Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Debunk a pseudoscientific website

  1. Apr 20, 2003 #1


    User Avatar

    Boredom is the prime mover of human existence.

    So, I'm bored. This thread is about assuaging that boredom. Anyone got a pseudoscientific site? Give the link here and I'll try to debunk it. Maybe other people will have a go too.

    Any one?
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 20, 2003 #2
    Can you do anything with this: link ?
  4. Apr 20, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    What do you want me to do with it? Any specific issues?

    In general, the site makes the fundamental mistake that it is "defending the christian faith beginning with genesis". The keyword is faith. The site is not based in looking for the truth. Rather, it assumes on faith it already has the truth, and then looks for evidence to support it. This is no way to acheive unbiased logic, and this sort of irrational belief is taken over to evolution itself. Since creationism is a belief, evolution is a belief also, by those evil atheists no doubt. This is wrong. See their "refutation" of Dawkin's weasel experiment for example. By assuming from the beginning what they already believe, they completely miss the point of the experiment. The fact that there is no target to adaptation, and selection acheives subjective order by reaching local highs in survivability. Belief is often substituted for evidence. Indeed, for a site supporting creationism, zero evidence is in fact given to this theory. Hence, the site fails to observe it's key problem. Creationism is an absolutist faith based system. Evolution is a science that allows flexibility and development. By failing to evaluate and address this, and just throwing the bible around, the site justifies the same accusations that creationism = ignorance it opposes.
    Just saying the answer's in genesis does inevitably lead to ignorance of the world.
  5. Apr 20, 2003 #4
    give this a try: link
  6. Apr 20, 2003 #5
    Nothing specific. Just looks like a lot of skewed science you could have fun with; go crazy. :)
  7. Apr 20, 2003 #6


    User Avatar

    The simplest explanations are generally the best. Notice first a number of things. First, the shadow on the water is completely undisturbed. Secondly, we have a full curve of the suspension cables. This suggests the problem is more of an image anomaly.
    Now, if we localise the problem, we can seen that it is a small oval shaped blurred area. It's tough to make out, but you can seen a little additional detail, that maybe connected. Look below the right tower, and you can see some small lines that overlay the shadow over water, and hence cannot do due to the suspension cables. Now, since this was from an aircraft, the camera is likely to be focused very much on the bridge. A likely explanation regarding the evidence is that the disturbance is caused by no more than a bird or insect flying with the camera's field of view. The line pattern overlay may also resemble a wing. This seems right now the most probable explanation. Of course, if god forbid a terrorist attack does occur, do remind me.
  8. Apr 21, 2003 #7
    yeh i figured it was one of two things

    its heat distortion mixed with some kind of smoke in the air cause if you notice there is a similar distortion to the lower right near the land (to me they look like puffs of smoke/smog)

    or its a photoshop edit

    but its possible its some sort of preminition. i mean, anythings possible
  9. Apr 21, 2003 #8
    Anything to keep you occupied, FZ+!

    Please de-bunk the idea put forth by this japanese student where he says he has photographed an underwater, man-made structure just off, and a part of the southern coast of Japan.

    nature at its best
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2003
  10. Apr 21, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    It is impossible to see much from japanese text and pictures the size of postage stamps. However, the building conclusion seems absurd, given none of the blocks appears to have interiors.
    I also rather fail to see any pyramidal structure from the map, and the interpretation looks dubious. Rock on seashore = sacred stone? Jeez...
    More study perhaps, but jumping to "must change human history" is far too hasty. Especially without concrete evidence it is a human site, and the potential explanation of the rocks as either natural (eg. lava), and partly natural - interesting formation of rock carved and enhanced with known techniques.
  11. Apr 21, 2003 #10
    Now I see he took his imagery off a TV show.

    Here are some better pictures

    http://www.lauralee.com/japan/japan1.htm [Broken]

    Rock look like place.

    I agree that there is a lot more to research here.
    Change history?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  12. Apr 27, 2003 #11
  13. Apr 30, 2003 #12
    I think the window was dirty. Probably a bug splat. You really have to scrub to get those suckers off the plane.
  14. Apr 30, 2003 #13
    I believe it is nitrous-oxide (NO2) since they are obviously dreaming.
  15. Apr 30, 2003 #14


    User Avatar

    Nah, NO2 is also known as laughing gas... Maybe LSD perhaps.

    And any alien race who chooses an emmissary called "Nancy" must be on drugs... :smile:
    The usual really. Utter lack of objectivity, evidence etc etc blah blah blah. Also disturbing empathy with suicidal Heaven's Gate cult. Beliefs appear to be another attempt to supplant traditional religion with pseudoscientific mumble jumble and the occasional ounce of proper science.

    A few choice pickings...
    Crazy belief that tumor treatment in cancer is secondary.
    Ignorance of relativity principles - ie belief FTL is prevented by repulsive force
    Irrelevant dependence on significance of the millenium
    Precision excuses to cover for "mistakes"
    Using movies as bringers of "messages"

    You get the idea.
  16. Apr 30, 2003 #15
    thanks FZ+, they spent scads of cash and time on producing that compilation of BS. I don't think they'll see a return on their money.

    I agree that if another comet comes along soon... we'll see these followers out with the tinfoil hats... and the cyanide.

    Perhaps Nancy will make a *$*... good old Nancy... I think she needs a new channel changer... or some batteries for it...(snicker)
  17. May 6, 2003 #16
    Hi FZ+,

    I got one for you. I've been searching for information that would contradict the implications of this finding. Back in 1999 a stone slab was found by Russian archaeologists that appears to be a relief map. The map contains hieroglyphic-syllabic language of unknown origin.

    Scientists from the USA studying the map say that it is of a type made using photos taken from space (we are undergoing a similar map making venture using the space shuttle to be finished in 2010).

    Here's the kicker: the map has been dated, by shells lodged in it's surface, at 120 million years old!

    I have found no evidence to indicate that the slab is not authentic (although the date is still in dispute, but another date puts it at 500 million years old).

    The original article was posted in Pravda which makes it somewhat suspect, however, as I said, I can find nothing to dispute their claims.

    Here is the Pravda site to get you started:


    Good luck.
  18. May 6, 2003 #17


    User Avatar

    1. The slab was dated by shells in the rock. But that dates the SLAB. It does not in fact date the actual carvings on it. It is extremely easy to pick up a rock containing fossils from many millions of years ago, and engrave inscriptions on it. Dating methods would show only the age of the actual rock.
    Dating ages do not go back when you identify objects from an earlier age. Rather, the date corresponds to the LATEST date marker on the object. If I stick a fossil onto a copy of Einsteins relativity, are we going to date that to millions of years ago?

    2. But there is also little evidence to show that the slab is genuine either. And the use of machine tools to allegedly make the slab is suspicious, as is the lack of historical context ie. other artifacts to support any dating.

    3. The typse of map is said to have been one made by air, not by satellite. And by using stellar techniques or other methods with large numbers of people, quite accurate maps have been produced by ancient peoples. This is not that suprising.

    4. The analysis of the accuracy of the map is done very unscientifically. I don't see the justification of identifying it as a map based on selecting lines to be either vaguely corresponding to natural features or to discount them as hidden arficial sites. What is used to determine which a channel is part of the "map", or part of a plan of "astounding engineering feats"?

    5. Indeed, we have no assessment of the accuracy of the map at all. The fact it is of the "same type" says nothing of the quality. How closely does it correspond to reality? There is a leap of faith here.
  19. May 6, 2003 #18
    I agree with this statement. This thought occured to me as well.

    What I find strange is that I couldn't find any reports that dismiss the object as a hoax or strongly challange the scientific testing, or estimations of the date. Did you find any of these in your search?
  20. May 6, 2003 #19


    User Avatar

    No... I couldn't find any such references to it. I think the whole thing got drowned out by association to the space alien junkies that swarmed around it, and the atlantis proponents. Which is a shame, as we may never find out whether the map is really genuine...
  21. May 6, 2003 #20
    I agree again. Happy debunking. :smile:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook