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 - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 204  Next >
A true, objective statement would be: "You can't square a circle". Or, "The Earth is not a globe.". Why? Because it can be proven.
Those are both statements which have an absolute truth value. But there is a difference.
The first of those statements is couched in the language of mathematics where things are clearly defined. So yes, that statement is true because the definitions of "square" and "circle" are contradictory.
The second of those statements cannot be proven. Many would say that the fact that the earth is a globe has been proven and yet here we are in the 21st century with some people claiming the reverse.

That's the point. For you globe believers to realize there's no proof for your beliefs and that's why they are and will remain beliefs.
For the second time in this thread you are on the verge of an epiphany. All you need to do now is understand that if the statement
"The earth is a globe" cannot be proven to the standard you require, and can only be based on evidence. Then clearly the same can be said of "The earth is not a globe".
One could argue that the known distances between places proves that the earth has to be a globe, because there's only one shape those places can be mapped on, given the known distances, which works. And it ain't flat. But of course FE denies that, usually by disputing that the distances are known. And this is the problem. Any position can be rejected or defended depending on which evidence you decide to accept or reject.

Starting with your belief in curvature that isn't there.
I'm not clear what this means. No-one sensible claims that curvature can be discerned from "normal" altitudes, and I include commercial airplane travel in that.

The only person here trying to claim that there is no LGBT agenda here is AllAroundTheWorld, who believes that the teaching of sex techniques is new to to the school system
It is new. Was Abraham Lincoln taught about any sexual techniques?

but these explicit lessons on anal stimulation is coincidental and has nothing to do with the recent rash of LGBT inclusion and mandates.
Holy straw man, Batman!
Of course it's not coincidental. As homosexuality has become accepted lessons have become more inclusive.
And there is definitely a debate to be had about whether kids should be taught any sexual techniques in school.
As Roundy says, there is an LBGTQ agenda to be more accepted in society. Your real issue is you don't believe they should be accepted in society, you've already said you think gay children should be ashamed of who they are.
So you conflate acceptance/inclusion with promotion/indoctrination.

LOL. If truth exists independently of beliefs, how is there not a difference between believing and knowing other than subjective certainty? See?
No, I don't see.
Of course truth exists independently of belief. I mean, let's take the shape of the Earth. The Earth is a physical object, yes? It has a shape. That shape doesn't depend on your belief about it, or mine, or anyone else's.

If the earth is flat then it is flat whatever you or I believe. If it's a globe then it's a globe whatever you or I believe.
It can't be flat for you because you believe it to be and a globe for me because I believe it to be.
If you believe it's flat and I believe it's a globe then there are only two possibilities:

1) One of us is wrong
2) Both or us are wrong (it could be a cube).

We cannot both be correct because we believe contradictory things. The truth of the matter is absolute and it is independent of our beliefs about it.

The only semantic difference between these three sentences:
"I think the earth is a globe"
"I believe the earth is a globe"
"I know the earth is a globe"

Is the level of certainty you're expressing. A lot of people "know" that Aled Jones sang Walking In The Air in The Snowman (he didn't) or that Vikings had horns on their helmets (they didn't). Saying you "know" something doesn't make you correct, you're just saying you're certain about something. You can be certain and wrong at the same time.

There is a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief, but evidence based belief is the reason that innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit, all the time. That's what you're supporting.
It's not merely that I'm supporting it. It's the only game in town.
The only way to come to a belief about pretty much anything is by assessing the evidence. What else is there?
You simultaneously demand proof - I see you're doing it in another thread here:
While in this thread you're accepting that that proof cannot exist.

Of course I'm incredulous of anything NASA produces. That's actually a compliment. Thank you.
It's neither a compliment nor an insult. If you blindly believe everything you're told by an authority then that's foolish.
But if you blindly disbelieve everything you're told by an authority then that's equally foolish.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat Earth alternative to a globe
« on: Today at 07:59:22 AM »
I don't know how you found this, but I actually love it. It's a lot closer to reality than the AE map, that's for sure.
The Santiago to Sydney flight path would be a bit of a problem on that map.

The question in the OP was whether a LGBT agenda was being promoted, not whether you agree with it. The teaching of homosexual sex techniques is a new phenomenon the American school system, and is further evidence with all of the other items of a LGBT agenda. Whether you agree with anal stimulation techniques being taught in school is irrelevant to that.
The teaching of any sex techniques is relatively new in the American school system.
It’s certainly debatable what should be taught in this area, but unless homosexual techniques are being taught as preferable to heterosexual ones then how is it an agenda? Because you don’t personally agree with homosexuality?

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 03, 2023, 08:18:11 AM »
Son, if all you have is the credibility argument, all that does is support my point. Credibility is just another word for believing. It literally comes from the latin CREDO (creed). Believing belongs to religion, not science. Thank you for supporting my point.
You are so close to an epiphany.
All you need to do now is understand that pretty much everything you are stating is also merely a belief based on what you find credible.
There is no difference between “believing” something and “knowing” it, other than your own perceived certainty. Truth exists independently of your beliefs.

Believing doesn’t “belong” to science or religion. Cogito ergo sum, basically. You know you exist, everything else you think you know is simply based on evidence and what you find credible. There is, of course, a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief. I have outlined the evidence for believing NASA’s claims, you have ignored it all and presented nothing but an argument from incredulity.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 02, 2023, 10:18:10 PM »
No, I'm back to explaining how science is not about credibility.
What do you mean "explaining"? You asked above if I thought science was about credibility and I said no.

Can you prove that unicorns or leprechauns exist? No? Maybe they're not real, then. Isn't that my whole point?
If that is your whole point then it's a pretty silly one. You can't prove anything to the standard you demand - we've established that it's not possible for NASA or anyone else to prove that the picture was taken from a million miles away. So, like a lot of things, we can only base our opinion on how credible the claim is.
Unicorns and leprechauns are, famously, mythical. Pretty much no-one claims they exist. If anyone did then they'd better have some very compelling evidence.

Not to mention that in order to talk about the possibility of signals sent from 1 million miles away, you need to prove that it's even possible for a signal-emitting device (or anything at all) to get there in the first place.
Again, like many things, that can't be proven to the standard you demand. But the fact that rockets exist is relevant to how credible this is. If the technology which is said to get things in to orbit didn't even exist then a claim about satellites existing would be akin to a claim about unicorns.
But rockets do exist. GPS Satellites exist, the ISS exists and can be observed. Those things are in low earth orbit, but TV satellites aren't, they're 23,000 miles above the equator. So why is it such a leap to think that things can't orbit further out?

Well, that proves the current accepted model of the universe, then.
Why are you straw-manning me? I didn't say it proved anything.
But you keep obsessing over NASA as if they have some monopoly on space. They do not.
The first module of the ISS was launched from Kazakhstan.

Your issue with NASA is that they "fake almost everything" and your basis for that is apparently in part some video which you claim had some CGI glitch (I have suggested an alternative explanation) and which you now can't find. Compelling stuff.

You paint yourself as this "independent thinker" but all you present is arguments from incredulity.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 02, 2023, 01:16:11 PM »
And then there are a few people who are a little more observant, often insufferably pedantic, who do spot things others don't. Does it surprise you that they'd be "on the Internet"?
No, that doesn't surprise me.
But the key question is whether they really are spotting things that are indicators of fakery or a conspiracy.
Or are they people who already have a certain agenda seeing things because they want to, or doing things like misidentifying video compression artefacts as "CGI glitches".
Do they have any actual expertise in the field they're discussing?
Most of the moon landing hoax "evidence" I've seen is based on ignorance, it's not well researched evidence which is about to crack the whole case wide open.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 02, 2023, 10:56:55 AM »
Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive.  In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.
This argument always comes across as so desperate. "If they were dishonest, they'd be more perfect about it; therefore, they must be honest." There isn't even an attempt at a logical sequence here.
I dunno. I mean, the narrative from some is that people like NASA are simultaneously competent enough to fake things to a level which has fooled the world, but are also incompetent enough to make mistakes which "people on the internet" spot. But I guess one could make the argument that most people don't really scrutinise NASA's output.

That said, the people that do...are they really experts in video/image analysis? In previous conversations we've established that I'm certainly not, but I know as much as many of the things claimed to be "CGI glitches" are video compression artefacts, or they're people with a certain agenda just seeing what they want to see. I did create a thread on here some time back where 3 VFX artists analysed some of the Apollo footage and concluded that it couldn't have been faked given the technology at the time. In the ensuing thread there was very little attempt to respond to what the experts said. I seem to remember Thork going off on a tangent.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 02, 2023, 10:23:22 AM »
Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is?
No. Science is about making and testing hypotheses which explain how the world and universe work.
The hypotheses are never said to be 100% proven, but with testing you can build confidence in them being correct.
And they should always be open to improvement or replaced entirely if a better model comes along.

But this claim, like many claims, can't be directly tested. You've already agreed there is no way to prove that the image in the OP came from a satellite a million miles away.
So we're back to how credible you find the claim, and that relates to your model of reality. Is there anything that makes you think it's not possible to send signals from a million miles away? On page 1 of this thread I did some analysis of the image in the OP in terms of the scale of the moon relative to the earth and it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect to see from the distance claimed. So while I can't prove that this image is as claimed, I've no particular reason to believe it isn't. Your only response to my analysis was to claim that anyone who believed the data come from a million miles away was gullible. You didn't elaborate.

Earlier in this thread you said:
"If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid"
But now you're agreeing that can't be done.

And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all.
In your opinion. But you've provided very little evidence to back that up. You said they "fake almost everything" but provide no evidence.
You talk about the "CGI glitching". Can you show that example? Are you an expert in image or video analysis? Do you understand about artefacts from video compression?
What investigation have you done on the ISS? That's something you can directly observe so that's a good starting point.
Have you witnessed any rocket launches?
When it comes to the moon landings I've mentioned Jodrell Bank in the UK who were tracking the craft, and the team in Australia who were relaying signals.
Most moan hoax "evidence" I've seen is based on an ignorance of what actually happened or of basic physics, or simple incredulity.

And, again, you don't just have to take NASA's word for it. Multiple countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises have launched things too.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 01, 2023, 05:22:43 PM »
It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.
What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 01, 2023, 04:20:16 PM »
When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude.
Of course it does. Again, it's about our model of reality.
If we accept satellites exist and are beaming data from space to our satellite dishes - I've outlined some evidence for that - then why couldn't data be sent from a million miles away? Because it's a big number?
If we accept the ISS exists and is orbiting the earth - I've outlined the evidence for that - then why can't a satellite orbit at a greater distance? Again, is it just because it's a big number?

What is the difference in principle between the ISS, GPS satellites, TV Satellites and the DSCOVR one which the OP references? The principles which get them into orbit are the same.

I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly.
I do. My model of reality tells me that humans can't fly.
It also tells me that humans can send objects into orbits around the earth. Multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on it, the ISS can be directly observed, I have personally seen a Shuttle launch.

if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different.
Well, sure. IF NASA are doing the trickery. I've explained why I don't believe they are. There is good evidence for satellites existing. Evidence you can check yourself.
Have you? Or are you just declaring everything mainstream fake because it's mainstream?

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 01, 2023, 02:32:21 PM »
My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion.
You could apply that to anything which you can't directly verify, which is quite a lot of things.
BUT, it doesn't have to be a blind faith.

We all have a model of reality in our heads. How credible we find things is dependent on whether they conform to that model.
If, for example, you told me you could fly, then I wouldn't believe you. Because, famously, humans can't fly. You'd have to provide some pretty good evidence before I'd believe you. Even if you showed me video of you doing it I'd suspect some trickery.
If you told me that you could do a backflip then I might raise an eyebrow but if you showed me a video of you doing it (pre-supposing that I know it's you) then I'd believe you. I know it's something humans have the ability to do although most can't.
If you told me you could walk then I wouldn't particularly ask you to evidence that. Most people can.

When it comes to space flight. Well, I know that rockets exist. I've personally seen a Shuttle launch when I happened to be in Florida at the right time. The ISS is said to be orbiting the earth. You can look up where and when you can see it and you can observe it directly. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. By triangulation you can calculate the height and speed of it and cross-check that against NASA's claims. Radio hams have been able to contact the astronauts.

Satellite TV demonstrably works. The claim is that it works by dishes pointing at geostationary satellites above the equator. I've observed dishes in countries a lot closer to the equator angled up at a much steeper angle than ones in the UK, which makes sense in that context. And when my neighbour did some building work which blocked the dish I lost my TV signal. And GPS also demonstrably works, and does so in the middle of the ocean.

And of course it's not just NASA sending up satellites and astronauts. Many countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises are now getting in on the act. So we don't just have to take NASA's word for it. I've mentioned above ways anyone can verify their claims about the ISS. When it comes to the moon missions, you had teams in Australia relaying signals for them, you had Jodrell Bank in the UK tracking the Apollo craft - and an unmanned Russian one which was trying to steal a march on them. You don't just need to take NASA's word for it.

NASA and others have provided plenty of evidence of what they're doing, some of that evidence you can verify yourself. Have you? Independent thought isn't just claiming every mainstream narrative is false because it's mainstream.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 26, 2023, 06:02:44 PM »

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 25, 2023, 01:03:45 PM »
What was I trying to do
Yes, that is the question I asked you. I'd be very keen to hear your answer.
My original post was about the two things I said it was I wasn't "trying" to do anything in that post other that post a video which some people might find entertaining and relay the information the lady at church told me regarding what the song was actually about. My subsequent posts were responding to what I regarded as xasop's bizarre focus on a minutiae of fact which I think we all agree doesn't actually matter. I didn't regard it as a particularly serious exchange, I thought he was just being silly.

It was pointless, inconsequential, and unimportant, and therefore you fought back.
I thought it was strange of xasop to obsess over that point. I'm not sure I "fought back". I pretty much immediately conceded that what I said was an assumption and in subsequent posts I explained why I made that assumption. I still believe my assumption was most likely to be correct, but I think we all agree that it doesn't really matter any way and it's inconsequential either way to my OP in this exchange. Which is why your suggestion that I was intending to mislead is bizarre. To what end? It doesn't matter.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 25, 2023, 08:51:24 AM »
Many of those of us with a sceptical eye will take an issue with you so casually planting disinformation and then insisting "it doesn't matter" when it's highlighted.

Your link says that disinformation is "false information which is deliberately intended to mislead".
You're suggesting I was intending to mislead? Really? What was I trying to do, trick you into thinking this bloke doesn't speak Finish when he actually does?
At worst this was misinformation and none of us actually know if it was even that.

The normal course of action, since you agree the issue is unimportant, would be to say "oh, huh, yeah, my bad, I don't actually know one way or another" and to move on.
Well. I conceded it was an assumption. I explained the reasons I'd made that assumption. I even went so far, on cross-examination, to look up the dude's LinkedIn profile. Maybe he's Finnish or knows Finnish. It appears not, so I suspect my assumption was correct. But sure, I don't know for a fact. So yeah, my bad, I don't actually know one way or another.

Why do you have to fight back, AATW? Where is this drive coming from? Explain your intentions, so I do not have to speculate about them.
It just felt like pointless pedantry. We all agree this doesn't really matter. In general I do think that truth matters, but there's no consequence here.
If the Covid vaccines are deadly poison, that matters. If the 2020 US election was rigged, that matters. The truth about these things matters, and disinformation about them matters too. There are consequences. With this...I mean, we all agree this isn't important, right? The point of my post was "didn't this BSL interpreter do a great job?" and "oh by the way, a lady at church who knows BSL told me what the song was about and it's this". Picking up on exactly how the BSL dude was BSLing - whether he was translating straight from Finnish or whether he had a translation in front of him and was using that - felt like a bizarre thing to focus on. As we all agree: it doesn't matter.
And don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of pedantry in general. But sometimes - like on this occasion - it feels a bit pointless. I'm a bit of a Grammar Nazi, and I enjoy muttering "fewer" under my breath as much as the next man, when people use "less" incorrectly. But, really, I don't care about that one. It doesn't matter. It's perfectly clear what is meant by "6 items or less". Real hard liners will say it DOES matter, but they're being prescriptive rather than descriptive about language which feels pointless. This felt pointless too. I actually thought xasop was trolling me.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 24, 2023, 09:43:24 AM »
Exactly. I'm glad we agree :)
That was my point all along. I wanted to understand why you had made a claim about which you had no information that was irrelevant in the first place.
I think a better question would be why you are obsessing over this tiny detail when you've just agreed it doesn't matter.
I simply repeated what the lady at church told me, but the main points of my OP were:

1) Isn't this BSL interpreter doing a brilliant job?
2) As he's signing in BSL, a friend of mine who understands it told me what this song is actually about.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 23, 2023, 04:38:37 PM »
but it doesn't make any difference whether he is interpreting from English or Finnish
Exactly. I'm glad we agree :)

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 23, 2023, 04:32:10 PM »
I'm pretty sure it's this dude

He neglects to mention his ability to speak Finnish in his profile.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 23, 2023, 04:08:07 PM »
I think it's reasonable to assume that a BBC BSL signer doesn't speak Finnish.
Why is it reasonable to assume that someone whose job it is to interpret between languages doesn't speak one specific language?
Because that isn't his job. He works for the BBC whose main output is in English. So his job is to translate from English into BSL.
And given that less than 0.1% of the world's population speak Finnish, it is statistically improbable that he is one of them.
Are you just trying to annoy me?
(You are doing reasonably well if so, to be fair)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 204  Next >