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

[Romulus]

I would pit my scientific aptitude , knowledge and intelligence against anyone here, in any way you choose to measure it, other than your opinions/

So you get to decide the ground rules and arbitrarily decide when others have opinions. That sounds like the rules for moving the goalposts already.

I made a statement of fact. Mr Windley insulted me by indirectly calling me a liar. That is an ad hominem attack. I stated I would be wiling to pit my scientific abilities, knowledge and intelligence against any of you including him in response to that insult. How you proceed from here will reveal your true intents.

[JayUtah]

I believe enough about your character, integrity and tactics have already been revealed to conclude you are not only not a scientist, but are nothing more or less than a character assassin without the courage to engage in a fair fight.

You're welcome to prove that at your leisure.  Unfortunately you're not even remotely interested in a fair fight.  You're obviously interested in foisting your own ground rules, rewriting everyone else's statements, and smack talk.

[gillianren]

As I have clearly stated, I am not here to prove NASA faked the moonlandings. I have accumulated an absolutely staggering amount of information on this subject and I have spent many years researching it. Much of the information came from people just like yourself, who were trying to  validate their beliefs, and I do appreciate that. Where I can, I will give you the credit you deserve..

My sole reason for posting this particular thread to this particular forum was to get what I already have, an admission that NASA's dedicated proponents do not wish to and refuse to use the scientific method to prove their claim. These pages have been recorded as screenshots complete with verifiable proof they are unedited and as they appeared here on your forum.

How convenient for you.

I'm not a scientist.  I am, however, an amateur historian, and I get how history works.  You clearly don't.  If you claim something is faked, any historian worth their salt will ask for your evidence.  Because a claim that something is fake is a claim that incurs burden of proof no matter what your field.  When the Apollo missions were happening, NASA presented its evidence.  If anyone had determined any part of that evidence to be fake, they would have had to have proved it was a fake.  This would include things like showing how it was faked.

The thing is, we do have an abundance of fakes to examine in the last hundred or so years, and the way they were shown to be faked was the same every time.  The Cottingley fairies?  Piltdown Man?  The Salamander Letter?  It took more to claim any one of them was a fake than just insisting they were, and none of them had a tiny fraction of the evidence behind them that Apollo does. 

[JayUtah]

I made a statement of fact.

No, you made a claim.

Mr Windley insulted me by indirectly calling me a liar.

No, I disputed your claim.

That is an ad hominem attack.

No, it is a challenge to the foundation of your claim to expertise.

I stated I would be wiling to pit my scientific abilities, knowledge and intelligence against any of you including him in response to that insult. How you proceed from here will reveal your true intents.

I've asked for your scientific evidence several times.  Where is it?

[Luke Pemberton]

Mr Windley insulted me by indirectly calling me a liar.

But you aren't a scientist, so Jay did not inuslt you. He was stating fact. A scientist would have presetned their claims by now, rather than flip flop around with the silly games we are witnessing. Please, present your claims. Put up and shut up.

[Romulus]

I choose to measure it in academic degrees in relevant fields from accredited universities followed by substantial professional-level practice in the relevant fields.  How do you measure up in that way?

By revealing personal information such as this you are able to identify your adversary, which is not something I intend to allow. That said, I do not believe great men such as Nicola Tesla should be ignored by science like they are, and the fact that they do not have the qualifications that you consider what a scientist is does not diminish their accomplishments, their abilities or their respectability.

 I realize that pedigreed [redacted] like you wave your credentials as proof of competency because you do not wish to acknowledge your inferiority by attempting to prove otherwise. If you could actually do something productive, you wouldn't be doing what you are.

[JayUtah]

As I have clearly stated, I am not here to prove NASA faked the moonlandings.

Of course not.  You have already claimed they were fake.  And you have already heaped scorn upon those who believe they're real.  But you accept absolutely no responsibility to justify your scorn and prove your belief.

I have accumulated an absolutely staggering amount of information on this subject and I have spent many years researching it.

Yet this many pages in, and we have yet to see any of it.  Why don't you start by naming a few of your sources?  Or does your self-absolution cover even that?

My sole reason for posting this particular thread to this particular forum was to get what I already have, an admission that NASA's dedicated proponents do not wish to and refuse to use the scientific method to prove their claim.

Yes, your sole reason was to appear to have won.  This happens many times.

These pages have been recorded as screenshots complete with verifiable proof they are unedited and as they appeared here on your forum.

And will you be including links back to this forum so that your readers can see how badly you have misrepresented everyone?

[Romulus]

Mr Windley insulted me by indirectly calling me a liar.

But you aren't a scientist, so Jay did not inuslt you. He was stating fact. A scientist would have presetned their claims by now, rather than flip flop around with the silly games we are witnessing. Please, present your claims. Put up and shut up.

My claim is simple and I have already proved it, and that is that NASA's proponents do not respect the scientific method and refused to abide in it in proving their claims

[JayUtah]

By...

That paragraph tells me everything I need to know.  Thank you.

I realize that pedigreed [redacted] like you wave your credentials as proof of competency because you do not wish to acknowledge your inferiority by attempting to prove otherwise. If you could actually do something productive, you wouldn't be doing what you are.

That's an ad hominem.

[Romulus]

But you aren't a scientist, so Jay did not inuslt you. He was stating fact.

Provide proof of your accusation and belittlement

[Luke Pemberton]

My claim is simple

Finally, something we can agree on.

[JayUtah]

My claim is simple...

Which claim?

You claim we don't use the scientific method, and I discuss that below.  But you also claim Apollo was fake, and that you have considerable proof of that.  But you decline to present any of that proof.  How does that work?  You claim the privilege of proving or not proving whatever you want, but somehow everyone is constrained to use your notions of scientific methodology in order to be credible?  How is that not just special pleading?

...and I have already proved it, and that is that NASA's proponents do not respect the scientific method and refused to abide in it in proving their claims.

No, that's you once again rewriting your critics.  The scientific method does not apply to questions of historical authenticity, for the reasons already stated.  We respect the scientific method by not applying it where it doesn't belong.  We do not refuse to "abide in it."  Instead we refuse your attempts to foist your layman's definition of what those terms mean to you.

[Romulus]

By...

That paragraph tells me everything I need to know.  Thank you.

I realize that pedigreed [redacted] like you wave your credentials as proof of competency because you do not wish to acknowledge your inferiority by attempting to prove otherwise. If you could actually do something productive, you wouldn't be doing what you are.

That's an ad hominem.

It is a statement of fact. If you can prove otherwise, do so. You made the claim I am not  a scientist by your standards without having any idea what my qualifications are simple because you so not agree with my position concerning the veracity of NASA's claimed moonlandings. You are not a scientist, you are not skilled in the discipline and you do not abide in it's methodologies. What you actually do is attack the character, integrity and abilities of your adversary without backing it up, you are a propagandist.

[Romulus]

My claim is simple

Finally, something we can agree on.

You're really witty, aren't you? Taking quotes and hacking them up like that is the dishonest tactics of a cretin.

[Luke Pemberton]

You're really witty, aren't you?

My friends think so. Again, something we can agree on. So are you going to present your claims of fakery?