Russian Satellite Hit by Debris from Chinese Anti-Satellite Test

[Developereo]

And they will see that you got schooled -- badly.

Given your pathetic grasp of English, logic and science, it is you who is the imbecile here.

And so far, you failed to clinch your case.

The claimant needs to prove their case -- you are the claimant here and YOU need to prove your case, not me.

Why do you insist on exposing your ignorance of law to every one?

Did the mirror lost its function? Or did the operational parameters got changed? This is where you are confused.

The setup lost its function. My words are there explicitly. The only thing imaginary here is your delusion that you understand English, logic or science.

This is the third or fourth time I am repeating this. I continue doing so because it shows your desperation and intellectual dishonesty to keep twisting my -- plain English -- words because you are smarting from your drubbing.

Some 'man of science' you turned out to be. What a fraud...

Just repeating the same blabber when your own dishonesty and deliberate misquoting is on display only makes you look like a fool.

This is continually to be a pathetic attempt to recover your behind. I made no distortion and no misquote. Either 'challenge' or 'chewed up' are appropriate

Again, you can keep repeating your idiotic excuses. Your words are there -- you claimed that I posited a challenge on expertise -- when I did nothing of the sort. Only you in your desperation deliberately misquoted me and then replied to your own fabrication. As you always do when you get owned.

Show me where I claimed that the lawyer would challenge the expert on his subject matter?

Wrong. When the US Constitution was enacted, there was no mention of slavery. Now you are going to trot out the 3/5 rule?

It's so much more than the 3/5 rule. The original Constitutional civil rights protections did not apply to African-Americans.

The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

The Constitution that the delegates proposed included several provisions that explicity recognized and protected slavery. Without these provisions, southern delegates would not support the new Constitution--and without the southern states on board, the Constitution had no chance of being ratified. Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress (even though the slaves could not, of course, vote), expressly denied to Congress the power to prohibit importation of new slaves until 1808, and prevented free states from enacting laws protecting fugitive slaves.
[...]
The Supreme Court, in its infamous decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), ruled that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in its territories. In so doing, Scott v Sandford invited slave owners to pour into the territories and pass pro-slavery constitutions. The decision made the Civil War inevitable. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the majority in Scott, also concluded that people of African ancestry (whether free or a slave, including Scott) could never become "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, and hence lacked the ability to bring suit in federal court.

Now, before you waste everyone's time with your predictable nonsense that the word 'slavery' is not there, read the link I provided, read the historical context of southern States insisting on these particular provisions, read the SCOTUS decisions on slaves, and understand that legal documents use legal terms, not vernacular terminology.

Why do you continually insist on exposing your ignorance of just about everything outside cut-and-paste radar specs?

If you do, you will end up a greater spectacular @ss than you are now.

Look who's talking.

You get owned again and again and, like a pathetic glutton for punishment, you keep coming back for more.

Muslims

Yes, we know how you start smarting and foaming at the mouth when you get exposed as a clueless clown.

Since you demonstrated that you are ignorant of basic English, law, science, US Constitution, US history, and common sense, you are now falling back on your pathetic routine of evil Moooslims.

 

[gambit]

The claimant needs to prove their case -- you are the claimant here and YOU need to prove your case, not me.

Why do you insist on exposing your ignorance of law to every one?

The claimant did proved their case. You have been schooled on the fact that in law, it is reasonably proof, not absolute proof. Why do you insist on ignoring that?

The setup lost its function. My words are there explicitly. The only thing imaginary here is your delusion that you understand English, logic or science.

This is the third or fourth time I am repeating this. I continue doing so because it shows your desperation and intellectual dishonesty to keep twisting my -- plain English -- words because you are smarting from your drubbing.

The BLITS satellite did not lost its function, as you originally claimed.

You seem to confuse quantity with quality. Your entire post boils down to the ONE item of circumstantial evidence that we knew all along: Chinese craft's proximity when Russian satellite when haywire.

When something does not have moving and/or electronics mechanisms, it cannot go 'haywire'. And what is that "Chinese craft's proximity" nonsense? What Chinese craft? We have a debris field.

A 'setup' is not the same thing as the components inside that 'setup'. The BLITS satellite is in orbit and that is an environmental variable. Its function is to simply reflect. Its mode of operation was to spin perpendicular to orbital path. Something collided with it and altered both its mode of operation and its orbit, but its function remained intact because without its reflective function, the researchers would not know how to calculate its new spin.

Are 'function' and 'mode of operation' alien to you, a supposedly 'man of science'?

Just repeating the same blabber when your own dishonesty and deliberate misquoting is on display only makes you look like a fool.

Right...Did I substitute my 'challenge' to your 'chewed up' in those quotes? If I altered your words, that would qualify as a misquote.

Again, you can keep repeating your idiotic excuses. Your words are there -- you claimed that I posited a challenge on expertise -- when I did nothing of the sort. Only you in your desperation deliberately misquoted me and then replied to your own fabrication. As you always do when you get owned.

Show me where I claimed that the lawyer would challenge the expert on his subject matter?

No...It was I who said that a lawyer should challenge expert with another expert. I did not say you did. Now I wonder who is trying to misquote whom here.

It's so much more than the 3/5 rule. The original Constitutional civil rights protections did not apply to African-Americans.

The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

The Constitution that the delegates proposed included several provisions that explicity recognized and protected slavery. Without these provisions, southern delegates would not support the new Constitution--and without the southern states on board, the Constitution had no chance of being ratified. Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 persons for purposes of apportionment in Congress (even though the slaves could not, of course, vote), expressly denied to Congress the power to prohibit importation of new slaves until 1808, and prevented free states from enacting laws protecting fugitive slaves.
[...]
The Supreme Court, in its infamous decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), ruled that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in its territories. In so doing, Scott v Sandford invited slave owners to pour into the territories and pass pro-slavery constitutions. The decision made the Civil War inevitable. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the majority in Scott, also concluded that people of African ancestry (whether free or a slave, including Scott) could never become "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, and hence lacked the ability to bring suit in federal court.

Why do you continually insist on exposing your ignorance of just about everything outside cut-and-paste radar specs?



Look who's talking.

You get owned again and again and, like a pathetic glutton for punishment, you keep coming back for more.



I LOVE it when you show to the world how badly you start smarting and foaming at the mouth when you get owned.

For starter...The word 'slavery' does not exist in the Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment.

When the Constitution was ratified, it prohibited the Congress from abolishing slavery, but it does not compelled non-slave states from becoming slave state. It was not until the 13th that the word 'slavery' was specifically mentioned and that slavery was prohibited. Even slave state delegates recognized the institution was at odds against Constitutional principles and that was why they had to reduce slaves to property rights arguments.

In your source, look at Article 1 Section 9...

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Notice the word 'Persons'. Even slaveholders had to admit that slaves were 'persons'. Free Indians were also 'persons'. Enslaved Indians were also 'persons'. And even enslaved whites were also 'persons'.

What this mean is that if slavery was EXPRESSEDLY protected by the Constitution as you erroneously understood, then explain...

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The prohibition of slavery in the territory had the practical effect of establishing the Ohio River as the boundary between free and slave territory in the region between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. This division helped set the stage for national competition over admitting free and slave states, the basis of a critical question in American politics in the 19th century until the Civil War.

That territory was prohibited from being a slaveholding territory by that same Congress.

A Constitutional right must be applicable to all, not partial. So was slavery protected by the Constitution? No. It only protected slaveholding states from being denied an economic mechanism that existed prior to the ratification of the Constitution. If slavery was actually protected by intent, the writers would have specified 'slavery' instead of the more vague 'Importation of such Persons', just like how the word 'slavery' was expressedly written in the 13th Amendment.

So the one who got owned here is YOU. I did say you would end up an even greater @ss.

Which leads back to my point that Congress can make law that violate, willingly or unwittingly, the Constitution, and that a ruling of 'un-Constitutional' cannot exist prior to being challenged in court. This mean it is possible that religious laws can be enacted or components of which can be used in governmental decisions.

Your outrage at Florida SB 58 is a sham. So either condemn your Pakistan's religious laws or be forever known as a fraud.

 

[Black Widow]

Try to prove their claim that it was Chinese debris and not random piece of meteor.

Read the post , watch the animation.

The satellite hit at the location where debris were, now please don't ask noob question as "how does one know that debris were located at that place"..

I am happy that India stopped there ASAT program, what is the use to pollute space...

Then, "apparently", it shouldn't be a problem to prove it, right?

I love your affection towards proof.

 

[Developereo]

The claimant did proved their case.

Only in your dreams. Even the experts go no further than "appears to be". No court of law will convict on "appears to be".

The BLITS satellite did not lost its function, as you originally claimed.

It stopped performing the function (reflecting lasers from the Russian stations) as it was originally intended to do.

When something does not have moving and/or electronics mechanisms, it cannot go 'haywire'.

Only in your pidgin-English. In standard English, any system that stops functioning can be described as going haywire. I already posted the dictionary definition earlier -- look it up.

And what is that "Chinese craft's proximity" nonsense? What Chinese craft? We have a debris field.

Yes, a debris field presumably produced when the Chinese craft was destroyed. Even your links talk of the "Chinese craft" as shorthand for its debris field.

A 'setup' is not the same thing as the components inside that 'setup'.

Bingo! That's what I have been saying all along; the truth finally sinks in.

The fact that my setup stopped functioning as intended (went haywire, as I claimed) does not mean that the mirror itself stopped working (as you claimed).

I am glad that you are finally learning science and English as we go along.

The BLITS satellite is in orbit and that is an environmental variable. Its function is to simply reflect. Its mode of operation was to spin perpendicular to orbital path. Something collided with it and altered both its mode of operation and its orbit, but its function remained intact because without its reflective function, the researchers would not know how to calculate its new spin.

Are 'function' and 'mode of operation' alien to you, a supposedly 'man of science'?

Uh oh. You are in for another drubbing in English...

Even though, in colloquial usage, the terms "function" and "capability" are used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings.

- Capability refers to an object's innate ability -- a mirror is capable of reflecting light.
- Function implies a specific, intended, mode of behavior using an object's capabilities -- my bathroom mirror's function is to help me shave.

Inanimate objects, by themselves, do not have "functions"; they only have "capabilities" which are used by external actors to get them to perform specific "functions".

The BLITS reflecive surface has the "capability" to reflect light at any angle, but its intended "function" was to do so at a particular orientation.

When we say that a system went haywire (bring out that dictionary again!), it means that the system as a whole stopped performing its intended "function". even though its constituent components may well retain their individual "capabilities".

So, when BLITS stopped performing its intended "function", it went haywire, regardless of the fact that its component reflective surface retained the "capability" to reflect lasers.

Right...Did I substitute my 'challenge' to your 'chewed up' in those quotes? If I altered your words, that would qualify as a misquote.

No...It was I who said that a lawyer should challenge expert with another expert. I did not say you did. Now I wonder who is trying to misquote whom here.

You wrote your "challege" retort specifically as a response to my "chewed up" claim. You quoted my claim as the basis of your retort and are now claiming that the two are unrelated.

Every time you can't address a point, you make up imaginary claims and respond to them instead, in a most entertaining soliloguy.

We have seen you do this again and again and again...

For starter...The word 'slavery' does not exist in the Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment.

Read my post above for the historical context around the wording of the original Constitution.

When the Constitution was ratified, it prohibited the Congress from abolishing slavery, but it does not compelled non-slave states from becoming slave state.

Whoever said it did? The fact that you are again imagining things and responding to your own imaginary questions shows your intellectual dishonesty.

Notice the word 'Persons'. Even slaveholders had to admit that slaves were 'persons'. Free Indians were also 'persons'. Enslaved Indians were also 'persons'. And even enslaved whites were also 'persons'.

Just being a 'person' did not guarantee freedom. The Constitution specifically instructed all States to return such fugitive 'persons' from whence they escaped.

Why do you have trouble reading plain English sentences in front of you, whether from me or in the Constitution?

What this mean is that if slavery was EXPRESSEDLY protected by the Constitution as you erroneously understood, then explain...

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing to explain for people who can actually read English. The Constitution had two main requirements:

-- slave-owner States could continue practicing slavery.
-- slaves who escaped into any (slave-owner or other) State had to be returned to their owners.

There was nothing that said that non-slavery States had to adopt slavery themselves. And, in compliance with the Constitution, any slaves which ran off into the Territory had to be returned to their owners.

Absolutely nothing changed and nothing was un-Constitutional.

A Constitutional right must be applicable to all, not partial.

Only in your delusions. The right to vote was denied to non-whites and women for the longest time.

Read the SCOTUS ruling that African-Americans were not citizens under the Constitution and could not bring suit in a federal court.

So the one who got owned here is YOU. I did say you would end up an even greater @ss.

People who can read English (which excludes you) can decide for themselves who ended up being the fool, as always.

Which leads back to my point that Congress can make law that violate, willingly or unwittingly

Except that the NorthWest Ordnance did not violate the existing Constitution other than in your pidgin-English world of make-believe.

watch the animation.

The animation is just that -- animation. It is not video footage of actual events.

If you believe all animations, then your car can turn into an alien killing machine any minute.

 

[anonymus]

@gambit

sir,

Could you suggest some essays on US constitution and legal system.I have to do a comparative analysis of Indian constitution with that of British commonwealth,US,Russian and Chinese one as part of Assignment.I could not afford to read complete books on each of these constitutions.

 

[gambit]

Only in your dreams. Even the experts go no further than "appears to be". No court of law will convict on "appears to be".

And it is in your dreams that you will find any attorney willing to take your side in a real court, especially if he decide to go alone in trying to 'chew up' an expert versus finding his own expert to 'challenge' Kelso.

It stopped performing the function (reflecting lasers from the Russian stations) as it was originally intended to do.

Only in your pidgin-English. In standard English, any system that stops functioning can be described as going haywire. I already posted the dictionary definition earlier -- look it up.

Yes, a debris field presumably produced when the Chinese craft was destroyed. Even your links talk of the "Chinese craft" as shorthand for its debris field.

Bingo! That's what I have been saying all along; the truth finally sinks in.

The fact that my setup stopped functioning as intended (went haywire, as I claimed) does not mean that the mirror itself stopped working (as you claimed).

I am glad that you are finally learning science and English as we go along.

Uh oh. You are in for another drubbing in English...

Even though, in colloquial usage, the terms "function" and "capability" are used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings.

- Capability refers to an object's innate ability -- a mirror is capable of reflecting light.
- Function implies a specific, intended, mode of behavior using an object's capabilities -- my bathroom mirror's function is to help me shave.

Inanimate objects, by themselves, do not have "functions"; they only have "capabilities" which are used by external actors to get them to perform specific "functions".

The BLITS reflecive surface has the "capability" to reflect light at any angle, but its intended "function" was to do so at a particular orientation.

When we say that a system went haywire (bring out that dictionary again!), it means that the system as a whole stopped performing its intended "function". even though its constituent components may well retain their individual "capabilities".

So, when BLITS stopped performing its intended "function", it went haywire, regardless of the fact that its component reflective surface retained the "capability" to reflect lasers.

The problem for your pathetic understanding of 'function', 'mode of operation', and 'environmental variables' is that the BLITS satellite is nothing more than a very high quality glass ball that is half coated with a reflective side, so reflection is its function or capability, if you wish. Its mode of operation was to spin perpendicular to orbital path. Its environment was in space and in orbit. Its mission was to provide highly accurate feedback to measure its own position in orbit by way of reflecting laser pulses FROM EARTH stations throughout its orbit -- to the millimeter. The data can be used to measure things like Earth's gravity field or atmosphere layers altitudes.

So even if we grant your strict definitions of 'function' and 'capability' as basis for your claim that the this glass ball went (hilariously) 'haywire'...

Chinese Space Junk Slams Into Russian Satellite - Space News - redOrbit

...IPIE had detected a rapid 120-meter shift in the satellite’s orbit and also a change in its rotational velocity and attitude.

The best, if not only, way for the Earth bound researchers to figured out such a change in the glass ball's rotation, velocity, and attitude is for that glass ball to continue its function and capability and reflected lasers back to Earth. The environment did not change. Remember, the glass ball is half coated with a retro-reflective material that while the ball is under rotation, rotational patterns will determine reflective patterns. Distinct rotational patterns will produce unique reflective patterns. So how can this glass ball went 'haywire' or lost its 'function' or 'capability' if it continued to reflect?

For someone who claimed to be a 'man of science', sounds like you never set up an experiment before.

You wrote your "challege" retort specifically as a response to my "chewed up" claim. You quoted my claim as the basis of your retort and are now claiming that the two are unrelated.

Every time you can't address a point, you make up imaginary claims and respond to them instead, in a most entertaining soliloguy.

To 'misquote' is to substitute words to try to turn the quote into something else.

You said that a lawyer could 'chewed up' an expert witness. Fine...I quoted you on it without changing a single word. I used the more proper 'challenge' in my own response to represent what you said. Any differences between 'chewed up' and 'challenge' are purely in your imagination. There was nothing wrong with what I did.

Lawyers do not challenge or attempt to chew up expert witnesses unless they have their own experts, and it does not matter if they put their own experts on the stand. Usually they do for the jury's benefit. You did not know this. And because you got busted in your feeble attempt to play lawyer with that ignorance you had to try make a distinction between 'chewed up' and 'challenge' and accused me of 'misquoting' you.

That is just pathetic.

We have seen you do this again and again and again...

Sure...Just like how you imagined my words out to be 'racist'...

The rest of your post is here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/238870-anti-sharia-law-back-10.html?#post4053232

 

[Developereo]

And it is in your dreams that you will find any attorney willing to take your side in a real court,

Only in your world of pidgin-English and delusions will a court convict on "appears to be". Just because you keep blabbering the same nonsense only provides entertainment exposing your idiocy.

so reflection is its function or capability, if you wish.

Function and capability are NOT the same thing, Mr. pidgin-English.

How many times do I have to keep educating you?

Forget science, you can't even get past English 101, which makes you look the fool over and over.

So how can this glass ball went 'haywire' or lost its 'function' or 'capability' if it continued to reflect?

Do you understand the concept of partial function? When we say that a system "lost function", it can mean anything from total loss to partial loss.

I am betting that concept doesn't exist in your world of pidgin-English either.

Any differences between 'chewed up' and 'challenge' are purely in your imagination.

It's not about my imagination, but the English language. If you are going to conduct a discussion, learn the language to avoid wasting other people's time and making an as$ of yourself in the process.

You did not know this.

Again, in your delusional world of intellectual dishonesty, you keep imagining things and responding to them instead of what is actually written.

This is a pattern of intellectual dishonesty with you. You're the worst kind of loser: an intellectually dishonest one; every time you get you as$ kicked, you make up claims of what the other person wrote, or revise your own words.

I have wasted enough time exposing your intellectual dishonesty. Readers can see both threads and the posts which have been saved to see what was actually written, as opposed to your revisionist bullsh!t.

You can keep blabbering to yourself.

This conversation is now terminated.

 

[Shabz Nist]

@Developereo

You know, adding smiles in your hissy fit of a post only makes it look a lot more like you're sitting in front of your pc and crying at the brutal whupping you just received.

Just a friendly advice.

 

[Developereo]

@Developereo

You know, adding smiles in your hissy fit of a post only makes it look a lot more like you're sitting in front of your pc and crying at the brutal whupping you just received.

Just a friendly advice.

Oh, my dear Indian, are you still angry because I (and others) pointed out the truth of the India-Italy affair in the other thread?

Don't worry. I am sure supapowa India will kick Italy's as$.

P.S.

 

[gambit]

Only in your world of pidgin-English and delusions will a court convict on "appears to be". Just because you keep blabbering the same nonsense only provides entertainment exposing your idiocy.

Function and capability are NOT the same thing, Mr. pidgin-English.

How many times do I have to keep educating you?

Forget science, you can't even get past English 101, which makes you look the fool over and over.

Do you understand the concept of partial function? When we say that a system "lost function", it can mean anything from total loss to partial loss.

I am betting that concept doesn't exist in your world of pidgin-English either.

It's not about my imagination, but the English language. If you are going to conduct a discussion, learn the language to avoid wasting other people's time and making an as$ of yourself in the process.

Again, in your delusional world of intellectual dishonesty, you keep imagining things and responding to them instead of what is actually written.

This is a pattern of intellectual dishonesty with you. You're the worst kind of loser: an intellectually dishonest one; every time you get you as$ kicked, you make up claims of what the other person wrote, or revise your own words.

I have wasted enough time exposing your intellectual dishonesty. Readers can see both threads and the posts which have been saved to see what was actually written, as opposed to your revisionist bullsh!t.

You can keep blabbering to yourself.

This conversation is now terminated.

So we can sum you up this way...

- You said you are not defending China, but it is clear that you are.

- You said that a lawyer can chew up an expert witness without providing a clue of how. Then you accused me of my use of the word 'challenge' to be a misquote of your 'chewed up' despite the fact that I quoted you exactly.

- You provided not a single credible expert witness to counter Thomas Kelso, who was consultant to the Russians.

- You demanded absolute proof in this discussion, but you have no problems accusing me of being a racist against the Chinese members here without providing a single post from me that contains any known racist code word, or that I denigrated the Chinese people in general in anyway.

Good luck, China. With Mr. Dev here in your corner as lawyer and 'man of science', pray that there is a real god or saint of fortune.

 

[Akasa]

Einstein, did you click on the link and read the entire article? If only you did, that stupid comment wouldnt have materialized.

How illogical was the Chinese action of knocking out a satellite and create debris cloud in space, endangering the safety of many satellites and even manned spacecraft. According to the article there are about 600000 pieces of space debris smaller than 1cm dia. and around 16000 pieces of about 10cm or larger.

Oh, btw, Einstein, to answer your question, they apparently have the technology to track these individual pieces.

"Illogical" would be an unsuitable word here. There are no laws that forbid nations from doing these tests. And as far as ethics is concerned, the United States has done it as well. Now, there are certainly ways to track the debris. The question is, then, is why the satellite did not track and avoid the debris.

Now chinese will further isolated in space exploration.

If space embargoes were determined by the number of anti satellite tests, then the United States wouldn't have any partners.

 

[gambit]

"Illogical" would be an unsuitable word here. There are no laws that forbid nations from doing these tests. And as far as ethics is concerned, the United States has done it as well. Now, there are certainly ways to track the debris. The question is, then, is why the satellite did not track and avoid the debris.

Did you even bothered to do basic research on the BLITS satellite and its construction?

 

[JSCh]

The claimant needs to prove their case -- you are the claimant here and YOU need to prove your case, not me.

It appears that you are right!

Pentagon: No Evidence Chinese Debris Damaged Russian Sat

But what the mainstream press has reported as a late-January collision between this debris and Russia's ball-shaped satellite never happened, according to U.S. defense officials.

“There is no conclusive evidence to support that a piece of a Chinese Fengyun-1C debris, or any other piece of tracked debris, was the cause of the event,” says Lt. Col. Monica Matoush, a Defense Department spokeswoman. The Joint Space Operations Center (JSPOC) maintains a catalog of 23,000 objects in orbit, including satellites and debris roughly 5 cm (2 in.) or larger. It “detected an event involving the Russian Blits satellite resulting in a single piece of debris in addition to the payload,” she says. The center is continuing to track the two objects.

A known and cataloged piece of debris from the destroyed Chinese weather satellite actually came 3.1 km (1.9 mi.) from the Blits satellite, three times the 1-km distance required for notification to an operator of a potential collision, a separate defense source adds, on the condition of anonymity because he has not been authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

The piece of orbital debris cited in news articles as being from the destroyed weather satellite has an “unchanged orbit,” indicating it never collided with anything, the official says.

 

[Developereo]

It appears that you are right!

Pentagon: No Evidence Chinese Debris Damaged Russian Sat

It's the US DOD. What do they know about science?
They're probably working for the Chinese, anyway.

 

[gambit]

It's the US DOD. What do they know about science?
They're probably working for the Chinese, anyway.

Who said anything about 'conclusive evidence'? Do YOU believe in a deity? If yes, got any conclusive evident for him/her/it?