The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Do you not have access to YouTube? Still new to the internet? Because videos are all over the place. We have SEEN it happen multiple times. Of course it is very expensive so there aren't literally millions of examples but certainly enough to illustrate the facts.

Every time I hear someone say there are all sorts of video showing a rocket fly towards 'orbit', until it is a mere space VIEWED FROM EARTH, they show me a view from supposed 'rockets'. In one case, they've shown me three different rockets, from three videos, from different angles, and the third rocket plummeting to Earth, before they cut the video. Not because it would show the rocket smash into the ocean, I'm sure!

So, like I've asked the others, show me a rocket flying towards 'orbit', until it is a speck, TAKEN FROM EARTH.

Anyone who claims there are such videos "all over the place", should have no problem sourcing one here, right?


So go ahead, I can't wait to see it...

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

I'll believe it when I see a rocket fly up towards 'orbit', from Earth, until it is a mere speck in the sky....

The direction can't be just "up", or they would never get into orbit. It would need to fly up a little, but more parallel to the Earth's surface, since an orbit is parallel to the surface.

A rocket that just goes up would fall back to Earth.

Yes, I'm well aware of those excuses.

Show me a rocket that eventually becomes a mere speck in the sky, as it flies towards 'orbit'.

No 'up' excuse for you here.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

As far as I was aware all the telemetry data from Apollo 11 was missing?

Please correct me if I’m wrong and provide a link to it.

Also, I’ve never denied the Drake equation nor have I proposed any flaws in its logic.

I merely stated there’s a lot of estimation going on.

Aliens, however probable simply don’t exist until we have evidence of them outside of a blackboard.

I don’t think we should work on assumptions.

originally posted by: cooperton
Your bias is strong. Show me an organism that has changed into another organism in a lab setting. There have been millions of generations of lab organisms that should have resulted in some sort of change by now if evolution were true. But fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, you simply believe it can go beyond that even though there is no data to support the possibility.

How am I biased, when you are the one disregarding thousands of scientific research papers to promote something that isn't even supported by a SINGLE ONE. Your standards of scrutiny are completely warped. You hold scientific papers to unrealistically high standards, but yet believe your silly religion on a whim with none at all, just blind belief in old stories, yet that is supposedly more credible than 100+ years of research and testing LOL.

Repeating silly straw men doesn't make it true. You realize Adolf Hitler was the first to use the Foxes will always be Foxes line, right??? You creationists continue to champion it without even knowing where Hovind/Ham got that from.

All physical laws act according to precise mathematical equations.

FALSE. We measure them, they don't act in accordance to math LOL.

It is by definition intelligent.

The fact that we can measure laws of physics doesn't make the law itself intelligent by default.

Laws don't come to be without an intelligent force bringing them into existence.

Dishonest equivocation of the laws of physics to man made rules.

The constitution was drafted by intelligent men, not monkeys slapping on type-writers. No matter how much you divert and attack me personally, you can't change that straight-forward logic.

How the # does that change a goddamn thing?

originally posted by: turbonium1
Animals don't create things, humans do, and intelligence is the only reason for it.

That's a lie. Many animals create things. Humans being intelligent doesn't mean there is a HIGHER intelligence out there. There is literally no logical connection to that, just dishonest creationist liars repeating any and everything to justify their own personal beliefs to others.

What evidence is there for your argument of creations, complex or not, from pure random chance? Nothing.

STRAW MAN. What evidence is there for your god or mechanisms of the creation process? Oh wait.....

Why would you believe random chance could create anything complex, when all of the evidence shows it is the complete opposite?

This highlight the epitome of your dishonesty. Random has to do with probability and number ranges. It's not an entity that makes things. There is literal no evidence that shows 1. random chance can't exist or that 2. God DOES exist. Stop lying.

Believing rockets fly into 'orbit', without seeing one ever do it, is an exception to the rule?!!

Tons of them have been observed and shown. Most launches have cameras affixed to the craft to document the entire process. But that's all fake right?? LOL.

I'll believe it when I see a rocket fly up towards 'orbit', from Earth, until it is a mere speck in the sky....

This lie was already corrected and you denied it. Safe to say you are a lost cause. Evidence matters not.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Do you not have access to YouTube? Still new to the internet? Because videos are all over the place. We have SEEN it happen multiple times. Of course it is very expensive so there aren't literally millions of examples but certainly enough to illustrate the facts.

Every time I hear someone say there are all sorts of video showing a rocket fly towards 'orbit', until it is a mere space VIEWED FROM EARTH, they show me a view from supposed 'rockets'. In one case, they've shown me three different rockets, from three videos, from different angles, and the third rocket plummeting to Earth, before they cut the video. Not because it would show the rocket smash into the ocean, I'm sure!

So, like I've asked the others, show me a rocket flying towards 'orbit', until it is a speck, TAKEN FROM EARTH.

Anyone who claims there are such videos "all over the place", should have no problem sourcing one here, right?


So go ahead, I can't wait to see it...

a reply to: Grenade

first - lets get your false accusation out teh way

i have NEVER accused you of " denying the drake equation "

hear are my posts [ in thread ] my scribblings

so unless you are a sock puppet for ATS member cooperton - stop lying about what i acuse you of

and with that - lets talk telemetry :

lets have a few answers from you :

Q1 - what is telemetry

Q2 - what do the missing tapes contain

Q3 - why is it critical that you inspect them // thier data

Q 4 - on what grounds do you dismiss all other telemetry provided

hear is footage from the apollo 16 EVA : its telemetry - at a resultion better than anything lost on the apollo 11 tapes



explain coherently - why you dismiss this ?

but still think that "apollo 11 telemetry " is the key

further - read the ALSJ [ apollo lunar surface journal ] - a trove of evidence - that hoax believers simply ignore


you are not the first person to try this tack - and wont be the last - but you are all painfully wrong

in conclusion - you are pathetically dishonest :

you claim that you " dont trust a word NASA says "

but want " apollo telemetry " - which comes from NASA

and have the delusion - that you are caopable of forensic analysis to " proove "we" went to the moon "

this is a typical gambit of hoax believers

you demand something that either does not exist - or believe does not exist - and formulate the delusion that the " missing thing " is the key to the entire case .

you simply ignore all other evidence presented - and repeat " give me the missing thing "

and finally - the missing A11 telemetry = the origional masters - most of it is preserved as 2gen copies or other formats like transcrits and printouts of flight data parameters

end

a reply to: ignorant_ape

So you agree I haven’t raised any issues with the Drake equation.

Thanks, we can wrap up this thread.

As for NASA I have many reasons why I distrust them, not just the missing tapes.

I personally think they’re just the public arm of a larger US space program. I’d imagine that if the US spends so much on scientific research and exploration of space at least an equal amount would be spend on its militarisation. I’d be very surprised if that wasn’t the case.

I don’t trust any military agency, because part of their game plan is dis-info and espionage.

I simply don’t have time to have a full lunar landing debate with you, maybe it’s a passion of yours which is why your goading me into some kind of back and forth but I simply don’t care for the subject enough.

I’ll just carry on having my opinion, how does that sound?

Just to appease you, I have no issues with Apollo missions, nothing fishy at all going on there, no photographic anomaly’s to speak of and astronauts descriptions and interviews don’t have any inconsistencies.

I’ve yet to see how this makes me a anti-science as you put it. Nor do I see why this justifies labelling me an idiot.

I wasn’t being literal when I said I don’t believe a word nasa says, I was trying to express my lack of trust, not rejecting all of their work.

a reply to: Grenade

FFS - i NEVER claimed that you opposed the drake equation - so what the hell are you babbling about ?

as for the rest - yes - runaway brave sir robin

if you dont want to discuss issues - why are you on a discussion forum ????

you were happi to " contribute " 12 pages to this farce of a thread

and even requested that i start a new thread - but now - you want to run away - so be it

just remember - this is yet another tangent you have spun from this thread

run away - runaway run away

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I’m just not that interested.

Also your attitude is that of a little schoolyard bully.

Like I said I don’t have time or interest just now, certainly not going to waste my time with this immature nonsense.

Many many threads on the moon landing you can go grandstanding.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

So far all I’ve learned from this thread is that Atheists are generally rude, arrogant, intolerant, immature and in some cases completely unhinged.

The religious crowd on the other hand have been polite, objective, compassionate and light hearted.

Completely the opposite of what I expected considering I’ve repeatedly stated I don’t believe in any religion and have used scientific research throughout my posts.

Atheists playing a game of pot calling the kettle black when it comes to their extremist radical views.

No-one knows the nature of reality, if you think you do then you’re delusional. No amount of science or theology will ever accurately describe the universe we live in.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I’m just not that interested.

Also your attitude is that of a little schoolyard bully.

Like I said I don’t have time or interest just now, certainly not going to waste my time with this immature nonsense.

Many many threads on the moon landing you can go grandstanding.

Schoolyard bully? For him asking you to explain in detail what you are referring to by "missing telemetry?" Bullies don't lay down arguments and give you a chance to explain yourself, they beat your ass.

You just can't take any adversity. Every time you are challenged on something you take it personally and either deflect or run away. I presented facts and data to show why you were wrong in your claims and you were the one that got bent out of shape and started attacking over it. Just like how Coop called me a troll for posting 5 peer reviewed papers and laughing when he blindly denied them all.

So far all I’ve learned from this thread is that Atheists are generally rude, arrogant, intolerant, immature and in some cases completely unhinged.

Atheists are only rude when they are lied to or lied about or people ignorantly deny/reject science. People that lie deserve it when folks are rude to them. If you don't like that, DON'T LIE. It's that simple.

The religious crowd on the other hand have been polite, objective, compassionate and light hearted.

LOL! What forum are you reading? Have you even read Coop's replies? All he does is attack the opposition personally and lash out.

Atheists playing a game of pot calling the kettle black when it comes to their extremist radical views.

More baseless projection.

a reply to: Barcs

Yawn, more yapping like a little dog without substance.

I’ve explained that the moon landings don’t really interest me and why I don’t trust NASA.

Usual confrontational crap, let me know when it gets back to actual discussion and not the bullies.

Ape used the expression run away 5 times in one paragraph.

The level of debate has become so silly, I’ll say again, bunch of spoiled little children who can’t let anyone have an opinion outside their closed little world.

Have the thread, it’s a joke anyway so may as well let the jesters have it all to themselves.

What would appease you? That you’re right and I’m wrong about everything. That your world view is the only one that counts and any diversion from orthodoxy should be quashed?

The ATS gestapo win, I cant compete with this level of immature BS.

a reply to: Barcs

What science did I lie about again to deserve the incessant abuse?

Please tell me o great keyboard warrior.

I think you have a problem separating lies and opinions. You assume anything that isn’t your opinion is a lie because you speak with some kind of Mis-placed self righteous authority.

Take your little pet with you. At least you make decent points, all he does is posture and rage.

If the next reply is just more argumentative nonsense our journey will beat an end as it’s tiresome and counterproductive.

a reply to: Grenade

it is amazing that now - 11 weeks later - you are " no longer interested " when hey - you were the one that draged the apollo program into this farce of a thread - for "reasons" [ page17 09 NOVEMBER 2019 ]

i am asking you pertinant questions about your claimed beliefs

but as for grandstanding - how many times have you announced you were quiting this thread ?

a reply to: Grenade

FFS - lying again - how predictable :

i didnt acuse you of denying the drake equation - but i shall now :

We would need to detect life of some kind on at least one other planet before his equation could hold any weight.

that specious garbage was your first post in thread

the true nature and purpose of drakes equation has neen explained multiple times by multiple people

has it sunk in yet ?

a reply to: Grenade

Everything you are accusing us of, you are doing yourself. Gestapo? Come on.....

What science did I lie about again to deserve the incessant abuse?

You called Geocentrism a scientific theory.

I'm only abusing you in the sense that I'm pwning you in every argument you try to make. I'm not being abusive to you as a person, only your arguments.

a reply to: Grenade

Conveying any sort of mature conversation is impossible with them. Barcs is always barking, caps lock on very often, and berating people in the worst ways he can imagine. Ignorant ape is very similar.

Neither of them know enough about empirical science to hold an actual discussion, so they resort to that type of behavior.

Don't waste your time.

a reply to: Grenade

To be fair, you have consistently misrepresented the geocentric model of our solar system as actual science to discredit modern methodology, which is the definition of a straw man. And then you claimed you didn't, and then went back and did it again. But if you want to do illustrate an actual fallacy in the Drake equation without going back a couple hundred years to make science look stupid, there's another 70 pages waiting to be filled.