41

Flat Earth Community / Re: What Makes conspiracy Theorists believe.

« on: May 08, 2018, 11:29:01 AM »

I read a similar article not too long ago that claimed it's because they want to feel special.

https://qz.com/1258198/conspiracy-theorists-believe-wild-ideas-because-they-want-to-feel-special/

They even did a fake conspiracy about fire detectors in Germany as an experiment.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 07, 2018, 08:54:57 PM »

why do you all tell us NASA/Government are lying to us? What possible benefits are there to be gained? Don't tell me they are scared to admit they were wrong as science is always striving to better understand our universe.

They faked space travel during the space race, and when they faked it they made fake images of the earth that the public already believed--a spherical earth. Now NASA and other space agencies are just used as a cover for government leaders and the wealthy elite to take tax money from taxpayers. The money allocated to space agencies go into their pockets.

The space race was between 1957 - 1975. Photoshop debuted in 1987.

Explain how the fake images were created.

You do realize that the tools in Photoshop are just digital replications of the tools and processes that have existed in art studios for many years. Slice, erase, burn, sponge, smudge, et cetera.

And how would you use those techniques to modify a photograph in the real world? Without it looking blatantly obvious.

The quality of any art piece is primarily dependent on skill of the artist, just as the quality of any Photoshop piece is dependent on the artist's skill.

This is a valid observation but it fails to answer the question.

How could you apply any of those techniques to a photograph without leaving a trace?

43

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: May 07, 2018, 07:53:22 PM »

After all, a spelling mistake can't be a spelling mistake if it accidentally formed another existent word. That would be mad.

Correct. That would just be incorrect usage of the word or incorrect verb tense (a grammatical error).

You'd certainly do better not to - you seem very intent on making yourself look bad, and that's... well... not a good thing.

No you're just stuck in the past on this one.

Remember this?

But that's not how things work. We move on from past failures, and focus on the present.

That is certainly possible, and is fairly close to my original prediction. I'm still not sure why you'd try to make yourself look less educated by asserting that it was a grammatical error, rather than a simple overlooking. We're all human, you know.

A grammatical error is a grammatical error regardless of how it happened. Instead making excuses I acknowledged the issue and moved on. However, you seem desperate to use this as a way to discredit me or something.

"Oh, you didn't like my first argument from authority? But what about the other two arguments from authority that I also made?" - Yes, congratulations. The same criticism applies.

You do realize this came from your source right?

You asked how I could verify the footage was real. I pointed to examples in your source where the original video was identified.

Are you saying that those aren't the original videos?

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 07, 2018, 07:19:44 PM »

why do you all tell us NASA/Government are lying to us? What possible benefits are there to be gained? Don't tell me they are scared to admit they were wrong as science is always striving to better understand our universe.

They faked space travel during the space race, and when they faked it they made fake images of the earth that the public already believed--a spherical earth. Now NASA and other space agencies are just used as a cover for government leaders and the wealthy elite to take tax money from taxpayers. The money allocated to space agencies go into their pockets.

The space race was between 1957 - 1975. Photoshop debuted in 1987.

Explain how the fake images were created.

You do realize that the tools in Photoshop are just digital replications of the tools and processes that have existed in art studios for many years. Slice, erase, burn, sponge, smudge, et cetera.

And how would you use those techniques to modify a photograph in the real world? Without it looking blatantly obvious.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Testable difference between FE and RE

« on: May 07, 2018, 05:57:15 PM »

Perspective as the explanation for sunsets is another huge one.

I made a thread showing how some aircraft don't follow the same laws of perspective as the sun even though they are on the same plane (ha).

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9557.0

I know there's talk about it elsewhere but I don't remember specific threads.

The problem here is, there's not actual testable differences (at least easy ones anyway) between what FE says we see, and what RE says we see. For most intents and purposed, the FE hypothesis claims we should see exactly what RE says, with little area for testing. The planes you cite in this instance are not far enough away to experience perspective like the sun, and are not bright enough to experience magnification like the sun, according to the FE idea. Essentially, there's nothing about them that means they should experience the FE 'modified perspective' as it were.

Ah I see now, misunderstood the first post.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Testable difference between FE and RE

« on: May 07, 2018, 05:36:21 PM »

Perspective as the explanation for sunsets is another huge one.

I made a thread showing how some aircraft don't follow the same laws of perspective as the sun even though they are on the same plane (ha).

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9557.0

I know there's talk about it elsewhere but I don't remember specific threads.

Edit: not exactly the same plane but above the viewers eye level. But if the sun, 3000 miles up, behaves that way then surely everything below it would do the same?

47

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: May 07, 2018, 01:38:28 PM »

The tense was rather clear in the context.

No it wasn't. That's why you pointed it out as an error and I acknowledged it.

I strongly suspect that you simply failed to spell it correctly

and your spell-checker didn't catch it because it would be a valid spelling in other tenses.

Wow, it's like I don't even have to try!

That said, if it wasn't a typo and you actually consciously used the wrong tense, that only makes your failure more pronounced - why would you want to highlight that?

Because it's possible that it was auto corrected on my phone to use present tense and I never gave it a second pass? I'm not sure what you're looking for here but we're getting off topic.

I gathered from follow up posts that you believe the footage to be CGI

I don't think I've said that, and if I did, it most certainly was not my intention.

Yes which is why the rest of my sentence is important.

...but I'd rather not assume and get a straight answer from you.

Now for my unanswered question in my last post.

Cool, what about the other two quotes?

Please respond.

48

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: May 06, 2018, 11:25:30 PM »

mislead

If you're going to nitpick over words, can you please at least spell them correctly?

The word is spelled correctly (did you click the link?). My error was in using the wrong tense, thus it was a grammatical error not a spelling error.

If you're going to nitpick about someone nitpicking words then make sure you're right.

Look - I get it. You don't like that I used the word "fake", and I did use it somewhat facetiously. I also provided ample clarification of what was meant. If your only issue is that you'd rather use a different word, rest assured that I won't stop you from using it - but I'll also disregard your preference in my own writing.

No my issue is clarification because of your word choice. I gathered from follow up posts that you believe the footage to be CGI but I'd rather not assume and get a straight answer from you.

After all "ooh, conspiracy sense" is about as clear as mud and debating whether it was live or pre-recorded footage doesn't answer the question in the OP - "It cant be CGI its a stream, can it?"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37778973

Nasa has confirmed to the BBC that this is not live video from the International Space Station and said it must be old spacewalk video footage.

It appears that at least part of the the video broadcast on Viral USA was filmed by astronaut Terry Virts during a spacewalk in February 2015.

While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts in 2013.

"NASA said so" is a particularly low standard of evidence.

Cool, what about the other two quotes?

49

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: May 06, 2018, 07:21:52 PM »

If every new RE member you encountered on this forum continued to not understand the mistakes made by a person years ago then you aren't really holding it over their heads, you're stating a fact.

That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

Agreed. This is distracting now.

You pointed out how a live stream wasn't actually live. The word you're looking for is not "fake" but "misleading".

Not at all. Users were deceived into watching pre-recorded footage as live. That's a fabrication, and one with a financial motive. You're welcome to dislike my use of the word, but I was amply clear about what I meant.

Yes mislead, not faked. There was no imitation. It was pre-recorded footage (as you said) that was then streamed live.

Your use of the word makes it seem as if every aspect of the stream is made up. If someone takes content and passes it off as their own or something else entirely they are not faking the content itself, they are misleading those who are unaware.

The footage was very much real footage

How have you established that?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37778973

Nasa has confirmed to the BBC that this is not live video from the International Space Station and said it must be old spacewalk video footage.

It appears that at least part of the the video broadcast on Viral USA was filmed by astronaut Terry Virts during a spacewalk in February 2015.

While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts in 2013.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 06, 2018, 04:58:07 PM »

why do you all tell us NASA/Government are lying to us? What possible benefits are there to be gained? Don't tell me they are scared to admit they were wrong as science is always striving to better understand our universe.

They faked space travel during the space race, and when they faked it they made fake images of the earth that the public already believed--a spherical earth. Now NASA and other space agencies are just used as a cover for government leaders and the wealthy elite to take tax money from taxpayers. The money allocated to space agencies go into their pockets.

The space race was between 1957 - 1975. Photoshop debuted in 1987.

Explain how the fake images were created.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few questions that I want answered by Flat Earthers

« on: May 06, 2018, 04:52:01 PM »

Why does Antarctica get twenty-four hours of sunlight during December if the earth is flat?

Can you verify this? Have you actually gone to Antarctica and observed this? Or are you simply accepting what is told to you?

Can you verify that it hasn't happened? We have video of it occurring. Are you going to go to Antarctica to prove this is wrong or are you simply going to continue denying facts without any evidence?

52

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: May 06, 2018, 04:44:39 PM »

If every RE member demonstrated that then you would have a point.

Nope - this is analogous. You're holding something one person said nearly a decade ago over our heads.

Not exactly.

If every new RE member you encountered on this forum continued to not understand the mistakes made by a person years ago then you aren't really holding it over their heads, you're stating a fact.

Why is the live stream fake? You never answered the question.

I explained what's fake about it in my very first post here. If you're going to lie about what I did and didn't say, we're not going to have a conversation.

No, you didn't actually. Here's your claim again:

In case of OP's particular stream, it's fake. Not in the usual "ooh, conspiracy" sense, but rather a simple matter-of-fact "this is not a live stream" sense.

You pointed out how a live stream wasn't actually live. The word you're looking for is not "fake" but "misleading". The footage was very much real footage and it is being streamed live from YouTube, the content however was just being reused from a previous stream/recording. Thus it is "misleading" not "fake".

Unless you want to make a claim that the footage was fake/CGI (I assume that's what you mean by "ooh, conspiracy"). I'd love to hear you explain that.

53

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: May 06, 2018, 01:15:53 PM »

But I don't know why as it perfectly sums up the reasoning.

We did exactly what you and your kind requested of us - admitted that the reasoning was poor and not representative of FE thought, and removed it until it gets properly rewritten (which is gonna take forever, as you know)

Luckily, the page has been archived

It's no luck that the page has been archived - I went out of my way to ensure that as much of our content as possible is archived at all times, because transparency is one of the principles driving this site. You might notice that our Internet Archive coverage is much broader than that of similarly sized websites, and this is no coincidence.

Finally, by holding this content over our head, even though we made concessions, you reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest. I've once met a RE'er who mistook velocity for acceleration. He didn't realise his error at first, but later on admitted a mistake and we moved on. How would you feel if I tried to inform newcomers that "RE'ers can't even tell the difference between the two concepts"?

If every RE member demonstrated that then you would have a point.

Why is the live stream fake? You never answered the question. Sounds just like your renounced "flat earth is an obvious truth" logic.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 05, 2018, 10:12:22 PM »

You are a bit naive if you think that is how Russia operates. Democratic election? Someone other than Putin having control on things. If Putin said the Earth was flat, the "electorate" would just have to learn to love it....no questions asked.

Do you think Putin has time in his day to go personally inspect the space agency and verify their work? Does he have the expertise to do that? Or the motivation?

Do you think putin has the resources to keep pouring money into a program that produces 0 results?

I wish someone would pay me to do my job and then not question my methods or expect deliverables.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 05, 2018, 12:01:59 PM »

If Nasa has faked space travel, then they have not been to space and (presumably) no one has, therefore there is no control of space, and therefore the world, then why fake space travel?
Space travel would mean actual control of the world, (if you believe the far fetched quote from LBJ), and as no one has been into space, why spend billions of dollars faking something you cannot do, and cannot be achievable, and has not achieved what you thought it might, i.e. control of the world?

They probably believe lying is good enough and that the rest of the world won't call their bluff. So the US has an imaginary power boost to it's military because everyone thinks we're in space, when in reality we're just spending millions of dollars a year to keep up the facade.

Funny, that having fake control over space did nothing to give us control over the world.  North Korea still threatened us with ballistic missiles, Russia hacked our elections, 9/11 still happened (hesistant to mention this one as it can just be written off as another conspiracy). All of these things would be silly thing to do against a nation who controls space and thus the world. And yet other nations continue to disrespect our supposed authority.

Just what kind of military dominance are we paying for?

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Garlic bread and the curve of the earth.

« on: May 03, 2018, 12:32:00 PM »

I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.

You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence - a wide angle lens will exaggerate that effect, not introduce it. Also, how did you establish where the centre of the lens is in this footage?

So it's impossible to take a picture/video of the flat earth because it will always look like a globe?

If that's the case what defining feature from a shot like this would prove a flat earth? I've yet to see any ice walls in experiments like this.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Low flying aircraft, perspective and the horizon

« on: May 02, 2018, 11:32:03 AM »

I'm really trying to understand this FE perspective but it doesn't make sense

There's your problem. FE perspective doesn't make sense and doesn't in any way reflect what we see.

Indeed, the rules are not consistent/universal and do not match what is observed in reality. New rules have to be created for the sun to explain why it is an exception.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Low flying aircraft, perspective and the horizon

« on: May 02, 2018, 03:13:35 AM »

One thing has been really bugging me lately about the FE definition of perspective.

According to FE the sun, 3000 miles above the earth, sets on the horizon due to perspective while staying the same because of some weird magnification rule that only applies to the sun. Trying to wrap my head around this concept I immediately thought of airplanes flying overhead and how they interact with the horizon. According to the rules of FE perspective all aircraft, no matter how high up, should "set" on the horizon instead of disappearing above it.

How is it then that some of the jets in this video seem to do the opposite:



I'm really trying to understand this FE perspective but it doesn't make sense why some things are exempt from certain aspects of perspective while others are not.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: May 01, 2018, 11:51:39 AM »

What is "questionable" about it?

The space travel aspect of it.

Why is space travel "questionable"? What do you believe makes it impossible to go to space with current technology?

And yes I've read the conspiracy page on the wiki. It does not answer this question.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: April 30, 2018, 06:46:41 PM »

It will only be a few more years before the rich will be going to space on a more regular basis.   It will be harder and harder to deny reality when tens if not hundreds of people have been.  Every one of them will have videos and pictures on social media.   

The globe is already an everyday reality for most people, as is space travel. There could be people going back and forth to a Mars colony and there will still be flat Earthers. It's not going away because of proof, because we already have proof.

This brings up a good point.

It was stated elsewhere that there is no NASA conspiracy just a space travel one where they are perpetuating the idea of space travel. It was also stated that employees are not aware that their jobs are meaningless, even though they believe they are doing what they say they are.

If that's the case then where do astronauts ACTUALLY go when rockets are launched? Surely they would know if they were in space or not. If they did know they weren't going to space then what about their families? To my knowledge some of them are "gone" for quite a while. Are they in on it as well?