Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Bart Sibrel's article

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by CONSPIRACY REALIST View Post
    Not entirely, no. It is being used to systematically cover NASA's lies, no doubt about it.It is financed by NASA and Phil Plait is paid to represent NASA.
    I'm preeeeeety certain one could pay for this board and the bandwidth it uses for about $600, maybe $700 a year, depending on how good a deal one could get from the hosting company.

    I guess this makes NASA's conspiracy the cheapest in history. And they say the gub'mint is full of wasteful spending!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    It's pretty obvious, and Phil Plaits employement with NASA is not a state secret. Gee whiz, boys.

    Phil Plait hasn't had anything to do with this board in years. Besides, the board is the collective contribution of thousands of participants, not just something written by Plait. Are we all being paid by NASA?
    Even if we were, IMHO this would still be just another ad-hominem fallacy, and CR would still have to show how our ARGUMENTS are wrong.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Quote Originally Posted by ineluki View Post
    Even if we were, IMHO this would still be just another ad-hominem fallacy, and CR would still have to show how our ARGUMENTS are wrong.
    It is the ad hominem fallacy, and pointing it out as such is one effective way of refuting it.

    Specifically, whether one's statement in any particular case is disinformation (a lie) doesn't depend on whether you've characterized the proponent as a disinfo agent; but rather upon whether the statement in question is really a lie. That can be determined only by comparing the statement with facts. If the statement and the facts align, then the statement is true regardless of what label you pin on its proponent.

    But because this requires a little more critical thinking skills than some are willing to expend to understand it, you can sometimes get better results from a different kind of refutation.

    In this case the notion that thousands of posts made by thousands of people on a public board are all funded by the U.S. government is preposterous enough on its face that it can be easily seen as such without much effort. There can be more than one thing wrong with an argument.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    In this case the notion that thousands of posts made by thousands of people on a public board are all funded by the U.S. government
    I'm new here. Who do I sign up with to start receiving my checks?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by coreybv View Post
    I'm new here. Who do I sign up with to start receiving my checks?

    You will be notified if and when your work is judged to be of sufficient quality and quantity to merit your becoming a paid government shill.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Quote Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
    You will be notified if and when your work is judged to be of sufficient quality and quantity to merit your becoming a paid government shill.
    Indeed that's true, I've been posting here for ages from the United Kingdom and NASA has not yet deemed my work to be of a suitable level commensurate with some form of financial remuneration.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    It is the ad hominem fallacy, and pointing it out as such is one effective way of refuting it.

    Specifically, whether one's statement in any particular case is disinformation (a lie) doesn't depend on whether you've characterized the proponent as a disinfo agent; but rather upon whether the statement in question is really a lie. That can be determined only by comparing the statement with facts. If the statement and the facts align, then the statement is true regardless of what label you pin on its proponent.

    But because this requires a little more critical thinking skills than some are willing to expend to understand it, you can sometimes get better results from a different kind of refutation.

    In this case the notion that thousands of posts made by thousands of people on a public board are all funded by the U.S. government is preposterous enough on its face that it can be easily seen as such without much effort. There can be more than one thing wrong with an argument.
    There aren't thousands of members on this board and on other conspiracy forums that post in defense of NASA on a regular, dedicated basis, its more like a few dozen. It does seem perposterous that they would pay any of you for the level of work you produce. After all, non of you have ever proved the manned moon landings, or naything for that matter, The conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if you had effectively done so. That's the funny thing about science, one mans science fact is another mans rediculous unproved idiom.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by CONSPIRACY REALIST View Post
    non of you have ever proved the manned moon landings, or naything for that matter, The conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if you had effectively done so. That's the funny thing about science, one mans science fact is another mans rediculous unproved idiom.
    Please provide your single best piece of evidence that the photographs, video footage, rocks and radio signals that document the Apollo landings are ALL fake.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,743
    Quote Originally Posted by CONSPIRACY REALIST View Post
    There aren't thousands of members on this board and on other conspiracy forums that post in defense of NASA on a regular, dedicated basis, its more like a few dozen.
    A few dozen? Wrong.

    After all, non of you have ever proved the manned moon landings, or naything for that matter,
    Wrong.

    The conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if you had effectively done so.
    Again, wrong. People can believe wrong things, even when they have been proven to be wrong. See the whole 2012 nonsense. Or homeopathy.

    That's the funny thing about science, one mans science fact is another mans rediculous unproved idiom.
    No, that's not how science operates.

    And if you want a "rediculous [sic] unproved idiom", I recommend you view your own posts.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    865
    Quote Originally Posted by SolusLupus View Post
    A few dozen? Wrong.
    Again, wrong. People can believe wrong things, even when they have been proven to be wrong. See the whole 2012 nonsense. Or homeopathy.
    Or the flat or hollow Earth "theories".

Similar Threads

  1. New CTC show with Bart Sibrel
    By HypothesisTesting in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2009-Mar-24, 07:36 PM
  2. MOON: Bart Sibrel's top 10
    By Faultline in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-19, 02:51 PM
  3. Article on Bart Sibrel from tennessean.com
    By SpitfireIX in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2004-Jun-07, 04:05 PM
  4. Bart Sibrel's Top Fifteen
    By Glom in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2003-Nov-09, 05:03 PM
  5. Has anybody ever asked Bart Sibrel ???
    By mcclir in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 2003-Mar-14, 12:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: