[AATW]

To be honest, I deduced, for a long period, that evolution and big bang theorems were the method the LORD God used in creation. In that, by 6 days bieng millions of years each "day".

Wowee zowee kablowee.  Do you know kent hovind? He's not perfect, but I think he might be able to help you.

"not perfect" is being kind.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

[jack44556677]

Oh, he's no saint.  But he's no al-capone either.  They put him in prison for a year longer than capone, and got him on the same scam.  He was a pastor for god's sake, and was prepared to pay what the irs made up he owed by donations by his church goers.

Most likely you haven't heard the real story.

[GoldCashew]

@GoldCashew

"Regarding your statement that belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific... would this apply to someone whom believes in a space travel conspiracy? This would also be faith and not knowledge/science, correct?"

That is a good, and tricky question.  The recognition of the space travel conspiracy (hoaxing of "space" writ large) is evidence based, but still somewhat interpretive. It may be arguable that based on the available evidence that it is still more of a speculation than a "fact" - however with no positive evidence / proof of the possible existence of such a place as "space" (a violation of many natural laws) or space travel I would be equally justified in making the identical argument.

The presumptive, and mandated, perspective that space and space travel are real do not have adequate evidence that is even as compelling as the fraudulent footage that can trivially demonstrate the hoax. Factor in the scientific evidence that "space" cannot exist in the reality we have studied without violating many natural laws and I'd say the certainty on this "proto-fact" is very high.

Aren't you're statements that the recognition of the space travel conspiracy is evidence based, that space travel do not have adequate evidence, and that as per one of your previous posts astronsuts are actors... examples of confirmation bias or being biased towards a direction that supports a specific belief, i.e. flat earth?

If, as you say, belief of any kind is unwelcome, than what direct scientific evidence do you have that all of the supposed pictures taken from space by astronauts or satellites are fake, what exactly do you make of the ISS orbiting Earth that can be seen with telescopes, what do you make of 20+ minutes of weightlessness videos aboard the ISS without cutaway shots, what do you make of the over 130 Space Shuttle launches, what do you make of the regularly launched SpaceX rockets to space to launch satellites, etc?  If your answer is something like go look at these youtube videos or those pictures are obviously fake... than that's not really direct evidence. It would seem more like a set of your own opinions (to support a belief and the belief in a conspiracy) vs. direct knowledge or fact.

So, I am just trying to challenge you that if belief of any kind is unwelcome, than that would mean your belief that space travel is a conspiracy and your belief that round earth is a conspiracy (without any direct scientific evidence) is unwelcome.

Are these things "tricky questions", as you say above, because believing in a set of (conspiracy) beliefs is in direct contradiction to your statement that believing without any direct scientific evidence is unwelcome?

[jack44556677]

Aren't you're statements that the recognition of the space travel conspiracy is evidence based, that space travel do not have adequate evidence, and that as per one of your previous posts astronsuts are actors... examples of confirmation bias or being biased towards a direction that supports a specific belief, i.e. flat earth?

Valid question, and one that is difficult to be certain of the answer. Bias is pernicious and pervasive, and despite best efforts - it seems unavoidable for all human beings.  The best we can possibly do is recognize the bias when it rears its ugly head, and it is frequently the case that we miss it.

Personally I have no bias towards a belief of a flat earth.  I have neither belief, nor bias towards that perspective.  I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.

I find the evidence for "space hoax" very compelling, and I cannot be sure it is not simply my bias making it appear that way.  (Attempted, anyhow) Rationally critical and objective evaluation of the available evidence speaks for itself, in my view.

than what direct scientific evidence do you have that all of the supposed pictures taken from space by astronauts or satellites are fake

There are many analyses of the footage that exists, trivially demonstrating fraud.  I recommend the wiki here quite highly.  Perhaps the most damning and conclusive evidence is the fact that the entire concept of "outer space" is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws.  As outer space does not exist, there can be no footage from there.

If your answer is something like go look at these youtube videos or those pictures are obviously fake... than that's not really direct evidence

Exactly! There is no direct evidence for space whatsoever - it's ONLY on TV!

than that would mean your belief that space travel is a conspiracy and your belief that round earth is a conspiracy (without any direct scientific evidence) is unwelcome.

Completely correct, however my evidence and scientifically based perspectives are not beliefs!  You may consider them suspicions, if you must.  Ultimately, belief is supported by faith and knowledge is supported by science/fact.  The science and facts are clear, and it is only the television giving you trouble.

[AATW]

Exactly! There is no direct evidence for space whatsoever - it's ONLY on TV!

There is loads of direct evidence. People routinely observe launches.
The ISS can be seen from the ground.
Technology like GPS and satellite TV demonstrably works.
As well as the pictures and video there is the testimony of hundreds of astronauts who have been to space.
Then there's the 7 rich private individuals who have paid to go to the ISS.
And in all this time, no whistleblowers? No CGI or special effects experts admitting they'd worked on faking footage?

I guess if you want to live your life only believing things which you have directly experienced then that's your business I guess but it's a pretty strange way to function and not something which I'd suggest you can consistently apply in practice.

Out of interest what are your thoughts on the Mariana Trench?
Fewer people have been there than have stood on the surface of the moon so I guess for the sake of consistency you don't believe it exists?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mariana-trench-is-7-miles-deep-whats-down-there/

[Tumeni]

I find the evidence for "space hoax" very compelling

Which bit of evidence do you find the most compelling? Perhaps your top three...?

Perhaps the most damning and conclusive evidence is the fact that the entire concept of "outer space" is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws. 

Which are ... what?

There is no direct evidence for space whatsoever - it's ONLY on TV!

There's the work and observations of thousands, perhaps millions of astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicists, and the like, over hundreds of years.

There's measurements, telemetry, results from scientific experiments, etc., all from outwith Earth's atmosphere. There are multiple third-party proofs for the Apollo lunar landings, for example. There are sets of photographs taken from and of the far side of the Moon. How could that be done without going into space? 

[Longtitube]

Jack, you tell us a lot about what you disbelieve, but nothing about what you know. Have you travelled at all? Have you seen anything much beyond your neighbourhood? I get an impression your knowledge comes from the web, rather than experience.

Seventy years ago people had little TV experience, but there was several hundred years of exploration history as well as tens of thousands of your own countrymen who had travelled all over the world: two world wars had seen to that, as well as seafarers, aviators and other travellers in peacetime.  Who told them to lie in their accounts and histories about the shape of the Earth? They weren’t stupid, they knew from their own experience how the round earth worked and their lives had depended on it. For example, a sea captain, abandoned mid-ocean in a small boat by his mutinous crew, found his way across the vastness of the Pacific to safety by round earth navigation. Was he just really lucky, or did he know something you don’t?

[jack44556677]

@AATW

There is loads of direct evidence. People routinely observe launches.

Or they did once, at least in my country.  Some of those launches are real, maybe even most of them.

The ISS can be seen from the ground.

That's true, I think.  Something can be seen, but it is the wrong size (WAY too big).

Technology like GPS and satellite TV demonstrably works.

True.  They have no obligation to work the way we are told they do.

As well as the pictures and video there is the testimony of hundreds of astronauts who have been to space.  Then there's the 7 rich private individuals who have paid to go to the ISS.

Most likely, liars all.  The MIC is not your friend, it does not share, and it does not tell the truth.

And in all this time, no whistleblowers?

They iced gus and his crew and thomas baron and his whole f*ing family.  You should read the wiki, or just do some thorough critical study of apollo history.  There are many whistleblowers, and some notable ones - very bad things happened to.

Out of interest what are your thoughts on the Mariana Trench?

I trust the piccards! They are wonderful.

@Tumeni

Top 3 :

1: "Space" is a violation of obvious natural laws.  It cannot exist in the reality we have studied and were taught about.
2: Murdered whistleblowers/dissenters
3: Faked footage

Which are ... what?

Chief among them are the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and fundamental gas laws.

There's the work and observations of thousands, perhaps millions of astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicists, and the like, over hundreds of years.

None of which have any evidence for "outer space" whatsoever.  The lying (most likely) "astronauts" are the only ones, and they don't have any evidence to share beyond doctored footage and stories that contradict one another.

Those people you mentioned are not scientists.  They do not practice science.  They practice mythology under the guise of science.

There are multiple third-party proofs for the Apollo lunar landings, for example.

Nope, they all come from the serially lying MIC.

There are sets of photographs taken from and of the far side of the Moon.

Art! Nasa makes art - they are a branch of hollywood.  There is much to be learned from history!

@longitube

Jack, you tell us a lot about what you disbelieve, but nothing about what you know

Oh, I manage to slip it in now and again.  I don't talk about belief or disbelief much - neither have any place in knowledge, least of all scientific.

I get an impression your knowledge comes from the web, rather than experience.

There is an old indian sitar master anecdote I quite like : The pupil turns to the master and says, "Master, you are so wise and your art so splendid, please be my teacher and make me a great master too!" to which the master replies ,"You are mistaken.  In life, you are a student... and then you die.". I am a student, and my knowledge comes from all sources - yes including the web.

Who told them to lie in their accounts and histories about the shape of the Earth?

For the vast majority, no one.  They were just taught incorrectly to begin with, then they repeated it.  It isn't a lie when you're misinformed.  You might want to glance at the wiki, it does a good job with "the conspiracy" and the many misconceptions you seem to have about it.  It's a comedy of err's you see - it's about taking a fall.

Was he just really lucky, or did he know something you don’t?

Depending on where he was, what season, and the type of craft - yes, he was crazy lucky.  There is no such thing as "round earth" navigation or "flat earth" navigation - just navigation.  It is hard for the conditioned to grasp such a simple premise/tautology that if the earth is flat then all things that we observe/do occur on a flat earth.

[Tumeni]

jack, all you're doing is expressing woolly and vague disbelief, offering nothing concrete to support your position. When you refer to things as "most likely" ....

Come up with something substantive, if you can ...

[GreatATuin]

The ISS can be seen from the ground.

That's true, I think.  Something can be seen, but it is the wrong size (WAY too big).

Way too big compared to what? What size do you think should it be?

The ISS is about the size of a football pitch, and orbits at about 400km. At its closest, it gives an angular diameter of about 50 arcseconds - equivalent to the maximum apparent size of Jupiter, a little less than the maximum size of Venus. Therefore, I expect the ISS to be about as big as Jupiter or Venus. The apparent size of the ISS, Venus or Jupiter will vary depending on conditions, but they're in the same range.

[Tumeni]

The ISS can be seen from the ground, with the naked eye, for the same reason a signalling mirror can be seen at a distance far greater than the distance at which one can discern the physical size or shape of the mirror.

"The range of a heliograph depends on the opacity of the air and the effective collecting area of the mirrors. Heliograph mirrors ranged from 1.5 inches to 12 inches or more. Stations at higher altitudes benefit from thinner, clearer air, and are required in any event for great ranges, to clear the curvature of the earth. A good approximation for ranges of 20–50 miles is that the flash of a circular mirror is visible to the naked eye for 10 miles for each inch of mirror diameter,[8] and farther with a telescope. The world record distance was established by a detachment of U.S. signal sergeants by the inter-operation of stations on Mount Ellen, Utah, and Mount Uncompahgre, Colorado, 183 miles (295 km) apart on September 17, 1894, with Signal Corps heliographs carrying mirrors only 8 inches square.[9]"

Bear in mind the ISS is the size of a football field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliograph

Maybe this is what Jack means by "too big".