Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Bastian Baasch

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
Flat Earth Community / Re: ISS Open For Business
« on: June 18, 2019, 07:05:33 PM »
Gravity in the ISS is about 90% of what it is on the earth's surface so it is nowhere near zero gravity. While it doesn't affect your question about how to simulate microgravity I think it is important to be accurate while battling scientific ignorance. Some members of this forum love to seize on these little details to derail a debate.
*sigh*  Yes, you seem to be one of those members. ::)

The ISS is in a constant state of free fall as it orbits the earth.  As a result of this constant free fall, anyone or anything inside the ISS experiences a condition generally referred to as zero/micro gravity.  Now, if everyone is done being pedantic *****, would anyone care to explain how to simulate such an environment for days or weeks at a time?

I'm not sure how plausible this is, just pure speculation, but what if you gave someone a haptic ballasted wetsuit and a waterproof VR headset and stuck them in a chamber filled with a water solution (to decrease viscosity) with waterjets on the walls.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?
« on: June 18, 2019, 05:27:19 PM »
No one has ever bought a Boston Dynamics robot.  (So what?)
Odd business that designs robots and never sells any. It has been going since 1992. That's 27 years of building robots that no one ever sees or buys or that come to market.
Not so odd when you consider the fact that their biggest customer is the US military.  It seems to me that they're more of an R&D company than an end user product company.  The military does a lot of research into technology that might not hit the battlefield for 10-20 years (if ever), and this is most likely part of that program.

Let's not forget that Boston Dynamics is planning to sell commercial versions of their robots starting with the Spotmini with production starting as soon as next month.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?
« on: June 18, 2019, 01:09:23 AM »
Maybe the thing that people like the military was investing in, was the CGI for hoaxes. But then newer better stuff like deep fakes came out with the new AI stuff and softback (a bunch of bankers, not tech people) have bought up a pup.

I mean ... forget the motives. Does this look real? Is there any independent video of say a news reporter or youtuber visiting their factory and shooting footage of a robot in the car park or something? I can find zero 3rd party footage. Everything is just what Boston put out.

Well Thork, I have to hand it to you, but you are right on this, there is no third party anything on Boston Dynamics. But that doesn't mean they're entirely fake. These were some articles I found in my search for 3rd party stuff, and they do a good job breaking stuff down.

Basically, it's obvious the videos they put out are not a true representation of their robots. And why should they be? They're a private company maintaining an image, putting out an unedited video showing the true capabilities of their robots would destroy that image and their real progress. It's obvious they have human controllers and preprogrammed commands and cut out mistakes to make their robots seem better than they really are. Absence of third party footage does not mean that what Boston Dynamics puts out is necessarily CGI. The founder of Boston Dynamics did bring out Spot for his TED talk. That didn't look like CGI to me, not sure how you do it in front of a live audience. Could they be touching up their youtube videos? Most probably. Are they fake? Not likely.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?
« on: June 17, 2019, 11:53:39 PM »
Really Thork? Do a little research for once. Boston Dynamics isn't even really a business, it's basically an R&D division. They were an MIT spinoff that did work for the US government under DARPA grants and actually made a robot for them called the BigDog way back in 2005. Not sure how you can fool DARPA.
And even if they were fake, why would Softbank buy them up for millions in 2017 and invest millions more into them this year?

Sounds to me like you got drunk while watching too many of their robot videos.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
« on: May 25, 2019, 09:29:04 PM »
Multiple people are agreeing in this thread that it looks trashy. What more is there to discuss?

You said yourself none of the wiki is an opinion, yet the lunar module article provides no evidence but your and several others' opinions of the lunar module photo. This also simultaneously invalidates the claim that the wiki sources are third party, unless you consider yourself, and other forum users a third party source? Either you think opinions are evidence, or your claims are wrong. Which is it?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
« on: May 25, 2019, 09:20:08 PM »
None of the Wiki gives an opinion, and is merely a collection of sources The opinions are from third parties.

Tom, given this statement from the Bishop Experiment thread, would you care to clarify what the Lunar Module wiki article is then?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
« on: May 22, 2019, 10:34:37 PM »
Something looking trashy doesn't mean it is trash

Does a car's "trashiness" affect its ability to function as a car?

I just see agreements with the premise of the Wiki.

The added "it only looks like a rubbish heap, but really it's a super advanced spaceship" isn't very compelling, to me.

And I just see someone ignoring the arguments presented. First off all, those aren;t agreements, they're observations about "trashiness" in general and what it means in relation to function, it doesn't mean we agree with you. Second, the premises of the wiki are faulty. It's based on one photograph. We all know what the FAQ says about photographs.
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.
What happened to that diehard zeteticism of yours that you, the glorious leader of TFES, would stoop down to the level of accepting a photograph as evidence? What wanton hypocrisy! Have you ever observed the lunar lander in person, did you go up to it and personally inspect the parts? Did you find scotch tape and curtain rods?  If you didn't, how can you conclusively say that the lunar lander is just a big prop?

Second, this is a point you've not addressed, but what's up with the quotes at the bottom of the wiki page? Is that supposed to be evidence? The opinions of random people on the Internet is not evidence, they're just opinions and it only further degrades the wiki page.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
« on: May 22, 2019, 02:04:49 PM »
What do you mean that there is no evidence? A trashy looking space ship is the evidence.

You have provided zero compelling evidence that this space ship is actually made of state-of-the-art space-age tin foil, tape, and cardboard paper, or whatever you guys are mumbling about.

You guys are literally arguing "it only looks that way...", which is a failing argument that admits that it does look trashy.

"It only looks and seems that way" is your entire Round Earth Theory.

Have you read the bloody FAQ?
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.

Find some real evidence Bishop, then we can talk. Something looking trashy doesn't mean it is trash. At this point I'd make a you looking into the mirror joke, but you standing on such a weak argument makes me pity you.

Also, you still haven't addressed the "expert testimony" at the bottom of the wiki page. Again, opinion doesn't equal evidence. I understand a statement like that might be difficult for you to understand, but we'll work through this until you do.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki article of the day: LM Closer Look
« on: May 21, 2019, 11:46:11 PM »
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.

How ironic coming from you. Evidence has been provided, to the contrary, it's the wiki article lacking evidence. In fact, the only evidence provided is a photograph of the lunar module, and we all know what the FAQ says about photographs. Here's a quick refresher.
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.
How hypocritical of the wiki then to include an article that wholly relies on a photograph.

Even better is the "expert testimony" at the bottom. That drivel is nothing more than opinions from people on the internet, since when does opinion equal evidence? Are all those people master photo analyzers, can they magically see what things are made out of or what they are in that lunar lander photo?

Or is, "Looks like it, so it must be it," good enough evidence to conclude the lunar lander is nothing but a prop?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yang 2020
« on: May 07, 2019, 12:58:23 PM »
PowerPoint! PowerPoint! PowerPoint!


Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki: Keyworth quote source needed
« on: May 06, 2019, 01:37:43 PM »
How does Keyworth's beliefs that the earth is a globe or that space travel has occurred invalidate his statements that it is his experience that NASA lies all the time?

Wow, are you being intentionally obtuse Tom? Have you ever heard of context? Did you even read what stack wrote? stack and WRI have shown that he was probably talking about the budget and have provided evidence. Until you can show that the context of Keyworth's quote was within the realm of faking space travel, it would be deceptive to leave the quote on the evidence for the conspiracy page to mislead readers into thinking that was what Keyworth was talking about.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Quick question...
« on: May 03, 2019, 12:52:39 PM »
I thought most flat earthers claimed that space is fake?
I'm not sure whether to advise you to think more, or less...

What on Earth would it even mean for space to be "fake"?

Maybe it means your closet isn't real? But more likely he probably omitted the word "travel."

False equivalency, Tom. Using CAD for perspective compared to what we see in the real world? I don't think so.

Considering video game perspective is already mentioned on the wiki, what did you expect him to invoke?

The same effect is found on a 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. When you increase your altitude you can see farther because you are so much higher than everything else. Your computer's resolution is better able to see something below you than off on the horizon where the pixels are linearly squished.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why doesn't the moon fall to the Earth?
« on: April 28, 2019, 07:56:06 PM »
If I drop a book here on Earth, flat earthers would say it fell because it was heavy.

Wrong, flat earthers would actually say the earth accelerated upward and caught up with the book.

That leaves me with one question: why doesn't the moon fall to the Earth? 
Now disprove that Earth doesn't have some sort of gravitational pull.

I think you can be forgiven for this one as it's not in the FAQ, but flat earthers do believe the earth has a gravitational pull, they call it celestial gravitation.

Basically, it's a stopgap to a hole in their model, as one can see not only from the shortness of the wiki article, but the fact that selective gravitation doesn't really jive with flat earth, they have yet to answer why it works on such a large scale, what property is responsible for it, if it is responsible for the tides, a moon to ocean interaction, then why are there no mass to mass interactions on earth?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Facial Recognition At Airports
« on: April 24, 2019, 02:48:06 PM »
Yes, I saw the same thing. No one gives a crap anymore, unfortunately. It is weird how things have changed dramatically in the past few years. Everyone here in the US (that was sensible) was up in arms against the Patriot Act and all the unwarranted tapping of cellphones, etc. Cheered when Edward Snowden broke the news on NSA spying. Cheered when we were able to stop the one internet act several years ago.

Now, its the complete opposite. What the fuck happened?

No one gives a crap anymore because we all have the technology. This quote from the book Blown to Bits comes to mind.

Many devices got cheaper, better, and smaller. Once they became useful
consumer goods, we stopped worrying about their uses as surveillance
devices. For example, if the police were the only ones who had cameras in
their cell phones, we would be alarmed. But as long as we have them too, so
we can send our friends funny pictures from parties, we don’t mind so much
that others are taking pictures of us. The social evolution that was supported
by consumer technologies in turn made us more accepting of new enabling
technologies; the social and technological evolutions have proceeded hand in
(page 21)

Flat Earth Community / Re: Ice wall picture (I hope this is correct)
« on: April 23, 2019, 09:15:56 PM »
Why are you conflating things that are "thought to" with "known"?

Why are you addressing only the last quote from the wiki stack presented? The middle two are presented as factual and the top one is a quote with no citation. What have you to say to those?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Ice wall picture (I hope this is correct)
« on: April 21, 2019, 10:02:19 PM »
I am hoping to receive input on whether this is the evidence mentioned for an ice wall existing
As per the FAQ, we lend very little credibility to photographs, and I wouldn't call it evidence. A "visual aid" would be a better term. Unfortunately, many of those on the other side of the debate repeatedly demand this photo (or similar ones), so we've included it.

1. How did you acquire it?
I'm not sure. It's been there for the better part of a decade. My suspicion is that it was one of Google search results for what you would call one of the ice shelves. Funnily enough, this has become difficult to verify, since virtually all sources that still host this image are Flat Earth ones, many of which credit us as the source.

Well sorry Pete, but rodriados is right. That photo is of the B-15A iceberg, not the Ice Wall. Here's the source:

This site seems to be as close to the original source as you can get, after perusing the AMRC/AWC iceberg images (the original source), it appears to be gone. How ironic it turns out to be a NASA archive.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Suggestion: Upvote/Downvote Idea
« on: April 18, 2019, 05:04:47 PM »
Obvious no, Thork's like/dislike system is good enough as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Out of curiosity, does it matter to you (this is a genuine question, I'd really like to know - to understand - if you don't mind sharing)?

Anyone who reads this, does any of it matter to you one way or the other?  If so, in what way does it matter?  And if it doesn't matter could you let me know why?

I'm not asking because I want to convince anyone or argue back, I'd really just like to learn how others feel about things like this.  Thanks.

Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me whether Socrates existed or not. It's a bit of like that whole Shakespeare authorship thing, why does it matter if he existed at all, like crudblud said, his existence doesn't affect the value of his works, we already know they're important and they're all out there, so why should it matter whose name we put on top of it? Is some zombie Greek gonna come out of the grave and demand credit for what he wrote that was credited to a nonexistent Socrates? The only way I see it having an effect is if we incorporate historical context on Socrates' life in analyzing his works and stuff. But even then, we have nothing else to go on, we can engage in speculation all day but it's not going to tell us something important, so what if Socrates never existed, it doesn't invalidate what he said, his name is a technicality in the face of the enormous value of his works.
Thank you for that - I appreciate it and from that perspective don't necessarily disagree.  Out of curiosity, how about from a Flat Earth perspective so to speak?  What I mean by that is for all the people whose facts are made up from what they read in Time Magazine, or the headlines of the New York Times, or some history book written by someone they don't even remember?  People who never question their side, never question themselves, never question what their being told, etc.  Do you think it has value in the sense that if it's possible, how many other facts that have always been taken for granted might it make someone start to question?  Do you think things like this can help shift someone's reality a bit and help them open their eyes?  Wondering if it matters to you at all from that angle?

For me, along with some of what I mentioned above, it also kind of helps breath life back

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts - I'm curious to hear if it matters to you in the above sense - and if it doesn't would help me to understand why.  Thanks again.

Sorry for the late reply. Ah, so you want I guess what would more aptly be called a zetetic perspective I think. Yes, there's value in questioning the knowledge you receive, where it came from, possible biases within it, etc, no doubt about that. While it would be useful to apply it to something like Socrates in the hopes of applying it to more pressing matters like news and history and stuff, it does come off a bit wasteful. The "questioning your own side" is only really useful when you have access to alternate perspectives, like the news, and seeing it from different sides and sifting through various interpretations. For something like Socrates, there isn't very much evidence out there against the authorship of his philosophy and the only real alternate perspective is that Plato wrote it, which doesn't exactly yield anything new in interpreting it that way. At this point, you start entering the territory of speculation for something that ultimately is nominal to the philosophy, and that can encourage a questioning attitude for things that don't really need or should be questioned because ultimately it would be a waste of time. It all comes down to the value of the questioning.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Episode IX
« on: April 13, 2019, 11:30:47 PM »
\ Palpatine laughing at the end especially rubs me the wrong way. If it's a flashback or a recording or something, fine, but he had better not turn out to be still alive or show up as a clone or whatever.

Oof, looks like he's really back.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >