Discussion: Chris Mohr's respectful rebuttal, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 03:10 AM by Darkwing01

reply to post by waypastvne

What Chris Mohr has done is gone inside of that 2.4 sec and found a span of time where acceleration is greater than Gravitational acceleration.

Can you say "Noise?"

"N-O-I-S-E"

Good!

Of course it would be trivial to go to any data set and find two outliers close to each other and plot a straight line through them to get any result we please, but that is nothing but improper use of statistics. Arguing about improperly analyzed graphs is NOT arguing about the facts of the matter no matter how you cut it.

2.4 seconds IS a substantial and significant slice of time given the data.
0.008 seconds is NOT a substantial and significant slice of time given the data.

reply posted on 26-9-2011 @ 12:30 AM by cripmeister

Nice find

Mohr, in a respectful manner, does a thorough job of proving that Gage is a space cadet

reply posted on 26-9-2011 @ 09:57 AM by Darkwing01

reply to post by cripmeister

I don't think you were watching the same series of videos I was.

Mohr does not grasp the issues involved, he only repeats what he has been told.

reply posted on 26-9-2011 @ 02:55 PM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by cripmeister
Nice find Mohr, in a respectful manner, does a thorough job of proving that Gage is a space cadet

Chris Mohr advertised the fact that he is an idiot.

The most simple and obvious thing he did was talk about 90,000 liters of jet fuel

He is the only person I have heard refer to the amount of fuel in liters. But it was 10,000 gallons. A liter is less than a quart so it had to be less than 40,000 liters. So he is good at delivering intelligent sounding nonsense so the people who like him just want their BELIEFS delivered well and don't care if they are completely WRONG.

psik

reply posted on 26-9-2011 @ 05:39 PM by cripmeister

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by cripmeister

I don't think you were watching the same series of videos I was.

Mohr does not grasp the issues involved, he only repeats what he has been told.

I have watched Blueprint for truth and Mohr's entire rebuttal. When I first watched Gage I found him very convincing, he is a skilled speaker but that's it. If Gage grasps the issues involved why doesn't he author a scientific paper and have it peer reviewed?

reply posted on 27-9-2011 @ 10:10 PM by Darkwing01

reply to post by cripmeister

If Gage grasps the issues involved why doesn't he author a scientific paper and have it peer reviewed?

Because peer review has part in the scientific method?

Just because something is peer reviewed does not make it true, and just because it is not does not make it false.

Peer review is literally a a gauge of how closely a paper matches the socio-political consensus within a particular sphere of scientific praxis and within the wider scientific community. Science survives on grants, from governments and government supporting institutions, you do the math...

Truth is what really is, peer review judges what you say on the basis of what other scientists believe, or have an interest in saying, the world is. See the difference?

YouTube Link

reply posted on 27-9-2011 @ 11:42 PM by Cecilofs

Originally posted by Darkwing01Because peer review has part in the scientific method?

Just because something is peer reviewed does not make it true, and just because it is not does not make it false.

Peer review is literally a a gauge of how closely a paper matches the socio-political consensus within a particular sphere of scientific praxis and within the wider scientific community. Science survives on grants, from governments and government supporting institutions, you do the math...

Truth is what really is, peer review judges what you say on the basis of what other scientists believe, or have an interest in saying, the world is. See the difference?

Perfect description. Thankyou I agree entirely.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^