It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GT100FV
My point is this- if one conducts a scientific experiment (or investigation), and then observe the results(and these results are repeatable), then conclusions can be made.
It is bad science to come up with conclusions first, and then try to work backwards to confirm the result.
Conclusions should be based on evidence, not "well I don't trust anybody, so whatever is currently accepted must be wrong,
and anybody who does trust anyone else, is obviously not credible themselves."
When science proved that the Earth was in fact round, it was because that was where the evidence pointed to,
not because someone didn't trust the dogma.
Using the standard that you used, nothing could ever be proven or disproven,
because your conclusions are based on what your opinion is of the results.
Good science requires you to go where the evidence points, not what you'd like for the result to be.
Originally posted by GT100FV
Don't confuse technological development, with disproof of formally unaccepted theories.
One can't compare Earth flat vs. Earth round, with jet aircraft vs. no jet aircraft.
The way technology developed was because there were sound ideas that prevailed over ones that weren't.
And it wasn't just the perception of reality of the designers/inventors that brought these things to be.
Originally posted by GT100FV
I never said scientists and inventors got everything right their first time.
The point is that conclusions may be made after experimentation shows results that are repeatable, otherwise one is just using the SWAG methodology.
One can have all sorts of theories about any subject, but conclusive evidence can only result from testing the theory.
Whether one likes the results should play no role in the conclusion, as science isn't about proving what one would like the answer to be.
As for scientists catching up with the layman with regards to the shape of the earth, I beg to differ. Modern western science started during the age of enlightenment, and prior to that it wasn't widely accepted or respected as it's practitioners were mainly alchemists, etc...
The average peasant wasn't asking questions about this sort of thing, and sailors for the most part hadn't ventured out very far in their explorations yet.
Jet airplanes were invented, through technological advancement.
The earth was always round. It wasn't till the means to calculate the radius, based on geometry, etc... where it started to gain acceptance(again a technological advance).
My main issue with a lot of the theories you pose, is that they leave more questions than answers,
and you don't offer any explanation other than that it's your opinion,
and discount info from subject matter experts because it doesn't fit in your paradigm.
The government along with private companies isn't the Borg, with some monolithic operation occurring.
It is made up of a lot of individuals, with all sorts of different backgrounds, opinions, world views.
To say the "government" does this or that like everyone is in lockstep is simply ridiculous.
I distrust governments too, but because I feel them to be beauracratic nightmares, that do simple tasks inefficiently(and many times ineptly), not because I think that every employ is in on a conspiracy to do me and the country wrong.
The only way to keep things secret is to keep the info known to the minimal amount of people.
For large events to take place, a lot of people have to be involved(not just the Chiefs, but the Indians). Many times the Indians don't really like the Chiefs, so this blind allegiance notion is BS.
That's why large scale operations couldn't occur without the knowledge of a lot of people(and if something screwed up is going on, and they can make a buck telling about it, they will).
This is why I'm skeptical of many of the notions put forth.
The Indians swore allegiance to their country, not to their bosses. I trust the private sector and free market far more, as things that are inefficient or unprofitable typically fade away due to competition for market share.