Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?

[carpediem]

You DO NOT consider new evidence, you cast aspersions on it any way you can, just like you did my integrity and honesty.

What new evidence have you presented in this thread?

[DD Brock]

It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century".

That is not a negative, it is an affirmative assertion.

You're either retarded or willfully ignorant. Or simply lying. An AFFIRMATIVE assertion would be the opposite,  "NASA DID send 12 men to the moon in the last century". I'm surrounded by a moron

No, by claiming that NASA didn't go to the moon you are saying that NASA faked it.  That is an affirmative assertion.

Talk about word games?

Saying NASA did not land men on the moon in the last century is a NEGATIVE ASSERTION, period. Saying they hoaxed it is the same damned thing.

I would love to know what college course you took to come to that conclusion.

[Bob B.]

Saying NASA did not land men on the moon in the last century is a NEGATIVE ASSERTION, period. Saying they hoaxed it is the same damned thing.

"NASA faked the moon landings" is an affirmative assertion for which you which you bare the burden of proof.

[JayUtah]

Mr.Windley, with all due respect (which it is my opinion is very little), I have seen in these few short pages how you "reach your conclusions",

But your opinion of me was already solidified before you arrived here, as evidenced by your first post directed to me.  It wasn't based on observation.

You DO NOT consider new evidence, you cast aspersions on it any way you can, just like you did my integrity and honesty.

You object to having your claims tested?  How does that make you morally and intellectually superior?

You claimed to be a scientist, as a foundation to lecturing us on the scientific method.  I questioned that foundation, which you refused to support.

You claimed Apollo couldn't be assured of success because the lethality of radiation couldn't be determined without an exact duplication of the environment.  That question contains several premises which amount to allegations of fact.  I therefore asked you about those allegations, and you dropped the subject.  Do you really just expect me to take your pronouncements as uncontestable fact?

[LunarOrbit]

It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century". This is because no matter what evidence I present that it is impossible for it to have happened as claimed, persons like you can easily just move the goalposts and deny what has been proved. This is why science works in the opposite manner.

If you can't prove that NASA faked the moon landings then why are you here?

Where were Neil, Buzz, and Mike on July 20th, 1969? Prove it. NASA can. Members of this forum have independently proved the location of the Apollo 11 astronauts on a specific date (here and here. Have you?

What I can do is cast enough doubt on the integrity of those telling me that [this moonlanding was real] and the evidence they use to back up their ascertains, I can convince anyone with a logical mind who applies deductive reasoning and common sense to his conclusions that it is nearly certain it did not happen.

I believe that's called poisoning the well. Someone who is as concerned with personal attacks as you claim to be shouldn't be doing that. Our "personal integrity" has nothing at all to do with whether Apollo really went to the Moon.

If you can't provide an alternative to the official story that makes sense (from liftoff to splashdown) then you have failed. Where is your logic now?

[JayUtah]

Saying they hoaxed it is the same damned thing.

Explain how accusing someone of perpetrating a hoax is not an affirmative claim.

[JayUtah]

I would love to know what college course you took to come to that conclusion.

Given that Romulus has expressed disdain for academic qualifications, I think it's presumptive to consider that he has been to college.

[LunarOrbit]

You're either retarded or willfully ignorant. Or simply lying. An AFFIRMATIVE assertion would be the opposite,  "NASA DID send 12 men to the moon in the last century". I'm surrounded by a moron

Consider this your first warning. The next one gets you placed under moderation... that means your posts will require my approval before they appear in the forum.

[Romulus]

I just think it's a dishonest tactic that shows a lack of integrity and a sort of desperation to slime someone in an effort to discredit them without any evidence.

I think it's a dishonest tactic to claim to be a scientist, refuse to prove that, then redefine what it means to be a scientist.  You want the "title" of scientist without showing that you earned it.

I assure you that Jay Windley is no match for myself intellectually or academically.

You've been invited several times to prove that, if it matters so much to you.  I'm also wondering why you're so obsessed over me personally.  There are other people on this forum, you know.

Yes, i know there are others and I men no disrespect to them by concentrating on you. After all, when you raid a whore house you take the piano player too. But you are the main pimp here.  And Phil Plait is the guy who runs the whole show, isn't he? I am not obsessed with you Mr.Windley, but why concentrate on those that nobody knows when you can take down the big braggart with the same effort?

[DD Brock]

I would love to know what college course you took to come to that conclusion.

Given that Romulus has expressed disdain for academic qualifications, I think it's presumptive to consider that he has been to college.

Kinda what I meant   

[Romulus]

There hasn't been this much activity on this forum since the last time I was here. It's like a piranha attack. Is this how you prove yourselves, by behaving like pack animals?

[DD Brock]

You did claim you were more than a match for the collective intellect here. Consider it a personal challenge.

[Bob B.]

There hasn't been this much activity on this forum since the last time I was here.

Are you admitting to being a sock puppet?

[Romulus]

I would love to know what college course you took to come to that conclusion.

Given that Romulus has expressed disdain for academic qualifications, I think it's presumptive to consider that he has been to college.

Kinda what I meant   

being educated either the in  traditional manner or otherwise doesn't correlate with exceptional intelligence, as you have so eloquently proved. What makes you intelligent is  not just  the ability to retain, but to discern the veracity of, both what you learned in academia and in the hard know world of reality. I have been traditionally educated but I did not absorb anything that was not proved to me.

[Romulus]

You did claim you were more than a match for the collective intellect here. Consider it a personal challenge.

I think i have done fairly well in that regard thus far.