Radiation

[nomuse]

A guy once asked me if there was anything he could show me or tell or give to me that would make me believe in God.  After reflecting on it a long moment I told him no, there wasn't.  So he turned around and walked away.  I ask you gentlemen and lady.  Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convinced you that you have been deceived?

You mean, the Apollo Program equivalent of a fossilized bunny in a Cambrian deposit?

It would have to be a hell of a big bunny. The Apollo Program is supported in so many different ways, documented so extensively, agrees so well with all other practice and science, it would take at the very least more than one line of unimpeachable evidence. Since some of the evidence is technical, I for one would require explanations that provide an adequate alternate explanation for that data. Not a hand-wave, but a detailed description of, say, the process of sample collection -- or the process used to create ersatz samples.

[JayUtah]

Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?

Evidence of deception, not just a default conclusion of deception when one bit of data, misinterpreted by a layman, fails to meet naive expectations.

[timfinch]

I have analyzed this correctly.

No.

YEs.  Better than it has ever been analyzed before.  I used the keen intellect honed in the neutron flux of a raging reactor aboard a fast attack killing machine.  My ability to analyze data is enhanced in a similar way to the hulk's strength is increased by gamma radiation.

[Luke Pemberton]

I have analyzed this incorrectly.

Glad to be of assistance.

[JayUtah]

YEs.  Better than it has ever been analyzed before.  I used the keen intellect honed in the neutron flux of a raging reactor aboard a fast attack killing machine.  My ability to analyze day is enhanced in a similar way to the hulk's strength is increased by gamma radiation.

And I see you're back to arguing like a six-year-old.

[timfinch]

Is there anything that I could show you are tell you or give to you that would convince you that you have been deceived?

Evidence of deception, not just a default conclusion of deception when one bit of data, misinterpreted by a layman, fails to meet naive expectations.

Exactly what evidence would be required to convince you?  A death bed confession.  Footage of studio, A government acknowledgement?  What would work for you?

[timfinch]

YEs.  Better than it has ever been analyzed before.  I used the keen intellect honed in the neutron flux of a raging reactor aboard a fast attack killing machine.  My ability to analyze day is enhanced in a similar way to the hulk's strength is increased by gamma radiation.

And I see you're back to arguing like a six-year-old.

Occasionly, in the absence of humour I self excite.

[timfinch]

You know I am funny...

[timfinch]

Because I care...

[Luke Pemberton]

Occasionly, in the absence of humour I self excite.

So do chimps in a zoo. It's biologically interesting how the males whip themselves into a state of frenzy once separated from the whoop.

[JayUtah]

Exactly what evidence would be required to convince you?

Fairly comprehensive, and direct.

You've punted on the comprehensive part.  You admit you can't provide it.  You make the entire decision on one bit of evidence and then disregard all the rest with the hope that it will somehow just work out.  And you don't have direct evidence.  You have a default conclusion you draw when things don't work out exactly the way you think they should.  You've relied on a mystery writer to give you pointers on reasoning.

A death bed confession.  Footage of studio, A government acknowledgement?  What would work for you?

None of that, really.  That's because all the evidence still has to be explained.  Faced with, say, a deathbed confession it's still more parsimonious to belief the confession was false unless all the other evidence can be explained by it.  You seem to be insisting on a smoking gun.  That's not how it works.

[timfinch]

Exactly what evidence would be required to convince you?

Fairly comprehensive, and direct.

You've punted on the comprehensive part.  You admit you can't provide it.  You make the entire decision on one bit of evidence and then disregard all the rest with the hope that it will somehow just work out.  And you don't have direct evidence.  You have a default conclusion you draw when things don't work out exactly the way you think they should.  You've relied on a mystery writer to give you pointers on reasoning.

A death bed confession.  Footage of studio, A government acknowledgement?  What would work for you?

None of that, really.  That's because all the evidence still has to be explained.  Faced with, say, a deathbed confession it's still more parsimonious to belief the confession was false unless all the other evidence can be explained by it.  You seem to be insisting on a smoking gun.  That's not how it works.

So essentially your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will suffice.  Interesting....

[timfinch]

I was doomed from the start.

[Luke Pemberton]

I was doomed from the start.

No, just wrong from the start. Don't give up. I'm sure the local college run elementary math classes. Averages, you need to work on averages, then logs and exponential functions. I suggest you take note in the class on logs to base 10 and natural logs.

[timfinch]

I have business with the government and will be out of the office for a couple of weeks.  I need someone to stand in for me while I attend to matters of great importance to both me and the nation.  I am concerned that in my absence the group will lose focus and resort to needle work and soap operas.  Who can I trust to act in my behalf for the good of the group?  Anyone?