[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.

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.

[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.

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?

[totallackey]

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.

[JSS]

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?

[totallackey]

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.

[somerled]

JSS you are mistaken in the belief that lighter than aircraft Galileo carried a telescope. Not listed in onboard optical instruments.

[JSS]

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.

[totallackey]

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.

[JSS]

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

[JSS]

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.

[totallackey]

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 can see them.

That means the images exist.

I dispute the images present an accurate depiction of reality.

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

[JSS]

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.

[totallackey]

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.

[JSS]

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.

[totallackey]

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.

[JSS]

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.

[totallackey]

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 rifle, 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.

[GreatATuin]

OK, so telescopes on Earth didn't see the collision itself, just the result of the collision shortly after it happened.

Indeed. But, what does that change exactly? It still shows the prediction was correct.

[totallackey]

OK, so telescopes on Earth didn't see the collision itself, just the result of the collision shortly after it happened.

Indeed. But, what does that change exactly? It still shows the prediction was correct.

It shows images can possibly be generated to support a larger narrative.

[JSS]

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.