[totallackey]

Who witnessed the supposed collision between this comet and Jupiter ? It impacted on the night side of the planet apparently . How does we know the exact moment it hit the planet?

We don't.

Some guys in lab coats, with  slightly loosened neck ties, ink pen pocket protectors, wire frame glasses, and some pretty paintings of the event, tell us we do though...better believe 'em too or else....

Actually we were able to witness it. The Galileo spacecraft was on it's way to Jupiter and was in position to see the impacts and their exact timing. The lab coat guys made sure it was watching so we could catch the event.

Although the impacts took place on the side of Jupiter hidden from Earth, Galileo, then at a distance of 1.6 AU (240 million km; 150 million mi) from the planet, was able to see the impacts as they occurred. Jupiter's rapid rotation brought the impact sites into view for terrestrial observers a few minutes after the collisions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9#Impacts

Actually, you witnessed what you were told you witnessed.

There is no such thing as an "outer space," that you know.

There is such a thing as an "outer space," which you believe in.

[somerled]

Who are "we"? Did galimeleo have a nice scope on board ?

[JSS]

Who witnessed the supposed collision between this comet and Jupiter ? It impacted on the night side of the planet apparently . How does we know the exact moment it hit the planet?

We don't.

Some guys in lab coats, with  slightly loosened neck ties, ink pen pocket protectors, wire frame glasses, and some pretty paintings of the event, tell us we do though...better believe 'em too or else....

Actually we were able to witness it. The Galileo spacecraft was on it's way to Jupiter and was in position to see the impacts and their exact timing. The lab coat guys made sure it was watching so we could catch the event.

Although the impacts took place on the side of Jupiter hidden from Earth, Galileo, then at a distance of 1.6 AU (240 million km; 150 million mi) from the planet, was able to see the impacts as they occurred. Jupiter's rapid rotation brought the impact sites into view for terrestrial observers a few minutes after the collisions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9#Impacts

Actually, you witnessed what you were told you witnessed.

There is no such thing as an "outer space," that you know.

There is such a thing as an "outer space," which you believe in.

Well if you are going to claim any evidence presented is all lies, then I suppose there is not much point debating. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind if it's already made up.

[JSS]

Who are "we"? Did galimeleo have a nice scope on board ?

We as in, everyone who can see the pictures.

To be more exact, NASA launched the probe and radioed it to watch the impacts as it neared Jupiter.

It did have a nice scope on board. It was equipped with a cassegrain telescope, among other instruments.

[totallackey]

Well if you are going to claim any evidence presented is all lies, then I suppose there is not much point debating. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind if it's already made up.

The only thing lacking from your description of the evidence is the word, "supposed."

That is really the extent of the evidence when it comes to RE.

It is all a supposition with no validity.

[JSS]

Well if you are going to claim any evidence presented is all lies, then I suppose there is not much point debating. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind if it's already made up.

The only thing lacking from your description of the evidence is the word, "supposed."

That is really the extent of the evidence when it comes to RE.

It is all a supposition with no validity.

What evidence of the Galileo spacecraft being real would it take to convince you?

[totallackey]

Well if you are going to claim any evidence presented is all lies, then I suppose there is not much point debating. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind if it's already made up.

The only thing lacking from your description of the evidence is the word, "supposed."

That is really the extent of the evidence when it comes to RE.

It is all a supposition with no validity.

What evidence of the Galileo spacecraft being real would it take to convince you?

You cannot come to grips with the definition of "objective," when it comes to the word, "evidence."

Once you get over that hurdle, perhaps we could have meaningful dialogue.

When I see two apples to my left and two apples to my right and I gather the apples and place them directly in front of me I can then see four apples in total.

That is objective evidence.

"But what about this?!" you might say...or ..."whatabout that!?" you might ask...

Indeed...what about it?

[JSS]

Well if you are going to claim any evidence presented is all lies, then I suppose there is not much point debating. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind if it's already made up.

The only thing lacking from your description of the evidence is the word, "supposed."

That is really the extent of the evidence when it comes to RE.

It is all a supposition with no validity.

What evidence of the Galileo spacecraft being real would it take to convince you?

You cannot come to grips with the definition of "objective," when it comes to the word, "evidence."

Once you get over that hurdle, perhaps we could have meaningful dialogue.

When I see two apples to my left and two apples to my right and I gather the apples and place them directly in front of me I can then see four apples in total.

That is objective evidence.

"But what about this?!" you might say...or ..."whatabout that!?" you might ask...

Indeed...what about it?

I'm not sure what hurdle you are talking about. The word "objective" hasn't even been mentioned until you brought it up.

So you are saying there is no evidence you could possibly be shown that would convince you the Galileo spacecraft is real? Nothing at all?

[totallackey]

I'm not sure what hurdle you are talking about. The word "objective" hasn't even been mentioned until you brought it up.

So you are saying there is no evidence you could possibly be shown that would convince you the Galileo spacecraft is real? Nothing at all?

Do you have objective evidence in this case?

[JSS]

I'm not sure what hurdle you are talking about. The word "objective" hasn't even been mentioned until you brought it up.

So you are saying there is no evidence you could possibly be shown that would convince you the Galileo spacecraft is real? Nothing at all?

Do you have objective evidence in this case?

I'm asking you, what objective evidence would you accept?

[totallackey]

I'm not sure what hurdle you are talking about. The word "objective" hasn't even been mentioned until you brought it up.

So you are saying there is no evidence you could possibly be shown that would convince you the Galileo spacecraft is real? Nothing at all?

Do you have objective evidence in this case?

I'm asking you, what objective evidence would you accept?

I will accept any objective evidence you have.

[JSS]

I'm not sure what hurdle you are talking about. The word "objective" hasn't even been mentioned until you brought it up.

So you are saying there is no evidence you could possibly be shown that would convince you the Galileo spacecraft is real? Nothing at all?

Do you have objective evidence in this case?

I'm asking you, what objective evidence would you accept?

I will accept any objective evidence you have.

You can take your pick as evidence from anything listed here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(spacecraft)

If you only accept strictly objective evidence, well that's going to prevent you from believing in almost everything, as you can only directly measure a very tiny part of the world around you. Anything that happened in the past will be a total mystery, and impossible to ever prove.

[GreatATuin]

Who witnessed the supposed collision between this comet and Jupiter ? It impacted on the night side of the planet apparently . How does we know the exact moment it hit the planet?

Anyone with a telescope pointed at Jupiter. It was at least as visible as the famous Great Red Spot. And even if the collision happened on the far side, Jupiter completes a rotation in just under 10 hours, so you just had to wait a little.

[totallackey]

If you only accept strictly objective evidence, well that's going to prevent you from believing in almost everything, as you can only directly measure a very tiny part of the world around you. Anything that happened in the past will be a total mystery, and impossible to ever prove.

Here is your strawman.

Totally ridiculous conditions on what qualifies as objective and the issue of belief.

More a topic for the Philosophy thread I suppose...

[totallackey]

Who witnessed the supposed collision between this comet and Jupiter ? It impacted on the night side of the planet apparently . How does we know the exact moment it hit the planet?

Anyone with a telescope pointed at Jupiter. It was at least as visible as the famous Great Red Spot. And even if the collision happened on the far side, Jupiter completes a rotation in just under 10 hours, so you just had to wait a little.

So they didn't witness the event.

Thank you.

[JSS]

If you only accept strictly objective evidence, well that's going to prevent you from believing in almost everything, as you can only directly measure a very tiny part of the world around you. Anything that happened in the past will be a total mystery, and impossible to ever prove.

Here is your strawman.

Totally ridiculous conditions on what qualifies as objective and the issue of belief.

More a topic for the Philosophy thread I suppose...

You have asked me for evidence, I have given you examples several times now.  Just now you deleted the evidence I provided and ignored it.

If my description of objective evidence is incorrect, please explain what you think qualifies as objective evidence .

What evidence would you accept that the Galileo spacecraft is real?

[totallackey]

If you only accept strictly objective evidence, well that's going to prevent you from believing in almost everything, as you can only directly measure a very tiny part of the world around you. Anything that happened in the past will be a total mystery, and impossible to ever prove.

Here is your strawman.

Totally ridiculous conditions on what qualifies as objective and the issue of belief.

More a topic for the Philosophy thread I suppose...

You have asked me for evidence, I have given you examples several times now.  Just now you deleted the evidence I provided and ignored it.

If my description of objective evidence is incorrect, please explain what you think qualifies as objective evidence .

What evidence would you accept that the Galileo spacecraft is real?

I didn't delete anything.

Why would you accuse me of deleting anything?

[JSS]

If you only accept strictly objective evidence, well that's going to prevent you from believing in almost everything, as you can only directly measure a very tiny part of the world around you. Anything that happened in the past will be a total mystery, and impossible to ever prove.

Here is your strawman.

Totally ridiculous conditions on what qualifies as objective and the issue of belief.

More a topic for the Philosophy thread I suppose...

You have asked me for evidence, I have given you examples several times now.  Just now you deleted the evidence I provided and ignored it.

If my description of objective evidence is incorrect, please explain what you think qualifies as objective evidence .

What evidence would you accept that the Galileo spacecraft is real?

I didn't delete anything.

Why would you accuse me of deleting anything?

You quoted my response, then deleted the part where I provided you with evidence and asked questions.  Can we stay on subject please?

As asked above, what do you consider objective evidence, and what evidence would you accept of the Galileo spacecraft being real?

[totallackey]

If you only accept strictly objective evidence, well that's going to prevent you from believing in almost everything, as you can only directly measure a very tiny part of the world around you. Anything that happened in the past will be a total mystery, and impossible to ever prove.

Here is your strawman.

Totally ridiculous conditions on what qualifies as objective and the issue of belief.

More a topic for the Philosophy thread I suppose...

You have asked me for evidence, I have given you examples several times now.  Just now you deleted the evidence I provided and ignored it.

If my description of objective evidence is incorrect, please explain what you think qualifies as objective evidence .

What evidence would you accept that the Galileo spacecraft is real?

I didn't delete anything.

Why would you accuse me of deleting anything?

You quoted my response, then deleted the part where I provided you with evidence and asked questions.  Can we stay on subject please?

As asked above, what do you consider objective evidence, and what evidence would you accept of the Galileo spacecraft being real?

Your link is still there.

You accused me of deleting it.

Accusing me of deleting something when I didn't is not staying on subject.

Aside from that, I am not going to repost a non-working link.

[JSS]

If you only accept strictly objective evidence, well that's going to prevent you from believing in almost everything, as you can only directly measure a very tiny part of the world around you. Anything that happened in the past will be a total mystery, and impossible to ever prove.

Here is your strawman.

Totally ridiculous conditions on what qualifies as objective and the issue of belief.

More a topic for the Philosophy thread I suppose...

You have asked me for evidence, I have given you examples several times now.  Just now you deleted the evidence I provided and ignored it.

If my description of objective evidence is incorrect, please explain what you think qualifies as objective evidence .

What evidence would you accept that the Galileo spacecraft is real?

I didn't delete anything.

Why would you accuse me of deleting anything?

You quoted my response, then deleted the part where I provided you with evidence and asked questions.  Can we stay on subject please?

As asked above, what do you consider objective evidence, and what evidence would you accept of the Galileo spacecraft being real?

Your link is still there.

You accused me of deleting it.

Accusing me of deleting something when I didn't is not staying on subject.

Aside from that, I am not going to repost a non-working link.

The board doesn't parse Wiki links well it seems.  Here is a fixed link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(spacecraft)

Now, will you please answer my questions? Thanks.