be-all and end-all for you. SO how can you then make such a ludicrous statement?. Eyeroll Firstly you used the word gullible. Now I'm the one who's rejecting the official narrative so how can the rejecter be the gullible one. The one accepting the official credulous narrative is the gullible one.Another typical tongue twisting Aardvark trait. PMSL. More laughter at your expense is your subscription fetish for CGI composite overload in Astronomy Magazine I bet there's plenty of sticky pages adhered to the CGI glossy hair-brushed cartooned sections. With regards to faith. My faith is spiritually fulfilling whereas yours is based on a Stanley Kubrik filmset somewhere in/near Hollywood. :lol:

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:, whereas you are both gullible and weak-minded, and prone to "beliefs" instead of scientific proofs. For example, I subscribe to Astronomy magazine. That is media. Do you claim they are dishonest? Give me examples as to lies they ahve published with your evidence that they are lies, so i can further consider your claim. You are the one who tells us we are all doomed to hellfire because unlike you we aren't ruled by "faith". You're the one who says your faith is the be-all and end-all for you. SO how can you then make such a ludicrous statement?. Eyeroll Firstly you used the word gullible. Now I'm the one who's rejecting the official narrative so how can the rejecter be the gullible one. The one accepting the official credulous narrative is the gullible one.Another typical tongue twisting Aardvark trait. PMSL. More laughter at your expense is your subscription fetish for CGI composite overload in Astronomy Magazine I bet there's plenty of sticky pages adhered to the CGI glossy hair-brushed cartooned sections. With regards to faith. My faith is spiritually fulfilling whereas yours is based on a Stanley Kubrik filmset somewhere in/near Hollywood. :lol:

Hi Butcher.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:Eyeroll Firstly you used the word gullible. Now I'm the one who's rejecting the official narrative so how can the rejecter be the gullible one. Because of course the question of who rejects or accepts what is in itself nothing to do with who is gullible. The criterion is who is prone to blindly and uncritically swallow transparent bull rap. Like you swallowing bull rap about Sky (and other) TV satellites "not existing" or the Earth "being flat". That is gold star gullible. Quote:More laughter at your expense is your subscription fetish for CGI composite overload in Astronomy Magazine I bet there's plenty of sticky pages adhered to the CGI glossy hair-brushed cartooned sections. So typical, you reject a scientific publication without even seeing it, because your faiths dictate that everything in it must be fake. Really pathetic. Embarrassingly so. Quote:With regards to faith. My faith is spiritually fulfilling whereas yours is based on a Stanley Kubrik filmset somewhere in/near Hollywood. :lol: I have no interest in your faith, it is a matter for you if you believe in fictional deities, and if you really don't get the difference between faith in things for which there is zero evidence and scientific theory then you must be too stupid for words. But of course you well understand, you just don't know how to deal with the cold hard evidence, mountains of it, and so - as is your normal defensive mode - you dismiss all but your crank drivel as "fake" or "CGI" (your favourite). You kid yourself in this way all the time, so you don't have to confront reality.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:Eyeroll Firstly you used the word gullible. Now I'm the one who's rejecting the official narrative so how can the rejecter be the gullible one. Because of course the question of who rejects or accepts what is in itself nothing to do with who is gullible. The criterion is who is prone to blindly and uncritically swallow transparent bull rap. Like you swallowing bull rap about Sky (and other) TV satellites "not existing" or the Earth "being flat". That is gold star gullible. Quote:More laughter at your expense is your subscription fetish for CGI composite overload in Astronomy Magazine I bet there's plenty of sticky pages adhered to the CGI glossy hair-brushed cartooned sections. So typical, you reject a scientific publication without even seeing it, because your faiths dictate that everything in it must be fake. Really pathetic. Embarrassingly so. Quote:With regards to faith. My faith is spiritually fulfilling whereas yours is based on a Stanley Kubrik filmset somewhere in/near Hollywood. :lol: I have no interest in your faith, it is a matter for you if you believe in fictional deities, and if you really don't get the difference between faith in things for which there is zero evidence and scientific theory then you must be too stupid for words. But of course you well understand, you just don't know how to deal with the cold hard evidence, mountains of it, and so - as is your normal defensive mode - you dismiss all but your crank drivel as "fake" or "CGI" (your favourite). You kid yourself in this way all the time, so you don't have to confront reality.

And so all satellite installers are in on the scam - right? You cannot surely be as gullible as to actually give one second of credence to the bullcrap you just cut n pasted? Can you? You do know people are laughing at you? This is lunacy if the highest order, yet you can't see it! It is this sort of drivel that strongly suggests you're a troll, as it's hard to think anyone could be so gullible as to swallow that bull you just posted. Scientifically illiterate drivel.

This thread is incredible.

Since 2004 ?

Nah, but you certainly are entertaining