[FactiousFacts]

Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim.  It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.

If NASA claimed to have landed on the moon and had provided no evidence to that effect. Then yes, I would agree, the burden of proof would be on them. But once they provide large quantities of evidence and you claim that evidence to all be fake, then the burden of proving the fraud is on you.

You nailed the problem on the head - no evidence is valid unless it supports FET. Decades of peer-reviewed science isn't proof of a round Earth, but some random video on youtube confirms, without a doubt, FET. Convincing people like Tom is out of the question. You could put him on the ISS and he would still find a way to claim the Earth was flat.

Actually, that is incorrect, what NASA does is not "peer reviewed". That is one of the many criticisms against them. There is also much criticism of the evidence on the internet elsewhere.

The sticking point for me is that the legislators who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration. Why should we trust a word from them?

And, yet, here you are you are telling me that I need to prove that those seditious politicians and Nazi monsters are dishonest... Very funny.

nasa has and does publish things in peer reviewed journals. who made your microwave? is that technology still a nasa secret, or has it made it out to the general public?

[StinkyOne]

Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim.  It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.

If NASA claimed to have landed on the moon and had provided no evidence to that effect. Then yes, I would agree, the burden of proof would be on them. But once they provide large quantities of evidence and you claim that evidence to all be fake, then the burden of proving the fraud is on you.

You nailed the problem on the head - no evidence is valid unless it supports FET. Decades of peer-reviewed science isn't proof of a round Earth, but some random video on youtube confirms, without a doubt, FET. Convincing people like Tom is out of the question. You could put him on the ISS and he would still find a way to claim the Earth was flat.

Actually, that is incorrect, what NASA does is not "peer reviewed". That is one of the many criticisms against them. There is also much criticism of the evidence on the internet elsewhere.

The sticking point for me is that the legislators who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration. Why should we trust a word from them?

And, yet, here you are you are telling me that I need to prove that those seditious politicians and Nazi monsters are dishonest... Very funny.

Where is your proof that they are not peer reviewed? NASA does a lot more than just launch rockets. Further, there are several other space agency around the world, so you can't say they are the only ones in the space flight game.

[devils advocate]

The sticking point for me is that the legislators who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration. Why should we trust a word from them?

But we trust Rowbotham; a murderer and charleton because he makes points you agree with?  If the Nazi's secret flat earth proofs were found in a bunker somewhere they would be;

a) Taken on with glee and touted as further proof

b) Ignored because they were the Nazi's

This is another case of cherry-picking what to take on face value and what to not.

[Tom Bishop]

We're not asking that you prove that they are 'dishonest.' We're asking you to prove that NASA executed has maintained for 50+ years a conspiracy to fake space travel. Notable as Operation Paperclip may be, and dishonest as legislators may be, it isn't evidence that the moon landing was faked, or that the Space Shuttle missions were faked, or that the Mars rovers are faked.

btw for those who don't already know, Nazis in NASA is a real thing.

It is certainly enough to give pause. Are we to assume that these dishonest and murderous people turned over a new leaf to start an honest scientific space agency?

also, NASA does get peer review for publishing about new technology and astronomical data, based on a quick search. so it's not accurate to say that "what NASA does is not 'peer reviewed'" - rocket missions don't really ... have a peer network? research does though. so, there you go

Anyway try again with the conspiracy bit, Godwin's law didn't work. go figure

We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.

What you are posting are technologies NASA and the National Science Foundation researches for profit, which is another scam. NASA researches these technologies and then licenses them out for profit. It is one of their revenue streams. NASA holds many important patent technologies it profits from. American tax payers PAID for these patents and yet we wont receive a single 'dividend' from them.

[StinkyOne]

We're not asking that you prove that they are 'dishonest.' We're asking you to prove that NASA executed has maintained for 50+ years a conspiracy to fake space travel. Notable as Operation Paperclip may be, and dishonest as legislators may be, it isn't evidence that the moon landing was faked, or that the Space Shuttle missions were faked, or that the Mars rovers are faked.

btw for those who don't already know, Nazis in NASA is a real thing.

It is certainly enough to give pause. Are we to assume that these dishonest and murderous people turned over a new leaf to start an honest scientific space agency?

also, NASA does get peer review for publishing about new technology and astronomical data, based on a quick search. so it's not accurate to say that "what NASA does is not 'peer reviewed'" - rocket missions don't really ... have a peer network? research does though. so, there you go

Anyway try again with the conspiracy bit, Godwin's law didn't work. go figure

We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.

What you are posting are technologies NASA and the National Science Foundation researches for profit, which is another scam. NASA researches these technologies and then licenses them out for profit. It is one of their revenue streams. NASA holds many important patent technologies it profits from. American tax payers PAID for these patents and yet we wont receive a single 'dividend' from them.

No, you are talking about the peer review of space missions. My comment was far more general and was more about FEers believing unfounded garbage on youtube, but ignoring basic science. (science that has been peer reviewed)

[juner]

NaSa is a bad thing people, and, desreves to be photosynthesized innto space to show them how their is really nothing in space but flat planeets

2nd warning.

[Rounder]

The whole “NASA Nazis” thing might be important had those been filmmakers and propagandists; the sort of people who could help FAKE a space program.  But no, they were scientists and engineers who had built and flown rockets of increasing range and improving accuracy; the sort of people who could help OPERATE a space program.

[Pete Svarrior]

Are you saying that you believe some of the pictures of Earth from space are accurate and true? Can you share an example of one?

No, I am not saying that. I have no way of establishing either way in most cases. That's why they're inconclusive.

I think you are trying to make the FE position sound reasonable or perhaps at least defensible. Introducing reasonable doubt or something like that.

Contrary to what some of the more zealous RE'ers will tell you, I generally try to be reasonable.

[mtnman]

Are you saying that you believe some of the pictures of Earth from space are accurate and true? Can you share an example of one?

No, I am not saying that. I have no way of establishing either way in most cases. That's why they're inconclusive.

I think you are trying to make the FE position sound reasonable or perhaps at least defensible. Introducing reasonable doubt or something like that.

Contrary to what some of the more zealous RE'ers will tell you, I generally try to be reasonable.

I would respectively have to disagree. I don't think it's reasonable to label all space based photography inconclusive because you can't establish their validity.

[3DGeek]

We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.

That's not true - there have been a total of seven civilian tourists who stayed in the ISS.  They each paid a considerable sum of money to be there and they all wrote about their experiences.

   Dennis Tito
   Mark Shuttleworth
   Gregory Olsen
   Anousheh Ansari
   Charles Simonyi
   Richard Garriott
   Guy Laliberté

Richard Garriott enjoyed it so much, he flew there a second time.

[Tom Bishop]

We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.

That's not true - there have been a total of seven civilian tourists who stayed in the ISS.  They each paid a considerable sum of money to be there and they all wrote about their experiences.

   Dennis Tito
   Mark Shuttleworth
   Gregory Olsen
   Anousheh Ansari
   Charles Simonyi
   Richard Garriott
   Guy Laliberté

Richard Garriott enjoyed it so much, he flew there a second time.

I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.

[mtnman]

We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.

That's not true - there have been a total of seven civilian tourists who stayed in the ISS.  They each paid a considerable sum of money to be there and they all wrote about their experiences.

   Dennis Tito
   Mark Shuttleworth
   Gregory Olsen
   Anousheh Ansari
   Charles Simonyi
   Richard Garriott
   Guy Laliberté

Richard Garriott enjoyed it so much, he flew there a second time.

I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.

More people in the vast conspiracy I guess? Which of those evil categories did Guy Laliberté fall (founder of cirque du soleil)?
 

[3DGeek]

I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.

Don't you see a circular argument here?   The board member of Space Adventures is a part of your conspiracy because Space Adventures send people to the ISS who must therefore be a part of your conspiracy.

It's classic Flat Earther nonsense - ANYTHING that doesn't fit your world-view gets dumped into the conspiracy bucket.

This is just lazy debating.   You have no way to deny what a private individual photographed with his own camera while on vacation in space - so you just dump him into the "conspiracy" bucket.

[mtnman]

We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.

That's not true - there have been a total of seven civilian tourists who stayed in the ISS.  They each paid a considerable sum of money to be there and they all wrote about their experiences.

   Dennis Tito
   Mark Shuttleworth
   Gregory Olsen
   Anousheh Ansari
   Charles Simonyi
   Richard Garriott
   Guy Laliberté

Richard Garriott enjoyed it so much, he flew there a second time.

I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.

When someone claims that day and night last 12 hours on the equinox, which is the commonly held definition of the term, you demand evidence because you are so skeptical.

But you claim if someone is an investor in a government contractor, that's enough evidence to dispute anything they claim from personal experience.

Anyone else see a double standard here?

[Tom Bishop]

I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.

Don't you see a circular argument here?   The board member of Space Adventures is a part of your conspiracy because Space Adventures send people to the ISS who must therefore be a part of your conspiracy.

It's classic Flat Earther nonsense - ANYTHING that doesn't fit your world-view gets dumped into the conspiracy bucket.

This is just lazy debating.   You have no way to deny what a private individual photographed with his own camera while on vacation in space - so you just dump him into the "conspiracy" bucket.

Your response to my question of peer review was to reference that space agencies have sent outsiders to space. The fact that they have been sending influential people within their own ranks pretty much nullifies your argument.

[mtnman]

Your response to my question of peer review was to reference that space agencies have sent outsiders to space. The fact that they have been sending influential people within their own ranks pretty much nullifies your argument.

Just to pick an example, how is the founder of cirque du soleil one of their own ranks?

[3DGeek]

Your response to my question of peer review was to reference that space agencies have sent outsiders to space. The fact that they have been sending influential people within their own ranks pretty much nullifies your argument.

Just to pick an example, how is the founder of cirque du soleil one of their own ranks?

Also, it's not NASA who sent them...they paid a company to arrange a deal with the Russian space agency.   NASA was strongly opposed to them entering the ISS on the first few trips - and even after they relented (because NASA doesn't "own" the ISS - it belongs to a consortium of nations) they said that the tourists were supposed to stay inside the Russian modules...although I read that this restriction was 'unofficially' relaxed in later missions after the tourists were required by the Russians to undergo more pre-flight training.

[Mark_1984]

Where is your evidence that they are part of the conspiracy.   A vague referee to Wikipedia isn’t good enough.  We demand verifiable evidence,or we will discount your assertions.