1
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Gamergate!
« on: September 05, 2014, 06:55:23 PM »Yes, how dare she be victimized. How selfish of her.
Being a victim doesn't make her a good person.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yes, how dare she be victimized. How selfish of her.
What you would need to penetrate the "atmolayer" or whatever it's called is a telescope with infrared capabilities. IR has a longer wavelength that can pass through dense clouds and atmosphere where visible light cannot.
I can assure you infrared does the opposite of what you seem to think it does. Nearly everything absorbs IR radiation, it doesn't get as far as visible light through most substances, including the atmoplane.
Well said. Keep up the good work.Everything we know could be wrong, or we could just be misunderstanding things: like gravity. That's why it's a theory.
The moment you start calling gravity a law is the moment science stops making progress.
That is you misunderstanding the part of gravity that is called a law. Only the mathematical formulation of G•(m1•m2/r^2) is a law. It is extremely accurate to precise tolerances and that will never change. That is the only part that is a law. If it does change, you will likely see a lot of sheepish atheists going to mass.
@Thork and Vx: Science is fine with "everything" could be wrong. Rowbotham and the other zetetics though insist that their conclusions are beyond contradiction. Whether something could be wrong does not make it a theory. Science considers everything open to review, revision, and reconsideration. That's a philosophy Rowbotham and the rest of the zetetics would do well to embrace.
Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28490744The five geckos are in space for a study of the effect of weightlessness on their sex lives and development.Wait a minute. 5? What kind of a sicko puts 5 up there? One of the geckos is going to be left out. I hope it is that gecko that has started breaking things.
Why would one be left out?
It seems to me like someone takes a bit of a risk on a certain type of movie, it catches on (expected or not) and Hollywood proceeds to make it over and over again until the genre bombs and everyone says "omg totally didn't see that coming". But yeah, I find your argument pretty funny given the constant success of the Transformers movies. The new one was utter shit but still made megabucks, and it's totally the fault of the consumer. Michael Bay is just giving people what they want.
I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?
Real strong argument there.
Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.
That is not what he said Tom. You should address what is actually written.
Technically I think Tom is committing the genetic fallacy by saying that information that comes from a "children's author" is not strong, but regardless, it is a fruitless comment to engage in since it is mostly content free.
In response to the subject of missing tracks it was stated that the children's author Phil Plat has destroyed all moon landing hoax allegations. It is implied "Phil Plat busted all of this already".
If so, then it should be easy to look at his work which addresses the subject of missing tracks.
If not, and his analysis was incomplete, the burden is on Gulliver and others to bust it.
I can agree to that, but you keep mentioning "children's author" pejoratively, which is pretty weak.
Just started reading this classic:
squick
Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something?
I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).
They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.
I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.
I cropped myself out of the photo because I didn't want to reveal my face. I request you take that down, please. I will report you.
Okay, so then you think the space program is real?
That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.
http://i.imgur.com/BRDMamu.jpg
What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.
"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"
It really can't get much clearer than that.
Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?
Are you suggesting it's possible to make a lens that causes the stars to appear where they should according to some predetermined map?
Yes. They have them already. They are called kaleidoscopes.
"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"
It really can't get much clearer than that.
Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/25/boehner-suing-obama/11355639/
I thought lawsuits were personal. Like when no crime has technically been committed but one party feels they need some kind of justice. Does this mean that Boehner is just being pissy?
Facemasks are of the future.
Solar Freakin' Facemasks
Million dollar idea right there
Facemasks are of the future.
Likewise, if Xbox One is so great, why was it never created until now? It's a terrible argument.
Over the centuries, a variety of materials have been used to make roads: dirt, gravel, cobble stones, bricks, concrete, asphalt, etc. If glass is such a wonderful material, then why hasn't anyone used it to make roads before now?
Here's a better question:
Why did they use all those other materials? If asphalt is so great, why didn't they just start with that and skip the other crap?