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

[Bob B.]

... you admitted earlier in this thread that you do not apply the scientific method to your beliefs and you contentions and you will not abide in them.

Nobody admitted that.  What people have said is that we apply the scientific method when it is applicable.

[Romulus]

Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one. I refuse to be ran in circles. Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

[Romulus]

... you admitted earlier in this thread that you do not apply the scientific method to your beliefs and you contentions and you will not abide in them.

Nobody admitted that.  What people have said is that we apply the scientific method when it is applicable.

You either have a reading comprehension issue or a dishonesty problem. This is typical of the NASA proponent. Deny deny deny....

[LunarOrbit]

Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one. I refuse to be ran in circles. Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

It's only slander if it isn't true. If you want to prove that Jay has slandered you then go ahead and prove him wrong. Prove that you are a scientist.

[Romulus]

The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

Which is to say a different epistemology describes the burden of proof in historical research, specifically where accusations of fraud or fakery are leveled.  If a purported occurrence is plausible enough in its setting and has broad acceptance among the relevant scholars, a charge of fabrication specifically incurs the burden of proof.

Historians are very clear on this.  If you argue some historical event was faked or staged, you always have the burden of proof.

[Luke Pemberton]

Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one.

So why post it?

I refuse to be ran in circles.

That is of your choosing and a result of your m.o.

Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

Why should we close it or stop using this forum. I actually learn more from this forum than I do from Apollo debunkers. I quite like being a member. Why should I listen to you? Please, cry me a river.

[DD Brock]

Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one. I refuse to be ran in circles. Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

Once again, you said:

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explainations.

It is not slander to ask you to back that statement up, nor is it slander to demand proof of the credentials you claim to have.

[Romulus]

Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one. I refuse to be ran in circles. Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

It's only slander if it isn't true. If you want to prove that Jay has slandered you then go ahead and prove him wrong. Prove that you are a scientist.

It is humorous that you would demand I prove I am scientist to prove Windley slandered me but you don't have to prove anything to prove he didn't, do you?

I think this is a case where the referees are having more effect on the score than the players.

[JayUtah]

Apollo is obviously a claimed scientific accomplishment that has many elements that can each be considered a scientific experiment because that's what they are.

No.  A scientific experiment is not simply whatever you say it is.  Your whole approach here has revolved around word games.

Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced, it doesn't just let you off the hook from having to prove them.

That is not my claim.  My claim is that you don't understand the principle of scientific reproducibility, and that your attempt to apply them to questions of historical authenticity is meaningless.  Once again, I'm not agreeing with you.  I'm challenging the hidden premise in your argument.  Learn the difference.

As I said, you admitted earlier in this thread that you do not apply the scientific method to your beliefs and you contentions and you will not abide in them.

Quote the post where I said that, in those words.  You can't.  You can only show the posts where I showed where your hidden premise was in error.

I am satisfied I have achieved my objectives and we can move on, if you will allow it by closing this thread.

"Move on" to what?  I neither allow nor restrict anything.  I'm just a poster on this forum, same as you.  If you don't want to talk about the subjects you brought up, then maybe you shouldn't have brought them up.

[Luke Pemberton]

It is humorous that you would demand I prove I am scientist to prove Windley slandered me but you don't have to prove anything to prove he didn't, do you?

No, you've been asked to offer two independent proofs. They're not connnected.

(1) Prove Jay slandered you.
(2) Prove you are a scientist.

You are not being asked for (2) as proof of (1). You do understand the idea of scientific method and hypothesis?

[JayUtah]

I think this is a case where the referees are having more effect on the score than the players.

Oh, boo hoo!  You made a claim to be a scientist.  I told you what would constitute suitable evidence of that, and you explicitly refused to provide it.  Then you tried to redefine what it meant to be a scientist.  You then told us you would satisfy your definition of scientist by providing suitably robust, scientifically erudite arguments.  You didn't do that either, and are apparently looking for ways not to have to.  Since you refused to lay a proper foundation by any standard for your claims to expertise, I'm not at all defaming you at all by saying you are not entitled to that status.  Due diligence has been well satisfied.

[Romulus]

Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one.

So why post it?

I refuse to be ran in circles.

That is of your choosing and a result of your m.o.

Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

Why should we close it or stop using this forum. I actually learn more from this forum than I do from Apollo debunkers. I quite like being a member. Why should I listen to you? Please, cry me a river.

A person who closes his mind to the acceptance of new ideas and facts is almost always an person of low intelligence who believes based on faith and not evidence. I am the opposite, and by questioning what i am told I CAN alter the human collective conscious, which I feel is critical at this point in human history.

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.

 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.

[Romulus]

  Your whole approach here has revolved around word games.

OMG!  Pot, meet kettle~!

[Bob B.]

Can an anonymous person who's known only by an Internet nickname be slandered?

[JayUtah]

(1) Prove Jay slandered you.

You can't slander someone unless sound comes out of your mouth to that effect.  The proper accusation would be of libel.  Second, you can't libel a pseudonym.  Nor is it libel in any way against anyone to note that they have not substantiated specific claims about themselves.  If someone claims to be the King of Siam, and they don't provide any proof, then saying "You're not the King of Siam," is not in any way defamatory.

But of course this is all just Romulus' distraction to keep the thread focused on something other than his unwillingness to provide the evidence requested of him.