[BlueMoon]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

So medicine is the only or one of the very few professions that proceeds by inquiry?

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

And you would have us believe that NASA photographed a rock that looks exactly like a rodent on the surface of mars?

Come on, that's obviously not a rodent.  Maybe if you squinted really hard at it, but otherwise, any normal person can see that it's just a rock.  Don't be stupid. 

[Roundy]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

I'll ask you the same question I asked Hoppy.

Did you see the part where I said the x-ray was for the doctors use?  Did you misunderstand that part?

I really don't see the relevance.  I was referring specifically to the standard RE battle-cry that trusting our senses is nothing short of mind-numbingly stupid, at least on a level of mental retardation with Forrest Gump, maybe even I Am Sam, because they are always lying to us.  I hope you understand better.

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

Well... no... actually we believe the moon landing was a hoax.  I thought like pretty much everybody understood that.

[CableDawg]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

I'll ask you the same question I asked Hoppy.

Did you see the part where I said the x-ray was for the doctors use?  Did you misunderstand that part?

I really don't see the relevance.  I was referring specifically to the standard RE battle-cry that trusting our senses is nothing short of mind-numbingly stupid, at least on a level of mental retardation with Forrest Gump, maybe even I Am Sam, because they are always lying to us.  I hope you understand better.

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

Well... no... actually we believe the moon landing was a hoax.  I thought like pretty much everybody understood that.

You don't see the relevance between what I said and how you and hoppy tried to twist it to fit what you believe?

Where did I say anything about going to the doctor to get confirmation of a broken arm?  Would you not go to the doctor if you had a broken arm to get it fixed or does your perception of a random person on the street telling you he is qualified to set the bone good enough for you to forego going to the doctor?

[rabinoz]

Well... no... actually we believe the moon landing was a hoax.  I thought like pretty much everybody understood that.

We know that very well! By definition any evidence
(1) that is against a flat earth is automatically a hoax (Satellite TV, GPS using satellites, etc)
(2) that seems to support a flat earth must be true, even if later proved false!

Yet there are so many things you cannot explain without using the weirdest of explanations.

Your sun must move in the most strange spiral "orbit" - no explanation as to howhow!
You somehow get phases of the moon by it wobbling up and down - no explanation as to the impossibility this actually causing the phases.
The sun and moon are observed to stay the same size as they appear to move across the sky - drag in magic perfectly compensating "atmospheric magnification".

All dragged in without a trace of evidence! Who needs evidence when "the earth looks flat"?

[Roundy]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

I'll ask you the same question I asked Hoppy.

Did you see the part where I said the x-ray was for the doctors use?  Did you misunderstand that part?

I really don't see the relevance.  I was referring specifically to the standard RE battle-cry that trusting our senses is nothing short of mind-numbingly stupid, at least on a level of mental retardation with Forrest Gump, maybe even I Am Sam, because they are always lying to us.  I hope you understand better.

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

Well... no... actually we believe the moon landing was a hoax.  I thought like pretty much everybody understood that.

You don't see the relevance between what I said and how you and hoppy tried to twist it to fit what you believe?

Again, I was referring to what REers in general seem to believe.  Your post was kind of a springboard for the observation, but the observation was never meant to be based on or in response to anything you said.

Where did I say anything about going to the doctor to get confirmation of a broken arm?  Would you not go to the doctor if you had a broken arm to get it fixed or does your perception of a random person on the street telling you he is qualified to set the bone good enough for you to forego going to the doctor?

Now I think you're just being insulting for the sake of being insulting.  Why wouldn't I go to the doctor if I can plainly see it's broken?  I'm not qualified to fix it and obviously I'm not leaving it in the hands of a random stranger...

[Tom Bishop]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

So medicine is the only or one of the very few professions that proceeds by inquiry?

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

And you would have us believe that NASA photographed a rock that looks exactly like a rodent on the surface of mars?

Come on, that's obviously not a rodent.  Maybe if you squinted really hard at it, but otherwise, any normal person can see that it's just a rock.  Don't be stupid.

That's a fairly convincing rock. 10 out of 10 of the people I showed it to thought it was a rodent. It even has the black almond rodent eyes

[Woody]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

So medicine is the only or one of the very few professions that proceeds by inquiry?

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

And you would have us believe that NASA photographed a rock that looks exactly like a rodent on the surface of mars?

Come on, that's obviously not a rodent.  Maybe if you squinted really hard at it, but otherwise, any normal person can see that it's just a rock.  Don't be stupid.

That's a fairly convincing rock. 10 out of 10 of the people I showed it to thought it was a rodent. It even has the black almond rodent eyes

To me it looks like a rock that looks like a rodent.

What I would suggest is start looking at pictures of rodents to try to identify the type it is. 

See what rodents appear not to have legs or very short legs.

Which have blunt noses.

Which have no or very small ears that are not obvious.

Do you look at anything critically before making a claim?

I am not saying it is not a rodent I am not an expert.  I looked at the photo for about 30 seconds and noticed these things.

Did you think about taking the picture to someone like a veterinarian?  Maybe they could help narrow the search down a bit.

Would you like me to research it for you?  It will take some time since I will not make it a priority, but I can eventually get it done. 
A very brief investigation says maybe a hamster , but all the pictures I can find seem to have more prominent ears then what is in the photo. The nose on a hamster does not seem as blunt either.
Pictures of rats also show noses that are not more pointed and more prominent ears.

Do you see how something like this should be done by someone in your position?  Basically search for answers not just jump to a conclusion that supports your belief.

[Tom Bishop]

It's likely a prairie dog.

[Woody]

It's likely a prairie dog.

That is good. Meets the criteria of blunt nose and the ears are not prominent.

There is the matter of the front legs.  Seems I can see a shadow under the entire prairie dog.  The only thing I can see that looks like a leg seems very, very short compared to the pictures I just looked at.  It also seems more like being part of the cheek than a leg.

So if a prairie dog which live in these areas:



The location of where the photo could have been taken can be narrowed down.

I tried to rule out any of the species but could not since they all appear to have the same coloring among them and nose shapes.

If the photo was taken outside and not on a set I think it might have been taken in an arid area.





So looking at prairie dog ranges and arid areas with low vegetation maps it looks like maybe West Texas, New Mexico or Arizona.

Here is Texas:


Here is New Mexico:


Here is Arizona:


By the way I did this, because I got tired of seeing answer from FE's just basically saying because that is how it is.  I actually researched and came up with locations that if it is a prairie dog where the picture could have been taken.  I did not just say it looks like a rodent and 10 out of 10 people thought it was.

At least for me and I am sure others this is the kind of stuff we are talking about when we say evidence.  It showed locations where prairie dogs live, places that and/or had limited vegetation, and pictures of those states that both prairie dogs lived and somewhat matched what we can see in the photo. I did not research any further to see if prairie dogs live in the areas the photos I posted.
I also assumed a prairie dog did not end up on an indoor set.

I still think it is a picture of a rock that looks like a prairie dog with no front legs.

[BlueMoon]

Are you aware of the concept of "pareidolia?"  It's when our brains look for and find patterns where none exist.  Some examples of pareidolia are: constellations, the man on the moon, faces on toast, and your "rodent" on Mars (as well as all your evidence of a moon hoax, but that's beside the point).  You may think the odds of finding a rock that looks like a prairie dog are pretty low.  But, of all the rocks from all the images taken by all the rovers, the odds of finding one that bears a passing resemblance to an earth creature is very high.  Hence why we have a rock that looks a little like a prairie dog from that angle if you squint. 

[Woody]

Are you aware of the concept of "pareidolia?"  It's when our brains look for and find patterns where none exist.  Some examples of pareidolia are: constellations, the man on the moon, faces on toast, and your "rodent" on Mars (as well as all your evidence of a moon hoax, but that's beside the point).  You may think the odds of finding a rock that looks like a prairie dog are pretty low.  But, of all the rocks from all the images taken by all the rovers, the odds of finding one that bears a passing resemblance to an earth creature is very high.  Hence why we have a rock that looks a little like a prairie dog from that angle if you squint.

You also must take note 10 out of 10 people believe the "rock" in the picture is a rodent.

So if it looks like a legless prairie dog, 10 out of 10 people say it is a rodent, and it is a picture from NASA then it must be a prairie dog or a animal that looks like one.

I really wish FE's would at least make the attempt I did to offer evidence.  I took the 10 minutes to do a little research to find out where prairie dogs live. I tried to determine the areas where the picture could have been taken by correlating where prairie dogs live and arid/low vegetation locations.  Of course I made assumptions and can not say how accurate the data I used is.

Really displays the level of thought and thoroughness that is put into experiments and making conclusions from observations that is made.  No wonder why I can find an experiment in the wiki offered as conclusive proof with a 10 mile error.

[Tom Bishop]

There is the matter of the front legs.  Seems I can see a shadow under the entire prairie dog.  The only thing I can see that looks like a leg seems very, very short compared to the pictures I just looked at.  It also seems more like being part of the cheek than a leg.

Some species of Prairie Dog rodents have short legs.

By the way I did this, because I got tired of seeing answer from FE's just basically saying because that is how it is.  I actually researched and came up with locations that if it is a prairie dog where the picture could have been taken.  I did not just say it looks like a rodent and 10 out of 10 people thought it was.

At least for me and I am sure others this is the kind of stuff we are talking about when we say evidence.  It showed locations where prairie dogs live, places that and/or had limited vegetation, and pictures of those states that both prairie dogs lived and somewhat matched what we can see in the photo. I did not research any further to see if prairie dogs live in the areas the photos I posted.
I also assumed a prairie dog did not end up on an indoor set.

A picture of what many agree looks like a rodent is evidence of a rodent. Try not to claim that I provided "no evidence". Observational and experiential evidence is absolutely valid  and meaningful evidence.

[Woody]

There is the matter of the front legs.  Seems I can see a shadow under the entire prairie dog.  The only thing I can see that looks like a leg seems very, very short compared to the pictures I just looked at.  It also seems more like being part of the cheek than a leg.

Some species of Prairie Dog rodents have short legs.

By the way I did this, because I got tired of seeing answer from FE's just basically saying because that is how it is.  I actually researched and came up with locations that if it is a prairie dog where the picture could have been taken.  I did not just say it looks like a rodent and 10 out of 10 people thought it was.

At least for me and I am sure others this is the kind of stuff we are talking about when we say evidence.  It showed locations where prairie dogs live, places that and/or had limited vegetation, and pictures of those states that both prairie dogs lived and somewhat matched what we can see in the photo. I did not research any further to see if prairie dogs live in the areas the photos I posted.
I also assumed a prairie dog did not end up on an indoor set.

A picture of what many agree looks like a rodent is evidence of a rodent. Try not to claim that I provided "no evidence". Observational and experiential evidence is absolutely valid  and meaningful evidence.

There are different methods to determine the value of evidence.

Lets look at the statement many agree it looks like a rodent.  I agree it looks like a rodent, I also believe it is a rock.  So you can tell people I agree it looks like a rodent or a rock using the previous statement.  It is why when surveys or polls are done they can be manipulated to get the results you want.

You can just ask people, "Does this look like a rodent?" or ask them, "Does this look like a rodent? If so do you believe it is a rodent?"

I can manipulate the results in my favor by asking questions in a more bias way.  "Does this rock look like a rodent?" "If so do you believe this rock is a rodent?"

I can manipulate by knowing the bias of the people being asked. "This is a picture taken on Mars by NASA, is it a rock or rodent?"  Depending on bias I will make the assumption people who believe NASA is not part of a conspiracy will say rock and people who believe the in the conspiracy will likely not definitively say it is a rock.

I can also try to remove bias and just show the picture and reveal as little evidence as I could of where it was taken.  I could even not ask about what appears to be a rodent and just have people tell me what they see in the picture.

As you can see you telling me that, "A picture of what many agree looks like a rodent is evidence of a rodent.", is not evidence. Unless you can verify bias was not introduced, by how the question was asked, the size and demographics of the survey group as examples and the the data made available for review.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Woody, you're losing it bro lol... Adding hella qualifiers to get out of the fact even you think it looks like a prarie dog.

[Rama Set]

Observational and experiential evidence is absolutely valid  and meaningful evidence.

Says the guy who disqualifies observational and experiential evidence he doesn't agree with.

[Woody]

Woody, you're losing it bro lol... Adding hella qualifiers to get out of the fact even you think it looks like a prarie dog.

Tom said 10 out of 10 people he showed the picture to thought it was a rodent.   He used it to support his argument that NASA photographed a rodent. I pointed out reasons why the evidence is not as strong as he think it is.
If he showed the picture to people with out saying where it was taken or who took it and ask them to tell him what they see in the picture. He would have a stronger argument, since that method would help insure bias was not skewing the results.

It is why the scientific method includes an attempt to remove all factors that would introduce bias.

His argument is already shows it's weakness since not everyone is saying it is a rodent.  Of course the views being expressed are biased as I pointed out in the post you responded to.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Woody, you're losing it bro lol... Adding hella qualifiers to get out of the fact even you think it looks like a prarie dog.

Tom said 10 out of 10 people he showed the picture to thought it was a rodent.   He used it to support his argument that NASA photographed a rodent. I pointed out reasons why the evidence is not as strong as he think it is.
If he showed the picture to people with out saying where it was taken or who took it and ask them to tell him what they see in the picture. He would have a stronger argument, since that method would help insure bias was not skewing the results.

It is why the scientific method includes an attempt to remove all factors that would introduce bias.

His argument is already shows it's weakness since not everyone is saying it is a rodent.  Of course the views being expressed are biased as I pointed out in the post you responded to.

If anything, your research made it even more obvious it could've been a rodent, even going as far as showing us pictures of different environments in America, that they could've faked the Mars rover, New Mexico being the most likely candidate.

[Woody]

Woody, you're losing it bro lol... Adding hella qualifiers to get out of the fact even you think it looks like a prarie dog.

Tom said 10 out of 10 people he showed the picture to thought it was a rodent.   He used it to support his argument that NASA photographed a rodent. I pointed out reasons why the evidence is not as strong as he think it is.
If he showed the picture to people with out saying where it was taken or who took it and ask them to tell him what they see in the picture. He would have a stronger argument, since that method would help insure bias was not skewing the results.

It is why the scientific method includes an attempt to remove all factors that would introduce bias.

His argument is already shows it's weakness since not everyone is saying it is a rodent.  Of course the views being expressed are biased as I pointed out in the post you responded to.

If anything, your research made it even more obvious it could've been a rodent, even going as far as showing us pictures of different environments in America, that they could've faked the Mars rover, New Mexico being the most likely candidate.

That is why I did it.  Did I not make it clear I did it as an example as evidence?  I wanted to show the difference between what Tom considered evidence it was a rodent and what myself and maybe others here would consider evidence that supports it is rodent.  I tried to make a plausible argument that it was, instead of just saying it looks like a rodent and 10 out of 10 people think it is.

I set out to find evidence of the type of rodent it could be(Tom pointed out the prairie dogs which saved me some time), where prairie dogs lived, if it was in areas that the picture could be taken.  Then offered what I found to support the claim it was a prairie dog. 

If you agree I made valid points and made it more obvious it could be a rodent why not try it when asked something about the FE model?

[CableDawg]

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

So medicine is the only or one of the very few professions that proceeds by inquiry?

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

And you would have us believe that NASA photographed a rock that looks exactly like a rodent on the surface of mars?

Come on, that's obviously not a rodent.  Maybe if you squinted really hard at it, but otherwise, any normal person can see that it's just a rock.  Don't be stupid.

That's a fairly convincing rock. 10 out of 10 of the people I showed it to thought it was a rodent. It even has the black almond rodent eyes

From your enlarged picture, follow the diagonal from the top right corner.  What type of fish do you believe that is?  What type of fish can live on land with your rodent?

[CableDawg]

It's likely a prairie dog.

Where's your source information?  How do we know that this is a true picture of a prairie dog?