So, to sum up, you found a completely unsourced article, and on that basis you’re attacking the article I posted. The fact that you don’t see the irony in that is really a cherry on top. However, you, unlike Sarah Brown, at least went to the trouble to attempt to substantiate your position.
But you acted like yours was credible, until I presented another one, whereupon you admitted they are both equally valid.
That’s assuming that the random article you found is correct, the veracity of which I can’t verify any more than the interesting engineering article…
That is to say, you cannot verify either of these articles at all, ie, they are both of dubious legitimacy.
You accused someone of being racist based of an article you admit you cannot verify, posted a bunch of related research papers that indicate, sure, they’re trying to develop the thing your article claimed they did… but doesn’t indicate that they actually developed it.
…
I can link you a patent for a triangular shaped aircraft, listed as filed by a US Navy Scientist that claims to outline how to create an electromagnetic, gravity negating field around the craft.
That would not be evidence that the US Navy officially announced that they basically built a UFO, that it works, and there’s a video of it, all officially documented and released.
But to you, it would be, if China had done all those things.
…
I am not saying China certainly has or has not developed a hypersonic passenger liner.
I am saying your source for this claim is dubious.
I am saying that you believe(d?) it credulously, without any skepticism, got very hostile with people who doubted its claim less tactfully than I did, and now you admit you got hostile based on a claim that you now admit is dubious, and shifted the burden of proof from the article making the claim to the skeptic questioning it.
Again, this is the logic of a fanatic.
If we just pick which dubiously sourced claims we believe based on vibes, truth stops existing.
But you acted like yours was credible, until I presented another one, whereupon you admitted they are both equally valid.
Every article I’ve seen aside from the one you found says the same thing. These articles come from fairly mainstream sources, so if somebody is arguing that this is impossible then they can at least provide some evidence for the claim.
You went through the effort of finding something that makes different claims, but it’s in no way authoritative. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt saying that it’s plausible.
You accused someone of being racist based of an article you admit you cannot verify, posted a bunch of related research papers that indicate, sure, they’re trying to develop the thing your article claimed they did… but doesn’t indicate that they actually developed it.
I accused someone of being a racist based on their vacuous comment that dismissed the claim without substantiating their position in any way. My reaction would’ve been quite different had Sarah said something along the lines of I don’t find the source convincing, here’s another source claiming something different.
But to you, it would be, if China had done all those things.
No it wouldn’t, but if a mainstream US publication came out and said that the US built an aircraft like that my first reaction wouldn’t be to just dismiss it as impossible as Sarah did.
I am saying that you believe(d?) it credulously, without any skepticism, got very hostile with people who doubted its claim less tactfully than I did, and now you admit you got hostile based on a claim that you now admit is dubious, and shifted the burden of proof from the article making the claim to the skeptic questioning it.
Again, I had a hostile reaction to the style of argument. The same way you’re having a hostile reaction to my style of argument.
Again, this is the logic of a fanatic.
Certainly would be, but that’s not my actual position. My whole point from the start is that it is plausible that China may have developed what they say they developed. You’re seemingly intentionally misrepresenting what I actually said to make me sound like a deranged lunatic.
If we just pick which dubiously sourced claims we believe based on vibes, truth stops existing.
So, to sum up, you found a completely unsourced article, and on that basis you’re attacking the article I posted. The fact that you don’t see the irony in that is really a cherry on top. However, you, unlike Sarah Brown, at least went to the trouble to attempt to substantiate your position.
Neither of the two articles are well sourced.
But you acted like yours was credible, until I presented another one, whereupon you admitted they are both equally valid.
That is to say, you cannot verify either of these articles at all, ie, they are both of dubious legitimacy.
You accused someone of being racist based of an article you admit you cannot verify, posted a bunch of related research papers that indicate, sure, they’re trying to develop the thing your article claimed they did… but doesn’t indicate that they actually developed it.
…
I can link you a patent for a triangular shaped aircraft, listed as filed by a US Navy Scientist that claims to outline how to create an electromagnetic, gravity negating field around the craft.
That would not be evidence that the US Navy officially announced that they basically built a UFO, that it works, and there’s a video of it, all officially documented and released.
But to you, it would be, if China had done all those things.
…
I am not saying China certainly has or has not developed a hypersonic passenger liner.
I am saying your source for this claim is dubious.
I am saying that you believe(d?) it credulously, without any skepticism, got very hostile with people who doubted its claim less tactfully than I did, and now you admit you got hostile based on a claim that you now admit is dubious, and shifted the burden of proof from the article making the claim to the skeptic questioning it.
Again, this is the logic of a fanatic.
If we just pick which dubiously sourced claims we believe based on vibes, truth stops existing.
Every article I’ve seen aside from the one you found says the same thing. These articles come from fairly mainstream sources, so if somebody is arguing that this is impossible then they can at least provide some evidence for the claim.
You went through the effort of finding something that makes different claims, but it’s in no way authoritative. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt saying that it’s plausible.
I accused someone of being a racist based on their vacuous comment that dismissed the claim without substantiating their position in any way. My reaction would’ve been quite different had Sarah said something along the lines of I don’t find the source convincing, here’s another source claiming something different.
No it wouldn’t, but if a mainstream US publication came out and said that the US built an aircraft like that my first reaction wouldn’t be to just dismiss it as impossible as Sarah did.
Again, I had a hostile reaction to the style of argument. The same way you’re having a hostile reaction to my style of argument.
Certainly would be, but that’s not my actual position. My whole point from the start is that it is plausible that China may have developed what they say they developed. You’re seemingly intentionally misrepresenting what I actually said to make me sound like a deranged lunatic.
And nobody is actually doing this.