PDA

View Full Version : [Ong on LRO]



Ong
2011-Sep-08, 03:25 AM
Assuming the photo is not faked - and considering the government and their embedded media's track record, one must assume that anything and everything emanating therefrom is fraudulent unless proven otherwise, tho most of what they churn out is pretty amateurish and obvious, and this actually looks realistic - it's a lot more impressive than that the last silly "proof" - something totally featureless with pretty arrows and lettering drawn on it.

pzkpfw
2011-Sep-08, 04:19 AM
Post above taken from http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/119542-LRO-to-take-more-detailed-photos-of-Apollo-landing-sites!?p=1932306#post1932306

It's so full of unsubstantiated (so far) claims, it needs its' own thread. Now under full CT rules. Failure to support will be infracted.

Gillianren
2011-Sep-08, 04:37 AM
How do you prove something isn't fraudulent?

Ong
2011-Sep-08, 05:24 AM
Post above taken from http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/119542-LRO-to-take-more-detailed-photos-of-Apollo-landing-sites!?p=1932306#post1932306

It's so full of unsubstantiated (so far) claims, it needs its' own thread. Now under full CT rules. Failure to support will be infracted.

What did I say that you deem "unsubstantiated"? Since what I said was "so full of unsubstantiated claims", you can just pick out one. Tell me one. I'm waiting. I can substantiate what I said 1,000 times over, but then don't come around here saying, "Failure to stick to the subject will be infracted".

tusenfem
2011-Sep-08, 05:30 AM
Also commenting on moderation in thread is infractionable, which you know very well! If you have a problem with moderation you report the post.
Now, please give these 1000 substantiations of fraud by NASA.
Show your "proof" of fraudulence, instead of complaining about moderation. Apparently this should not be difficult for you.

Ong
2011-Sep-08, 05:45 AM
You don't expect people to react suspiciously and with concomitant hostility to you characters barreling in here making your gratuitous threats, huh?

"Now, please give these 1000 substantiations of fraud by NASA."

Playing word games now, are we? I didn't say "fraud by NASA", you did. You can see what I said right above.

Ong
2011-Sep-08, 05:55 AM
NASA is a government agency. It's in with bad company. Rightly or wrongly it might get tarred with the same brush as the jerkoffs who churn out fake birth certificates and elaborate drawings of gigantic supercaverns in the Himalayan foothills and neatly labeled photos of weapons of mass destruction factories, etc etc etc.

Yeah yeah, I know, Ong is infacted/banned/ostracized/sentenced to be branded and put in the stock, whatever.

Mellow
2011-Sep-08, 07:21 AM
Would this mean that my local school newsletter is untrustworthy, since it is a Government agency. It is therefore tarred with the same brush as the "jerkoffs"..... I'm not sure that's a good basis from which to form an argument. I will however now check my son has been in double maths on a Tuesday morning as opposed to making training shoes in a government sponsored sweatshop.

chrlzs
2011-Sep-08, 08:42 AM
...most of what they churn out is pretty amateurish and obvious

As that statement is obviously key to your claim, Ong, please post your favorite example of an 'amateurish and obvious' photo. It would be appropriate for you to explain precisely why you take that view, and the methodology you applied to come to your conclusion.

Otherwise that statement is completely meaningless (and worthless) handwaving.

Tog
2011-Sep-08, 11:10 AM
As that statement is obviously key to your claim, Ong, please post your favorite example of an 'amateurish and obvious' photo. It would be appropriate for you to explain precisely why you take that view, and the methodology you applied to come to your conclusion.

Otherwise that statement is completely meaningless (and worthless) handwaving.

You should also include the source of your photo. A photo taken from some guy's flicker page won't carry a lot of weight because there is no way to see how many hands were involved.

Jim
2011-Sep-08, 12:34 PM
Yeah yeah, I know, Ong is infacted/banned/ostracized/sentenced to be branded and put in the stock, whatever.

You got it.

JayUtah
2011-Sep-08, 03:33 PM
...

What did I say that you deem "unsubstantiated"?

1. That "the media" is embedded in "the government."

2. One must assume fraudulence until authenticity is proved.

3. That "most of what they turn out is amateurish and obvious."

4. That previous photos of this type are "featureless."

I can substantiate what I said 1,000 times over...

Probably not, because it seems your idea of substantiation is simply to refer to other conspiracy theories, such as in http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/120695-Ong-on-LRO?p=1932358#post1932358 , which seems to lead to...

...saying, "Failure to stick to the subject will be infracted".

Guilt by association isn't a good argument. You say we must assume something is fraudulent until proven otherwise. No, it's just as illogical to make one implicit conclusion as it is to make another. You're just committing the same error in your favor as you suggest others are doing. You say that "rightly or wrongly" it may tar something good with the same brush, but that's just glossing over your admission that you don't really know whether your conclusion is true or not. So you can stop pretending that your line of reasoning is especially valid.

In some specific case, to determine fraudulence, one must look at the evidence pertaining to that case. The specific facts determine authenticity, not some generalized attempt to frame it in poor light or to extrapolate from the complex environment from which some case arose. "Some people with dark hair have robbed liquor stores, therefore Ong -- who has dark hair -- is assumed guilty of robbing the Glendale liquor store on July 4, 2001." See the difference between general and specific? Even if the trend of dark-haired robbers is absolutely true, the question of whether you committed a specific robbery depends solely on evidence specific to that case: such as whether your DNA, fingerprints, or other physical traces were found there, whether you were observed there, whether stolen property was found in your possession, and so forth.

And yes, it's quite valid to ask you how you expect authenticity to be proven. One can determine that something arose from a plausible background, is generally consistent with its context, is credible in its observable details. But one can never prove that it is authentic; one can only ever show that it has not been faked by any means we know how to detect. That is, one can ever only provide affirmative proof for fraudulence, never for authenticity. Therefore in cases of determining authenticity, the burden of proof is always upon a claim of fraudulence.

Again this is because in order for something to be fake, it has to have been faked by some specific method. And it is evidence of that method that must be considered, not merely a handwaving accusation. For example in a high-profile document forgery case here in Utah some time ago, the documents had a credible appearance and were consistent with their purported historical context, although controversial in their content. Only when destructive tests were performed and found the chemical by-products of the means used to age the iron-gall ink artificially, was the forgery discerned. Those chemical products are affirmative proof of a specific means to create a forgery, among many such means. That is how proof works in any such case. If you want to argue that something is fake, you need to show evidence of how it was faked.

I too would love to see examples of what you say are "amateurish and obvious" fake photos published by the general media. Specifically I would like you to explain why, if your examples are so telling, the general public remains fooled by them.

Abaddon
2011-Sep-08, 06:38 PM
Guilt by association isn't a good argument. You say we must assume something is fraudulent until proven otherwise. No, it's just as illogical to make one implicit conclusion as it is to make another. You're just committing the same error in your favor as you suggest others are doing. You say that "rightly or wrongly" it may tar something good with the same brush, but that's just glossing over your admission that you don't really know whether your conclusion is true or not. So you can stop pretending that your line of reasoning is especially valid.


I like it. Permission to recycle, please, sir?

JayUtah
2011-Sep-08, 11:09 PM
Naturally. If it's published, it's ripe for quotation.

Garrison
2011-Sep-09, 07:38 PM
This seems to a different class of Hoax Believer in that there is no specific reason in the HB lexicon that they have latched onto for rejecting Apollo, simply an automatic rejection of everything said or done by those connected to 'The Powers That Be'.

vonmazur
2011-Sep-10, 05:15 AM
Fellows: This is the new type of "believer" that wanders into the store where I work, usually with a self-published flyer that they want me to hand out....Thanks to this Board, I question them a bit with the usual logic, point out the flaws, and tell them that: "No you cannot hand this out here..." Since this is a (Horror!) a gun store, and the 1985 (US) Gun Law allows us to prcatice Psychiatry without a formal license...It is fun to tell them that, IMHO: "No gun for you!" (Just like the Seinfeld Soup Nazi!!) The BATF&E and the local US Attorney back us up on this.....They have told us that we should tell these people, whom we have declined to sell to, to contact their field office for any complaints...I always request that the individual in question bring their printed materiel with them and tell the Agents what they have just told me!

Edited to add: Before anyone gets too worked up, keep in mind, that the vast majority of these persons, sooner or later, drags up the usual anti-Semetic rants....I have actually been handed bad copies of the famous "Protocols.." and other similar information by this type of person, along with the usual "Gubba-mint" conspriacies and all that goes with that sort of belief system..

Dale

slang
2011-Sep-10, 11:38 AM
This seems to a different class of Hoax Believer in that there is no specific reason in the HB lexicon that they have latched onto for rejecting Apollo, simply an automatic rejection of everything said or done by those connected to 'The Powers That Be'.

HB: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
BAUT: But it isn't just saying 'No it isn't'.
HB: Yes it is.
BAUT: No it isn't, argument is an intellectual process ... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
HB: No it isn't.

Swift
2011-Sep-10, 02:17 PM
I think those are the perfect two quotes to close this thread.

Ong, if you return and if you wish to continue this discussion under our rules, Report this post, and we'll reopen the thread.