All aboard with the empty NASA Space Shuttles!

reply to post by Erad3


If you write your statements in a way that they have no real meaning it means nobody will understand you.
You write your statements in a way that they have no meaning.
Hence, nobody understands you.

It is simple, nobody is getting anything out of what you write because you say:

If black is blue it means blue can't be black.
Blue is black.
Hence, black doesn't exist.

Basically that's what everyone is complaining about, it makes no sense, try to word your statements in a different way, what's the point on keeping this style if nobody is really involved because it makes no sense to them? who are you trying to discuss this with then? if not the people here on ATS?

I don't understand why you neglect something like the Boeing argument just because.

If we are trying to figure out if a living creature can survive under water and you say:

"no living creature can survive under water"

And when someone points out that fishes do live under water, you then say:

"we won't talk about fishes, no living thing can survive under water"

Does that makes sense to you?






[edit on 13-7-2010 by Kaifan]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Kaifan]

reply to post by Kaifan


Thank you. Exactly what I was trying to get across.

My stating that there must be a language barrier was not to belittle the OP. I was simply saying that I am not understanding what the argument is.

And frankly... I still don't get it. Am I to understand that because in space it is cold, every single Apollo mission, Gemini mission, Space Shuttle mission etc was faked?

Lets assume for a minute that yes, nothing at all could ever exit our atmosphere and they WERE all faked. Why? Of what benefit would that bring?

The only argument I can 'maybe' see the OP talking about is the debate about the Van Allen belt. However, since we never really leave the upper atmosphere anyway (the 'space shuttle' never really goes into 'space'), the Van Allen belt, or radiation in general is not a valid argument.

To dismiss my comparison of the shuttle missions and Boeing as not related is silly. Ok take Boeing out. How about SR-71 Blackbirds, or U-2 Spy planes that fly WAY up in the atmosphere. How do the pilots not instantly die from the cold or lack of air pressure?

I will also, with hesitation, address the re-entry phase that the OP brings up. There is material that can withstand 1500 degrees of heat. That is the exact material that they use on the bottom of the space shuttle. That is exactly why the space shuttle re-enters the atmosphere in the angle that it does.

I would actually really enjoy having this debate. However I get the feeling that all of my points will be disregarded as irrelevant once again.

Look through a telescope and see the International Space Station and see it is too big to go up on one rocket.
The ISS is there and built with parts which were taken there by the Space Shuttle and assembled by its crew.
Therefore the Space Shuttle must work.

[edit on 7/13/2010 by abecedarian]

It flies, because the script says it can. How else can they have filmed it in orbit

reply to post by The Wave

You said it;

Please be specific with the complete crap for arguments.

Peace!

Seriously wave I cannot stop laughing at that!!



As for the OP what???

reply to post by Erad3

If the living space is able to maintain the crews life at a temperature of −454 °F then the human body is alive in the NASA Space Shuttle.
The human body isn't alive in the NASA Space Shuttle.
Thus, the living space isn't able to maintain the crews life at a temperature of −454 °F

Obviously you haven't researched shields and insulation that is used in the space shuttle.

BTW in low earth orbit the temperature is +250F in the sun and -250F in shadow.

You need to do more research. :shk:

Minnesota is cold. Things can not live in the cold.
I live in Minnesota. Therefore, I am not alive.

Am I doing it right?

OP is full of circular logic and fallacies with no proof of anything. I wish I could comment but it just doesn't make any sense to me.

There isn't anything to comment upon.

The op doesn't make a bit of sense.

Actually his posting style reminds me of a recently banned person that made claims in such the same manner.

Hm, time will tell.

Originally posted by Kaifan
reply to post by Erad3

 

If you write your statements in a way that they have no real meaning it means nobody will understand you.
You write your statements in a way that they have no meaning.
Hence, nobody understands you.

It is simple, nobody is getting anything out of what you write because you say:

If black is blue it means blue can't be black.
Blue is black.
Hence, black doesn't exist.

Basically that's what everyone is complaining about, it makes no sense, try to word your statements in a different way, what's the point on keeping this style if nobody is really involved because it makes no sense to them? who are you trying to discuss this with then? if not the people here on ATS?

I don't understand why you neglect something like the Boeing argument just because.

If we are trying to figure out if a living creature can survive under water and you say:

"no living creature can survive under water"

And when someone points out that fishes do live under water, you then say:

"we won't talk about fishes, no living thing can survive under water"

Does that makes sense to you?






[edit on 13-7-2010 by Kaifan]

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Kaifan]

I don't agree with writing invalid inductive arguments towards this subject.

Either you accept the inductive arguments from this thread or the deductive arguments.
I see you surrender to an invalid argument like other posters.

Don't put words in my mouth!

You're a miscreant without deduction!
The invalid arguments are true for you, but not true for me!

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Erad3]

Originally posted by oubliette
It flies, because the script says it can. How else can they have filmed it in orbit

Is the crew inside the space shuttle?

Originally posted by janon
OP is full of circular logic and fallacies with no proof of anything. I wish I could comment but it just doesn't make any sense to me.

You did make a comment to this thread.

This thread is making complete sense to a poster with deductive arguments.

This thread isn't for a poster with all inductive arguments.

Originally posted by theability
There isn't anything to comment upon.

The op doesn't make a bit of sense.

Actually his posting style reminds me of a recently banned person that made claims in such the same manner.

Hm, time will tell.

This thread is probably hard for a poster with inductive reasoning.

reply to post by Erad3


The thread is hard for someone who isn't a deluded mentalist....

the idea is that you PROVE your statements...you don't and in making your statements you ignore widely known facts and phenomenon...

What is the motto of the site again?....oh yeah...DENY IGNORANCE!....try it some time ...

Originally posted by uptheirons!
reply to post by Erad3

 

The thread is hard for someone who isn't a deluded mentalist....

the idea is that you PROVE your statements...you don't and in making your statements you ignore widely known facts and phenomenon...

What is the motto of the site again?....oh yeah...DENY IGNORANCE!....try it some time ...

I had a little chuckle at this post.

Isn't this thread for not accepting the crew in the space shuttle?

This thread is to deny the crew in the space shuttle.

As a result, you'll make a significant wish at a beautiful falling star!

reply to post by Erad3


YOU have not given one single iota of proof that the crew can't be in the shuttle. You simply say that is what you believe, and anyone who contradicts you is wrong.

This thread is pointless.

reply to post by Erad3


I didn't take long for me to figure you out and your posting style, nothing you say ever makes sense.

Like this person exactly! savvys84

You were banned once, you'll be banned again!


What a waste of ATS space!

reply to post by theability


This OP is playing games.

Pointless games. Frivolous. Possibly a school project (I'm going to take a stab and guess high school, doubt very much it's college-level).

Clues to this inanity have been dropped...read this:

Inductive reasoning is essentially the opposite of deductive reasoning. It involves trying to create general principles by starting with many specific instances.
~~~
This is the kind of reasoning used if you have gradually built up an understanding of how something works. Rather than starting with laws and principles and making deductions, most people collect relevant experience and try to construct principles from it.
~~~
Inductive proofs are not allowed in a deductive system.
~~~
Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively.

Merely one example that explains this nonsense, and waste of time thread.








[edit on 14 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by theability

 

This OP is playing games.

Pointless games. Frivolous. Possibly a school project (I'm going to take a stab and guess high school, doubt very much it's college-level).

Clues to this inanity have been dropped...read this:

Inductive reasoning is essentially the opposite of deductive reasoning. It involves trying to create general principles by starting with many specific instances.
~~~
This is the kind of reasoning used if you have gradually built up an understanding of how something works. Rather than starting with laws and principles and making deductions, most people collect relevant experience and try to construct principles from it.
~~~
Inductive proofs are not allowed in a deductive system.
~~~
Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively.

Merely one example that explains this nonsense, and waste of time thread.


edit on 14 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

If this was nonsense, you wouldn't be replying to the thread.
Thank you very much for replying to the thread.

Why are you bashing the thread with no claims of proof?

Ha!How funny to reply with no proof!

Deductive reasoning, also called Deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if its premises are true. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound, but are never true or false.

reply to post by Erad3



You have been discovered once again savvys84

The ranting about proof, you inability to make a coherent sentence gives you away red handed.

Like I said it won't be long till you have been banned once again!