You will have to provide a quote that shows the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Such is, "That guy said the Earth is flat, therefore it is."
In this article, I have appealed to the data. I also CHALLENGED authority to make sure he was aware of salient facts, of which I had been aware for 25 years. And if you will note, if you listened, authority was challenging me (on Mars and Salacia, for example). This whole piece is an example of NOT appealing to authority, and working as best I could to make sure that the story hangs together.
It’s essential for journalists, who are not supposed to be experts, to be able to size up the knowledge level of people who are supposed to know a LOT more than they do. Here's the problem... you put all of your faith in people who know 'A LOT' more than you and you don't use your own 5 senses much less your common sense... Water seeks level and requires a container my friend and pressure requires containment... these are some physical facts... demonstrable and provable using the scientific method any which way you want... You could very easily go out and use a good zoom lens of some kind and completely confirm or debunk the idea of 'curvature' yourself but you won't... and you being a 'star' guy... how do you rationalize observing the same cyclical constellations your whole life with your eyes yet in your head, the earth has been spinning and wobbling and orbiting and travelling billions of miles in several different directions?... That actually works logically for you?... looking forward to your chat with Dave and Jeran... cheers. kurt
Are you missing something in the article that I posted above? The article demonstrates the ways that I probed spot checked in fact checked not only the things that Dr. Stern said but findings of the mission
Eric, awesome interview! Impressed by your style. I learned some things about Pluto and about you. Coming onto my first anniversary as a supporter and I am fortunate to have crossed your trajectory. all ways good
Hmmm... He says science by consensus / vote is not science (agreed) ..... but then he disses anything 'fringe' and even uses the term 'mainstream' as if it proved scientific legitimacy.
That was his view. I asked him for that purpose. Such is not a vote, it’s his expert opinion. Obviously this is calling for further investigation. Would you like to help me investigate theories of the formation of Mars?
Sure, I was just noting that contradiction, that's all. If consensus/ vote is not a scientific argument then neither is calling something 'fringe'. He raised his hackles to let you know he was not willing to entertain anything that wasn't 'mainstream'. This is a very common trait among scientists. Anything outside the box triggers them massively.
I'm not suggesting that invalidates him or his work. More likely he is just protecting his own reputation (funding etc) in a profession that has zero tolerance for those who threaten to upset the applecart. I imagine in an informal setting (off the record) he'd perhaps be more willing to entertain 'fringe' (non-dogmatic) ideas and theories.
We might say that by protecting their own reputation, they are forced to defend the prevailing dogma (regardless of what they might actually think)...... see also: the medical profession during 'covid'.
"Would you like to help me investigate theories of the formation of Mars?"
Sure. I am not a scientist so I can speak freely :) The three observations (not theories) that are missing from current planetary science are (1) continental drift (2) electric scarring (3) plasma phenomena in the sky
1. Continental drift is only half an observation. The continental plates also match up on the Pacific side as well. The assumption that the Earth has remained the same size is just that: an assumption. In nature many things expand and/ or grow. It's no big deal. When USGS surveys of the ocean floor showed that most of it was less than 70 million years old that came as a shock and it created a huge problem. To maintain the Earth at the same size they had to invent 'subduction' (in much the same way 'virology' was invented to prop up the collapsing germ theory model of disease and maintain that status quo).
Subduction theory claims 2/3 of the Earth's current surface area got conveniently swept under the rug (swept under the continental plates) over the last 70 million years, to make way for all the new continental crust spewing out of the rift zones.
Subduction maintains the status quo. But all we can say for sure is that if you put the oceanic crust back into the rift zones by age (year by year) after 70 million years (give or take) the continents have all come together and joined up perfectly.... on a much smaller planet. What are the chances?
See this 10 minute video by the late Neal Adams (an artist not a scientist!).
The MECHANISM for expansion or growth is a separate issue we can all debate later. But the basic observations are as clear as day and must be confronted.
2. Moon features (circular shallow craters, rills etc) are identical to the effects of high voltage electrical scarring. Only a fraction of Moon craters are probably from impacts, the rest have all the hallmarks of electrical discharge scarring (very specific features). Rills are not 'collapsed lava tubes'. I can dig up the experiments which replicate these features in the lab using electrical discharge if you like. Same goes for Mars features.
3. Easter Island glyphs ('stick figures') resemble high altitude plasma 'lightning'. Dr Robert Schock has done extensive research on this, along with a plasma physicist who originally made the connection between his lab work and the glyphs. This suggests cataclysmic electrical events have been recorded by humans, probably as they destroyed a previous civilisation and drove everyone into caves to escape. See also work of Brien Foerster on electrical scarring of megalithic structures. See also the huge body of myths and legends (angry sky gods etc) which are dismissed as 'fancy' by modern western academia, rather than historical records stored in metaphorical form (easy to remember).
Whether Electric Universe is a complete workable theory or just a set of valid observations which need to be integrated into modern science, it is clear that electrical phenomena are being swept under the rug, along with the evidence (observations) that show expanding/ growing planets. Maybe Earth and Mars will one day expand to become gas giants? These are fascinating areas of research which mainstream science has turned its back on (see also: the terrain model of disease).
Most likely these areas of research eventually lead to a greater understanding of energy, gravity, 'laws of nature' etc .... and from there to free energy/ anti grav technology which would upset the applecart and liberate humanity from the false scarcity paradigm.
According to mainstream newspaper articles in the 1950's, anti grav was only a few years away. It was openly being researched by all major aerospace companies. Then suddenly the topic fell off the radar, never to be spoken of again..... and we were immediately given Apollo (mostly theatre), Shuttle (hardly an improvement) and then Space X (1940's rocket technology with go faster stripes painted on). Does anyone smell a rat? Why have all other technologies (those which lend themselves to digital enslavement) progressed at lightning speed, while energy/ propulsion technologies remain stagnant (rockets) .... or going backwards? (windmills, electric cars)
Flat Earth is the turd thrown into the punchbowl to muddy the waters and frustrate and demoralise anybody daring to stray from the official paradigm re: space/ rockets/ planetary science/ technology.
I don't think planetary science can go anywhere until electric phenomena and expanding/ growing phenomena are brought out of the naughty corner and into the 'mainstream' scientific arena.
By the time they got to Pluto, they were 3/4 of the way to Arrokoth and going at full speed (though the ship is gradually slowing down due to inertia). So they had to go another 11 Sun-Earth distances...that took a while...
Why is there controversy?? Because NASA has lied about all their claims... like, the moon landings... this alone makes every story of theirs suspect and since they never have proof (other than cartoons and cgi), there's a HUGE controversy... how do you not see that?
What I am not seeing are prejudices. Those, I cannot have, particularly on an issue that is not life-threatening and where nothing specific is being asked of the public, i.e., to stay home or take a shot. I am aware of and have documented many problems with Apollo 11 et seq.
That does not make every subsequent mission de facto fraud; nor can I consider the Moon landing de facto fraud but I can say what I have noted, with high confidence. And the reason I can do that is because I have a list of questions I cannot get answered satisfactorily. There is a process. The process is still open. I would like to question a Nasa photo archivist, a real Moon rock specialist, and an electrical engineer familiar with power systems on the LEM.
There must be a case-by-case review. When something is not true, usually you hit shit every time you poke in a stick. I have now poked a stick into New Horizons and have found that the account of events adds up, so far. The trajectory to Ultimata Thule works out by my own calculations. Questions about reducing power work out to my satisfaction that the statements are probably truthful. Now I need to read Stern's book and see if that comports with reality.
What, specifically, on the New Horizons mission does not work out for you? The mere fact that Nasa said something is not enough to cast doubt. There must be something in the fact pattern. What have you got?
I have interviewed the leader of the program and I think he did well answering my questions and clarifying my thoughts and I have no basis to distrust him. And as a journalist with a journalistic source, It's my duty and privilege to treat him fairly.
The moon landings... the ISS... going to space... mars rover... the nonsensical idea that Earth could be a spinning ball with curved water sticking to it... etc. etc. etc.... but of course, if you beLIEve these things are true, it is YOUR burden to prove them...
Adam you’re entitled to your opinions but I just want to let you know that in my view right now you’re here to disrupt the conversation. this is your one warning.
appeal to authority much??
You will have to provide a quote that shows the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Such is, "That guy said the Earth is flat, therefore it is."
In this article, I have appealed to the data. I also CHALLENGED authority to make sure he was aware of salient facts, of which I had been aware for 25 years. And if you will note, if you listened, authority was challenging me (on Mars and Salacia, for example). This whole piece is an example of NOT appealing to authority, and working as best I could to make sure that the story hangs together.
It’s essential for journalists, who are not supposed to be experts, to be able to size up the knowledge level of people who are supposed to know a LOT more than they do. Here's the problem... you put all of your faith in people who know 'A LOT' more than you and you don't use your own 5 senses much less your common sense... Water seeks level and requires a container my friend and pressure requires containment... these are some physical facts... demonstrable and provable using the scientific method any which way you want... You could very easily go out and use a good zoom lens of some kind and completely confirm or debunk the idea of 'curvature' yourself but you won't... and you being a 'star' guy... how do you rationalize observing the same cyclical constellations your whole life with your eyes yet in your head, the earth has been spinning and wobbling and orbiting and travelling billions of miles in several different directions?... That actually works logically for you?... looking forward to your chat with Dave and Jeran... cheers. kurt
Yes it all passes my long investigation and I take nobody at their word.
Are you missing something in the article that I posted above? The article demonstrates the ways that I probed spot checked in fact checked not only the things that Dr. Stern said but findings of the mission
Mission to where?... you're imagination?... When is the Jeran and Dave convo?...
what an ass
Eric, awesome interview! Impressed by your style. I learned some things about Pluto and about you. Coming onto my first anniversary as a supporter and I am fortunate to have crossed your trajectory. all ways good
Hmmm... He says science by consensus / vote is not science (agreed) ..... but then he disses anything 'fringe' and even uses the term 'mainstream' as if it proved scientific legitimacy.
That was his view. I asked him for that purpose. Such is not a vote, it’s his expert opinion. Obviously this is calling for further investigation. Would you like to help me investigate theories of the formation of Mars?
Sure, I was just noting that contradiction, that's all. If consensus/ vote is not a scientific argument then neither is calling something 'fringe'. He raised his hackles to let you know he was not willing to entertain anything that wasn't 'mainstream'. This is a very common trait among scientists. Anything outside the box triggers them massively.
I'm not suggesting that invalidates him or his work. More likely he is just protecting his own reputation (funding etc) in a profession that has zero tolerance for those who threaten to upset the applecart. I imagine in an informal setting (off the record) he'd perhaps be more willing to entertain 'fringe' (non-dogmatic) ideas and theories.
We might say that by protecting their own reputation, they are forced to defend the prevailing dogma (regardless of what they might actually think)...... see also: the medical profession during 'covid'.
"Would you like to help me investigate theories of the formation of Mars?"
Sure. I am not a scientist so I can speak freely :) The three observations (not theories) that are missing from current planetary science are (1) continental drift (2) electric scarring (3) plasma phenomena in the sky
1. Continental drift is only half an observation. The continental plates also match up on the Pacific side as well. The assumption that the Earth has remained the same size is just that: an assumption. In nature many things expand and/ or grow. It's no big deal. When USGS surveys of the ocean floor showed that most of it was less than 70 million years old that came as a shock and it created a huge problem. To maintain the Earth at the same size they had to invent 'subduction' (in much the same way 'virology' was invented to prop up the collapsing germ theory model of disease and maintain that status quo).
Subduction theory claims 2/3 of the Earth's current surface area got conveniently swept under the rug (swept under the continental plates) over the last 70 million years, to make way for all the new continental crust spewing out of the rift zones.
Subduction maintains the status quo. But all we can say for sure is that if you put the oceanic crust back into the rift zones by age (year by year) after 70 million years (give or take) the continents have all come together and joined up perfectly.... on a much smaller planet. What are the chances?
See this 10 minute video by the late Neal Adams (an artist not a scientist!).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
He has made similar observations for Mars, Moon etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d44Jj_3gp-M
The MECHANISM for expansion or growth is a separate issue we can all debate later. But the basic observations are as clear as day and must be confronted.
2. Moon features (circular shallow craters, rills etc) are identical to the effects of high voltage electrical scarring. Only a fraction of Moon craters are probably from impacts, the rest have all the hallmarks of electrical discharge scarring (very specific features). Rills are not 'collapsed lava tubes'. I can dig up the experiments which replicate these features in the lab using electrical discharge if you like. Same goes for Mars features.
3. Easter Island glyphs ('stick figures') resemble high altitude plasma 'lightning'. Dr Robert Schock has done extensive research on this, along with a plasma physicist who originally made the connection between his lab work and the glyphs. This suggests cataclysmic electrical events have been recorded by humans, probably as they destroyed a previous civilisation and drove everyone into caves to escape. See also work of Brien Foerster on electrical scarring of megalithic structures. See also the huge body of myths and legends (angry sky gods etc) which are dismissed as 'fancy' by modern western academia, rather than historical records stored in metaphorical form (easy to remember).
Whether Electric Universe is a complete workable theory or just a set of valid observations which need to be integrated into modern science, it is clear that electrical phenomena are being swept under the rug, along with the evidence (observations) that show expanding/ growing planets. Maybe Earth and Mars will one day expand to become gas giants? These are fascinating areas of research which mainstream science has turned its back on (see also: the terrain model of disease).
Most likely these areas of research eventually lead to a greater understanding of energy, gravity, 'laws of nature' etc .... and from there to free energy/ anti grav technology which would upset the applecart and liberate humanity from the false scarcity paradigm.
According to mainstream newspaper articles in the 1950's, anti grav was only a few years away. It was openly being researched by all major aerospace companies. Then suddenly the topic fell off the radar, never to be spoken of again..... and we were immediately given Apollo (mostly theatre), Shuttle (hardly an improvement) and then Space X (1940's rocket technology with go faster stripes painted on). Does anyone smell a rat? Why have all other technologies (those which lend themselves to digital enslavement) progressed at lightning speed, while energy/ propulsion technologies remain stagnant (rockets) .... or going backwards? (windmills, electric cars)
Flat Earth is the turd thrown into the punchbowl to muddy the waters and frustrate and demoralise anybody daring to stray from the official paradigm re: space/ rockets/ planetary science/ technology.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BpVKvrfthv5n/
I don't think planetary science can go anywhere until electric phenomena and expanding/ growing phenomena are brought out of the naughty corner and into the 'mainstream' scientific arena.
Interesting interview! Learned much.
It took around 9 years to reach Pluto and 14 to arrokoth for new horizons.
By the time they got to Pluto, they were 3/4 of the way to Arrokoth and going at full speed (though the ship is gradually slowing down due to inertia). So they had to go another 11 Sun-Earth distances...that took a while...
Prove these things happened... taking NASA on their word is NOT proof.
why exactly is there a controversy?
and what would constitute proof in your mind?
Why is there controversy?? Because NASA has lied about all their claims... like, the moon landings... this alone makes every story of theirs suspect and since they never have proof (other than cartoons and cgi), there's a HUGE controversy... how do you not see that?
What I am not seeing are prejudices. Those, I cannot have, particularly on an issue that is not life-threatening and where nothing specific is being asked of the public, i.e., to stay home or take a shot. I am aware of and have documented many problems with Apollo 11 et seq.
That does not make every subsequent mission de facto fraud; nor can I consider the Moon landing de facto fraud but I can say what I have noted, with high confidence. And the reason I can do that is because I have a list of questions I cannot get answered satisfactorily. There is a process. The process is still open. I would like to question a Nasa photo archivist, a real Moon rock specialist, and an electrical engineer familiar with power systems on the LEM.
There must be a case-by-case review. When something is not true, usually you hit shit every time you poke in a stick. I have now poked a stick into New Horizons and have found that the account of events adds up, so far. The trajectory to Ultimata Thule works out by my own calculations. Questions about reducing power work out to my satisfaction that the statements are probably truthful. Now I need to read Stern's book and see if that comports with reality.
What, specifically, on the New Horizons mission does not work out for you? The mere fact that Nasa said something is not enough to cast doubt. There must be something in the fact pattern. What have you got?
I have interviewed the leader of the program and I think he did well answering my questions and clarifying my thoughts and I have no basis to distrust him. And as a journalist with a journalistic source, It's my duty and privilege to treat him fairly.
Sharing NASA lies... you must feel so good about that... and boy was i wrong about you! You sir, are part of the problem.
OK show me a lie.
The moon landings... the ISS... going to space... mars rover... the nonsensical idea that Earth could be a spinning ball with curved water sticking to it... etc. etc. etc.... but of course, if you beLIEve these things are true, it is YOUR burden to prove them...
Adam you’re entitled to your opinions but I just want to let you know that in my view right now you’re here to disrupt the conversation. this is your one warning.
no, i'm here for truth... which is what i thought you were about... recently, you have shown differently... very sad.