Show Posts

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.


Messages - JSS

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Rowbotham use Conspiracy Theories?
« on: June 05, 2020, 11:10:20 PM »
I didn't think I needed to post links as evidence, as it's been front page news all around the world. So here are just a few.
Have you read the articles you've posted? Most of them discuss citizens being upset with the situation.

I can't help but notice that the first thing you're doing after returning from your ban is to debate in poor faith. It's disappointing.

Two points here.

1. I don't want to get into a debate over if "countries" means "leaders" or "citizens" but you seem to think it means the former, and I think it means all people, and we can have our own opinions there.

2. I did read the articles. Several mention world leaders directly addressing them. Here is one article and some quotes.

World leaders condemn George Floyd killing as violence spreads in U.S.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson condemned the killing

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the police killing shows the "true face" of the United States and its oppression of the peoples of the world, including its own.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau "We all watch in horror and consternation at what is going on in the United States,"

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called the anti-racism protests "understandable and more than legitimate."




2
Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Rowbotham use Conspiracy Theories?
« on: June 05, 2020, 10:30:09 PM »
Countries do indeed call each other out on human rights violations. In fact that is the norm
Ah, yes, the norm. That's why so many countries have condemned the USA on its most recent human rights crisis. Thank you for providing this fantastic evidence for the absurdity of your claim!

I didn't think I needed to post links as evidence, as it's been front page news all around the world. So here are just a few. Google News can pull up others if you need more examples.

Un News - US must address deep-seated grievances to move beyond history of racism and violence

George Floyd’s Death in U.S. Sparks Outcry Abroad

EU 'shocked and appalled' by George Floyd's killing

World leaders condemn George Floyd killing as violence spreads in U.S.

Africa Reacts to George Floyd’s Death and U.S. Protests

Thousands across the UK, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Canada, and more condemn racism and demand justice at global Black Lives Matter protests

The World Is Watching U.S. Protests Over George Floyd. Demonstrations spread to Paris and other cities around the world.


3
Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Rowbotham use Conspiracy Theories?
« on: June 05, 2020, 07:03:41 PM »
Lets compare Space Travel to Human Rights Violations in the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, which several countries are influencing. Lets say that the US, Russia, and France are involved for some reason.

The US claims to have only committed xx human rights violations. Only xx terrorists were tortured this quarter. Russia claims to have committed xx human rights violations. Only xx terrorists were tortured this quarter. France claims that xx terrorists were tortured. They are self-reporting, performing their own oversight with their own agencies of how they violate human rights, just how they self report for space travel claims.

Now, with this analogy in place, you are claiming that if the one country misstepped in some manner on human rights violations, that Russia or France would sound the alert. That there is no way that these groups, who are allied on some diplomatic level, would conspire together to violate human rights in Afghanistan, or overlook violations.

This would, of course, be absolutely absurd to claim. They would be distrusted by default to self report, let alone what they would do against each other. We see that when we extend the analogy beyond your imagined feel-good honest space travel world that those countries can't really be trusted to do anything honestly. Honesty is not the default.

Your analogy is flawed. Countries do indeed call each other out on human rights violations. In fact that is the norm, and I'm not sure I've ever seen Russia, the US and China all conspire to hide some violation they all participated in. I wouldn't say it never happens, but if it does, it's rare. For your analogy to be true, every space-based country and agency in the would will have had to have been part of this conspiracy for the entire time, without one ever calling the rest of the world out.

But you don't see Russia officially claiming the USA never landed on the moon, you don't see any of the dozens of space agencies that launch hundreds of satellites into space pointing out that some other launch was a fake.

It is also only your opinion that countries (and people I guess) default to lying.  I would disagree.  In my opinion honesty is the default, lying is the exception.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 05, 2020, 10:59:54 AM »
Atomic theory is a good one, because it's not really clear that subatomic particles exist. It is possible that matter is made of waves. It certainly would explain why some particles can 'act as waves'.

Have you ever seen a subatomic particle?

An argument for atoms would need to be self evident, rather than on faith. An argument founded on "I can believe that they can possibly exist, and so that's why I believe it" is rather irrational.

I don't want to get sidetracked too far but you are referencing Gabriel LaFreniere who's claim to fame is making a lot of animated gifs on a website. Nothing published or peer-reviewed, no experiments, no predictions, and at best can be called speculation. So to the contrary, it's very clear that yes, atoms do exist. Quantum theory explains why they sometimes act as waves.

This is demonstrating exactly the same problem we have been discussing. You are dismissing the very idea that atoms exist based on one random web page, when tens of thousands of scientists, experiments, research papers, countless measurements, experiments, theories, equations and observations say otherwise. Yes, atoms exist, atoms are real.

As far as seeing a single atom, we have done that too.

Ok, back to the subject at hand before we digress too far.

The problem is your argument can apply to everything.  We don't directly see anything, our brains just receive electrical impulses generated by photons hitting our retinas, so who can truly say what is actually out there. You can use your argument to deny the existence of reality itself which gets us nowhere.

Evidence based belief is the basis of our entire existence, and not irrational at all. I can't see my bathroom right now, but I know it still exists. I know there are no baby dragons frolicking in my bathtub. I don't need to run in there and check.

And thus I believe the hundreds of astronauts that have seen with their own eyes and brought back pictures and videos that the Earth is round. Because I believe that large rockets can get into space. Because I know small rockets exist and work because I have seen and used them. I know we can make big things, I have seen that too. All the evidence points to these things being real. I have no more reason to doubt the existence of rockets in orbit than I do to doubt the existence of Dubai skyscrapers, even though I have not personally visited wither Dubai or space.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 05, 2020, 01:20:26 AM »
Quote
I'm thinking that with everything I know of science and the current limits of technology and what I've personally witnessed and experienced, that rockets capable of reaching orbit seems very possible.

That's nice. But how is this any different than the legions of people who believe that magics are possible, based on endless and substantial old stories of magics and myscicisms being performed?

They believe something is possible, and justify their belief on those third party stories which they did not witness themselves. It is, of course, easy to say how simple it is to believe that magics and energies can exist to allow those stories to be true, so why not?

Again, we find that it is fallacious to believe in something just because you think it's 'possible'.

If dragons flew around and breathed magic fire, then if someone said they had magic powers I wouldn't just dismiss it. It's all based on evidence, observations.

I never saw the Nile, but I am sure it exists.  I never saw The Emerald City, but I'm just as sure it doesn't exist. Why? Because the Nile has a vast amount of evidence that it exists, and the Emerald City has a vast amount of evidence that it's just a movie.

You are saying that we should believe absolutely nothing at all. I disagree. There are limits to what we can personally experience. Nobody has seen an atom, but I have no doubt they are real.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 05, 2020, 01:10:48 AM »
Quote
Saying that people hundreds of years ago wouldn't believe you if you described a cell phone doesn't mean cell phones don't exist, that's a false argument.

If you were describing a cell phone to people hundreds of years ago it would mean that the burden of proof is on you. And claiming to someone that a group of people who you don't even know, are claiming to have this "magic" technology, leaves it as a pretty terrible and insufficient argument.

We aren't hundreds of years ago right now, and rockets aren't magic, it's just technology that isn't at all hard to understand the basic concepts of. I've never been on a nuclear aircraft carrier, it's amazing and awe inspiring how something that big can float and move around so fast, and I have no idea the details on how to build one. But I've been on boats. I understand the concept. I don't feel like all sailors are liars.

You are claiming that because you think something is possible that we should accept it's true.

Now apply your logic to the people who claim fantastic things such as telepathy, magic powers, special knowledge of the future. You dismiss them instantly, even though many people think that those things are 'possible'.

We find a totally invalid argument.

I am not claiming that, you are putting words into my mouth.

I'm thinking that with everything I know of science and the current limits of technology and what I've personally witnessed and experienced, that rockets capable of reaching orbit seems very possible. Far more likely than the entire multi-national industry, and the whole world being a vast lie and globe spanning conspiracy. That's my personal belief. You may find that a totally invalid argument, and you are entitled to your opinion.

I don't believe magic powers because I've never seen any evidence that magic exists. Now, if faeries or baby dragons were something I had seen, if magic was something I could touch and was all over the world, then I'd be likely to believe in people having magic powers too. But they don't. Rockets however, do exist. It's much less of a stretch to believe that bigger ones exist too, especially with an entire world of evidence out there. I've touched those rockets with my own hands, and you can claim they are models or fakes, but I know that yes we can build such things, and see no evidence to believe they don't work as claimed.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 05, 2020, 12:57:04 AM »
Quote
Saying that people hundreds of years ago wouldn't believe you if you described a cell phone doesn't mean cell phones don't exist, that's a false argument.

If you were describing a cell phone to people hundreds of years ago it would mean that the burden of proof is on you. And claiming to someone that a group of people who you don't even know, are claiming to have this "magic" technology, leaves it as a pretty terrible and insufficient argument.

We aren't hundreds of years ago right now, and rockets aren't magic, it's just technology that isn't at all hard to understand the basic concepts of. I've never been on a nuclear aircraft carrier, it's amazing and awe inspiring how something that big can float and move around so fast, and I have no idea the details on how to build one. But I've been on boats. I understand the concept. I don't feel like all sailors are liars.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 05, 2020, 12:37:20 AM »
Quote
Jet airplanes are pretty fantastic, and very complex. The idea that I have a billion tiny microscopic switches inside my phone flicking on and off a billion times a second is pretty fantastic.

Yes, and those things need to be widely available to people for acceptance and confidence that they exist. If you made such claims several hundred years ago you would be laughed at. Claiming "I know this person who had this magic tech" would not really cut it.

That's what you are doing now, claiming that an exclusive group has a special technology. Doesn't cut it.

That's not at all what I'm claiming.

Saying that people hundreds of years ago wouldn't believe you if you described a cell phone doesn't mean cell phones don't exist, that's a false argument. People wouldn't believe most of what we have to day, but we still have and use it.

That exclusive group is pretty big now, comprising of many countries and anyone with enough money to pay for a trip, or to buy his own rocket with a camera and launch it.

And it's not special technology. It's simply bigger and more expensive things that we already have and use. We have jets that fly people around the world every day, I have launched model rockets, the idea that we can make bigger rockets isn't exactly mind-bending.

Nothing NASA does requires magic, it's just bigger and more expensive versions of things I know exist.

And only some people need things to "be widely available to people for acceptance and confidence that they exist".  The vast majority of the world doesn't feel that way.  They believe the space program, they believe in the Large Hadron Collider Exists, though few have ever seen it. I've never been to the White House, but I'm sure it's real. I've never SEEN a microprocessor fabrication facility but I know my phone chips were made there and not in a witches cauldron.

Most people don't need to directly touch or see something to understand it's real. Who has seen a doctor perform open heart surgery in person? Very few, but does anyone think all those surgeries are fake and Doctors are liars?

What I'm claiming, is people have been to space and seen the Earth, taken pictures, videos, and come back to talk about it... and I have to believe either...

1. We used technology that I understand and seems quite reasonable based on everything else we can do.

Or...

2. Thousands, or millions of people are involved in a vast web of lies and deceit and all astronauts are actors and liars and it's a perfect conspiracy and massive amounts of data and observations are totally made up and nobody noticed.

Number one is the obvious choice for me.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 05, 2020, 12:15:30 AM »
When astronauts look out their windows, they see the Earth is a sphere. That the earth is a sphere is the simplest explanation to this.

When the Apollo astronauts were on their way to the moon, they didn't see the stars rotate, but saw the Earth spinning.  That the Earth spins and the stars don't is the simplest explanation to this.

The OP says that there are a lot of complex observations that show the Earth is a sphere, and he is correct. But there are also some simple direct observations too. Simplest doesn't always mean correct, but the Earth being a sphere has both, and plenty of them.

That invokes: Astronauts, space ships, the physical possibility of safe space travel, earth orbit, and technologies to reach space or escape velocity. That is pretty fantastic, and unfortunately a far more complex explanation for this. You are adding on more requirements and complexities to justify your belief.

As printed in the OP the simplest explanation is that NASA can't really do all of that stuff. And since the simplest explanation is that NASA can't really do all of that stuff, FE remains the simplest explanation.

Jet airplanes are pretty fantastic, and very complex. The idea that I have a billion tiny microscopic switches inside my phone flicking on and off a billion times a second is pretty fantastic. The idea that we have massive nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines is pretty fantastic. And huge space shuttles and rockets that go very, very high up, witnessed by thousands if not millions of people is pretty fantastic. But they are all true. The idea that those rockets actually go where they are going after getting all the way up there is a simple idea, far less complex than somehow making them vanish and land unseen somewhere and duplicates put up to land days later.

The only requirement is to believe people up there told the truth.

But in the end, rockets and guidance systems and all that don't matter.  We have pictures, and testimony from the people up there. The simplest explanation is that they are telling the truth, which is way less complex than fabricating all that evidence and having thousands of people keeping a massive conspiracy going. That is complicated and hard to believe.

As for FE being the simplest explanation, it needs to actually explain things first before it can count as an explanation.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 04, 2020, 11:55:27 PM »
When I look out of my window and observe a vast expanse of land or ocean waters, it looks like its continuously flat. That would be the simplest explanation.

Great. I am glad that we agree that FE is the simplest explanation to this.

When astronauts look out their windows, they see the Earth is a sphere. That the earth is a sphere is the simplest explanation to this.

When the Apollo astronauts were on their way to the moon, they didn't see the stars rotate, but saw the Earth spinning.  That the Earth spins and the stars don't is the simplest explanation to this.

The OP says that there are a lot of complex observations that show the Earth is a sphere, and he is correct. But there are also some simple direct observations too. Simplest doesn't always mean correct, but the Earth being a sphere has both, and plenty of them.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 03:52:37 PM »
Nothing you have posted here is honest and I am not going to engage it any longer.

Buh bye...

If you want to have the last word and abandon the discussion, feel free. But I have to respond to this...

You are using "real image" in a very strange way. Every single image is a "real image" by your definition, so saying an image is a "real image" is redundant, pointless and doesn't add to the discussion. Nobody else would use "real image" in the way you do.
Like this^

This type of classification from you.

A personal attack.

Something someone does when they have no response.

You write that my application of the words,"real image," is deficient, yet you know the image is visible and available for viewing.

I got a clue for you.

That makes the image, "real," in every sense of the word.

In fact, the only sense of the word.

Pointing out you are using words and phrases in confusing ways is not a personal attack, it's trying to understand what you are saying, and perhaps explain to you why what you are saying is hard for others to understand.

Let me try and explain why I think your use of "real image," is deficient.

If you hold up a picture and ask someone "Is this a real picture?' nobody is going to seriously say, "Yes, you are holding a physical picture it is a real object that exists". How would you even ever say no to that question, "You are holding a picture that is not a picture?"

You are using that phrase in a very literal manner that simply isn't used in actual debate or even serious conversation. I am trying to help you understand this.

This is what caused so much back and forth. When you say "It's a real image" you mean something very different than how that is used by everyone else.

The quote below is an example. It's taking things extremely literally, and when this usage is used in the middle of a conversation it can get very confusing just what is being argued about.

I do not dispute the fact you have posted real images.

I can see them.

That means the images exist.

I dispute the images present an accurate depiction of reality.



12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 02:58:54 PM »
What exactly did you mean by "I dispute the images present an accurate depiction of reality" then? That sounds like a long-winded way of saying they are fake.
It is not a long winded way of saying anything else other than exactly what I wrote.

Which evidently you do not understand.

You do realize I posted an image of a kangaroo with a long riffle, correct?

Did I post a real image?

Can you see it?

Earth telescopes could see the impact sites 10 minutes after they occurred. A space based telescope saw them as they happened.
So, you admit the Earth based telescopes did not see the impacts.

Thank you for finally writing some factual information.

I understand you are saying the images do not "depict reality" and since NASA says they do, what are you implying? Why can't you come out and just say they are lying?

You are using "real image" in a very strange way. Every single image is a "real image" by your definition, so saying an image is a "real image" is redundant, pointless and doesn't add to the discussion. Nobody else would use "real image" in the way you do.

You also seem to be hung up on the word "impact" so let me try and explain without using that word.

1. The Galileo spacecraft took pictures of multiple comets as they each hit Jupiter, each causing a massive explosion. This told us exactly when they first hit.

2. Ten minutes later after the comets hit, as Jupiter rotated, Earth based telescopes saw the these explosions.

Just like you can see a mushroom cloud after a large explosion, Earth based telescopes could see the expanding explosions ten minutes after they started, and for much longer. They were massive events and were observed for days.

No, Earth based telescopes did not see the comets when they first hit, but saw the results 10 minutes later. Galileo saw the comets first hit the planet.


13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 02:30:20 PM »
If you have evidence that those images are fake, please state it. If you want to debate philosophy we can do that elsewhere.
I do not dispute the fact you have posted real images.

I dispute the images present an accurate depiction of reality.

My evidence the images depict something other than reality is this:


A kangaroo shooting a gun is not evidence of the Galileo images being faked. Simply claiming a picture is fake is not evidence.

Here is evidence.

The Galileo images were seen and reported on before Earth based telescopes saw the impacts. Pretty impressive fakes, done before the event could even be seen from Earth.
Earth based telescopes did not take pictures and see the impacts.

Again, you are demonstrating you are not reading AND comprehending my posts.

I'm comprehending your posts just fine.

Earth based telescopes took pictures of the impact sites 10 minutes after the space based telescope Galileo saw the actual impacts happen.
No, you are not.

It is quite evident you are not cognizant and aware of what you are writing, let alone what I write.

I did not make the claim the images are fake.

You wrote that Earth bound telescopes were able to see the impacts.

The fact of the matter is this.

They did not.

If you are going to continue to post blatantly false information, we might as well stop.

What exactly did you mean by "I dispute the images present an accurate depiction of reality" then? That sounds like a long-winded way of saying they are fake.

Earth telescopes could see the impact sites 10 minutes after they occurred. A space based telescope saw them as they happened.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 02:13:51 PM »
If you have evidence that those images are fake, please state it. If you want to debate philosophy we can do that elsewhere.
I do not dispute the fact you have posted real images.

I dispute the images present an accurate depiction of reality.

My evidence the images depict something other than reality is this:


A kangaroo shooting a gun is not evidence of the Galileo images being faked. Simply claiming a picture is fake is not evidence.

Here is evidence.

The Galileo images were seen and reported on before Earth based telescopes saw the impacts. Pretty impressive fakes, done before the event could even be seen from Earth.
Earth based telescopes did not take pictures and see the impacts.

Again, you are demonstrating you are not reading AND comprehending my posts.

I'm comprehending your posts just fine.

Earth based telescopes took pictures of the impact sites 10 minutes after the space based telescope Galileo saw the actual impacts happen.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 01:43:32 PM »
If you have evidence that those images are fake, please state it. If you want to debate philosophy we can do that elsewhere.
I do not dispute the fact you have posted real images.

I dispute the images present an accurate depiction of reality.

My evidence the images depict something other than reality is this:


A kangaroo shooting a gun is not evidence of the Galileo images being faked. Simply claiming a picture is fake is not evidence.

Here is evidence.

The Galileo images were seen and reported on before Earth based telescopes saw the impacts. Pretty impressive fakes, done before the event could even be seen from Earth.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 12:59:22 PM »
Ok, we can agree that it was built. That's good.

What evidence would you need to believe it was at Jupiter and saw the comet impacts?
Here is where I can state there is none you can provide.

None that I can provide, or none that can exist? You are stating that no matter what, you will never believe it?
Again, what constitutes objective in this case is more a discussion related to Philosophy.

We more than likely disagree on what that is which is okay.

We can disagree about your personal beliefs, sure. We can discuss that elsewhere.

Back to the topic on hand, Galileo sent back pictures of the impacts. Here are several of those images. They show the exact time and placement of the impacts. This is how we know when they took place.


Yes, that is how you believe they took place.

There is certainly a difference in knowing and believing.

If you have evidence that those images are fake, please state it. If you want to debate philosophy we can do that elsewhere.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 12:55:26 PM »
JSS you are mistaken in the belief that lighter than aircraft Galileo carried a telescope. Not listed in onboard optical instruments.

I'm not sure what 'lighter than aircraft' means so I can't respond to that.

It absolutely did contain a telescope.

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

Here is another description.

The optical system used was a modified flight spare of the narrow-angle telescope flown on Voyager and was similar in its basic design to the telescopes flown on Mariner 10. The telescope was a 1500 nm focal length (f/8.5), all-spherical, catadioptric telescope, 90 cm in length and 25 cm in diameter. The field of view of the telescope was 0.46 degrees with an angular resolution of 10.16 microradians/pixel.

 - https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experiment/display.action?id=1989-084B-10

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 12:50:52 PM »
Ok, we can agree that it was built. That's good.

What evidence would you need to believe it was at Jupiter and saw the comet impacts?
Here is where I can state there is none you can provide.

None that I can provide, or none that can exist? You are stating that no matter what, you will never believe it?
Again, what constitutes objective in this case is more a discussion related to Philosophy.

We more than likely disagree on what that is which is okay.

We can disagree about your personal beliefs, sure. We can discuss that elsewhere.

Back to the topic on hand, Galileo sent back pictures of the impacts. Here are several of those images. They show the exact time and placement of the impacts. This is how we know when they took place.



19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 12:23:20 PM »
Ok, we can agree that it was built. That's good.

What evidence would you need to believe it was at Jupiter and saw the comet impacts?
Here is where I can state there is none you can provide.

None that I can provide, or none that can exist? You are stating that no matter what, you will never believe it?

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9
« on: May 20, 2020, 12:13:13 PM »
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.
There is no doubt the Galileo spacecraft exists.

People have seen it and touched it.

I only have doubt regarding its stated mission.

Ok, we can agree that it was built. That's good.

What evidence would you need to believe it was at Jupiter and saw the comet impacts?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17  Next >