Share this comment
Love it. Please pass on my thanks to Polymath Paul. The moon video is top notch stuff and goes through the arguments very thoroughly.
My advice to Dave Payette is to make sure if you're going to provide an example of evidence, you need to provide the full argument chain of any evidence you raise.
If you simply provide the start of the argu…
Love it. Please pass on my thanks to Polymath Paul. The moon video is top notch stuff and goes through the arguments very thoroughly.
My advice to Dave Payette is to make sure if you're going to provide an example of evidence, you need to provide the full argument chain of any evidence you raise.
If you simply provide the start of the argument (i.e. the Van Allen Belts would kill anyone going through it) that is not sufficient, because there are several very valid counter argument to it if the context remains so simple. The full argument is that there are probably paths through the Van Allen Belt that would not kill the astronauts, but we know some of the launches did not take those paths. We also know it is being raised by NASA today as a challenge we have not yet addressed.
If you simply say, the Van Allen Belts would have killed the astronauts, that argument is not anywhere near sufficient. Same applies for the moon rocks argument, and the same applies to the laser reflector etc. On their own, all of these have very strong and valid counter arguments, and only the full evidence chain and context can nullify the counter arguments.
When someone brings me a simple argument that is easily countered I either think they haven't done their homework, or I think they're trying to deceive me.
The folks in that video clearly did their homework, they laid out the full chain of evidence and counter arguments clearly. And I'm only halfway through.