Timeline for About the claims about MH370
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2018 at 21:48 | history | edited | Laurel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2018 at 15:52 | comment | added | user32299 | "But, I doubt [...]. Which makes your argument a strawman". Argument From Personal Credulity. Would you accept that in an answer? In any case: read the question posted by Ronnie. It was: "Does Google Earth show missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 with “bullet holes”?". The question is not similar to "Was this fellow accurate when he claims he saw bullet holes on Google Earth photos". So I have not created a strawman, I am answering the question according to how it was written, not to how I think the claimant reached the conclusion that there are bullet holes in MH370. | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 15:43 | comment | added | Oddthinking Mod | The images I saw could not possibly show bullet holes because the [alleged] plane was submerged. This raises the question of what (possibly spurious) argument the original claimant used to demonstrate bullet holes (if indeed he did). If he claimed that they were visible in the photos, your argument might hold water. But, I doubt he did that because they weren't visible in the photos. Which makes your argument a strawman. Hence the need to find his claims. | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 15:39 | comment | added | Oddthinking Mod | I didn't propose an Appeal to Authority. I proposed quoting experts that pointed out the dates didn't match. I didn't propose dismissing it out of hand as pareidolia; I just expressed that opinion, mainly to demonstrate I don't think your conclusion is wrong. I don't know for sure that the images marked with plane shapes were the actual reference images used - an ideal answer would reference the man's actual claims. | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 7:25 | comment | added | user32299 | Seriously... I know my first answer was poor and warranted action, but I really cannot wrap my head around deleting the second answer and then saying that I should have googled for an a supposed expert and used that as an answer. How can that constitute a higher quality answer than referencing facts that shows that such images are an impossibility? Apparently you and Sklivvz made the judgement call that the letter of the rules were not being followed, and that I can understand (sort of). But has the purpose and intent of the rules — and that of Skeptics SE — been fulfilled by that? | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 7:21 | comment | added | user32299 | 3) "relevant experts pooh-poohing the claim". Hold on... you are again saying that an Appeal To Authority answer is preferable over what I posted? And this for a claim where it is stated that people in authority are trying to bury the claim? How do you know those were the actual images that the original claimant were using? And even if pareidolia was involved (it almost always is, I know), the suspicion of it being so does not invalidate the claim on its own. | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 7:17 | comment | added | user32299 | 1) The answer was not "pretty much the same". You asked for references, you got references. You (justly) struck down appeal to reason, I removed that. But — fair enough — I did not know about the procedure of editing a deleted question and then flagging it, so I will do that from now on if the situation arises again. 2) You are asking me to post an Appeal To Authority answer. Also the question asked — specifically — if bullet holes was visible in a Google Earth image. That is begging the question, but that then needs to be taken up with the one that asked, not the one that answered. | |
| Mar 21, 2018 at 1:15 | history | answered | OddthinkingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |