Re: Bad Astronomy, Indeed

From: Tom McDonald (tmcdonald2672_at_charter.net)
Date: 07/10/04 

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:44:18 -0500

Rudolph_X wrote:

>
>
> C.R. Osterwald wrote:
>
>> In article <UbZHc.54948$MT5.9126@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, Rudolph_X
>> <nospam@please.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:27:47 GMT, DrPostman <Look@mysig.foremail>
>>>> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>>>> <bv6ve09mn41esgjruqba7ij9uosjjvc7ot@4ax.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:01:41 GMT, Rudolph_X <nospam@please.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bad Astronomy, Indeed"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ->http://www.rense.com/general54/badst.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I dare say that one need not be a scientist to know what is true
>>>>>> from what is not. Because of the Establishment's thinly-veiled
>>>>>> contempt for the general public, open-minded laymen are
>>>>>> intimidated out of inquiring into issues that profoundly affect
>>>>>> all of us. Please keep in mind that this world, and the Universe
>>>>>> it resides in, belongs to all of us, and the TRUTH is not a
>>>>>> monopoly that can be claimed by anyone."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What this guy doesn't realize is that the 'Establishment' thinks
>>>>>> that they own the Universe, which includes the Earth and
>>>>>> everything on it, including you and me. They think they own the
>>>>>> 'truth' as well, because they obviously hold it close to
>>>>>> themselves, won't share it, and feed the rest of us bull-*** and
>>>>>> doctored photos!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know I shouldn't complain... because they do a lot of good
>>>>>> things as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil isn't a paranoid kook like you are. I'm glad that he pisses you
>>>>> off so much.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> K00ks always hate real science and scientists, especially ones who can
>>>> totally debunk them without even breaking a sweat.
>>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, sure. Maybe that's why Phil is afraid to debate scientists like
>>> Richard C. Hogland or James McCanney.
>>
>>
>>
>> When you understand what peer-reviewed research means, come and make
>> this statement again.
>>
>> And yes, Richard CEEEE is in "hog"land.
>>
>>
>>> A few nights ago on Coast To Coast A.M., Phil refused to accept the
>>> challenge to debate them because he knew he wouldn't stand a chance
>>> against either of them. Phil, the lowly coward, put his tail between
>>> his legs and ran away from the opportunity to debate either of these
>>> guys in front of an audience of 20 million listeners. Why? Because he
>>> knows Hogland and McCanny would chew him up and spit him out, that's
>>> why.
>>
>>
>>
>> People such as yourself and the rest of the zetadrones are the reason
>> he doesn't debate cranks like Hoagland and McCanney. It is just a
>> waste of oxygen because you are unable understand anything.
>>
>>
>>> Hey, if you had the chance to argue your views in front of an
>>> audience of 20 million listeners, would you turn tail and run? What
>>> does that tell you about the "Bad Astronomer" Phil?
>>
>>
>>
>> When will Planet X be naked eye visible, Rudolph?
>>
>
> Funny you should bring that up. Phil said that he enjoyed his debate
> with Nancy, the Zetatalk lady, who had claimed that she heard voices
> telling her that Planet_X was going to smash the Earth. He was all to
> happy to debate Nancy, because she wasn't a scientist, and was generally
> regarded as a kook. But, when it comes to debating other highly
> respected and qualified scientists, Phil turns tail and runs. Why is
> Phil so afraid of Hogland and McCanny? Why does he continue to refuse to
> debate other scientists?
>
> You can't answer that question, so you resort to making personal
> attacks, and telling stupid jokes, huh. Come on, show us what you got -
> another personal attack, another stupid joke - that's all we've come to
> expect from you.
>
>

        The answer is that scientists debate issues through
peer-reviewed literature, not through public show-debates. The
reason for this ought to be obvious to anyone with a passing
understanding of science. I suspect your understanding of
science is not passing.

        OTOH, people like Nancy need to be addressed in the milieu in
which they spread their guff. Nancy wouldn't be published in a
peer reviewed journal because what she was flacking wasn't close
to science.

        Come to think of it, her stuff might just be publishable in
peer reviewed journals. If, that is, it were incorporated into
a point-by-point explication of how pseudoscience can manifest.

        'Now go away before I taunt you a second time.'

Tom McDonald

Quantcast