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 - jcks

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 06:40:34 PM »
You can reverse image search, you can search for  terms such as NASA Earthrise Fake. Easy to figure out. No excuses for bad research and bad conclusions.

Why would I need to do that when you already provided the image? I tested your evidence as is. Your source was flawed and I suspect you knew that.

You have also failed to address the point of the *actual* original image (unaltered contrast) not showing any signs of the square around the earth after overexposing it.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 05:55:11 PM »
No Tom, you presented two different versions of the same photo in a 'meme' that said heres a photo, heres that same photo with exposure upped. But those images weren't the same version. It's fair enough in the end you provided the actual sources of the images which were shown to be photoshopped, at which point, along with the source images, is an explanation of the edit.

I didn't fail at that, you failed to provide the original source image. The meme was in fact faulty... That's why I asked you to cite the source which you did. You can't say "haha you noticed there was a difference with the two images being claimed to be the same image, so you aren't qualified!!!"  ::)

Anyway I'm on you side here Tom, I'm willing to analyse these images with you but as I stated before, you need to provide the original images, not faulty memes.

When I posted the image I heard calls that I didn't look at the original image, and that if I was a better researcher I would see that it was clearly faked.

No. You are the bad researchers. Those NASA analysis' are not faked. The original image shows that it was edited. The embarrassment is on your end, for talking out of your rear without researching the matter for truth, which is what the defense of RET amounts to. You can easily research these claims to find out the matter for yourself. That meme is not the only discussion of this. But you would rather deny and make excuses and accusations without demonstrating those accusations.

Now you claim, with the same level of supposition, that the photo was edited, but that it was honestly edited, despite you not having done the proper amount of legwork to demonstrate that. This is why you guys cannot be trusted at all. You do not properly research your claims and make random statements without demonstrating the knowledge to back up those statements.

That's because you didn't initially present the original image, you presented a facebook image that had a faulty before/after premise. Only after that image was shown to be false did you present the image you ACTUALLY were talking about, which itself was shown not to even be the original.

You are being deliberately disingenuous.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 04:26:40 PM »
NASA relseased the image and then edited it out, as they always do when their fraud is exposed. It doesn't appear in all images.

Whoever put together that image did not indicate which version of the image they used for the left hand version. I find that it is more embarrassing that you did research the matter and find the source of the image.

Their fraud is still on the WayBackMachine, and is easily found.

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu is an official LROC website. NASA's logo is at the bottom of the page.

Image Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20170422035122/http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/ptif/download_file?fName=Earth_and_Limb_M1199291564L_color_2stretch_20151211_141513.tif

Warning: Very Large Image

I downloaded the image and adjusted the levels in Paint.net and...



This is the image after they had already manipulated it to include the color version of the globe. Doing this on the original image where the contrast is unaltered shows no square around the earth.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 02:04:30 PM »
I did it too, looks like your proof of a fake image was faked.



I got similar results.



Seems to me this comparison is false.

EDIT: Just to humor myself I made the offset levels similar to what was in the "exposed" photo. The black levels in the background are impossible unless you specifically masked out that section to make it appear as if it were a cut out.


5
...the geometry of a flat plane
Which brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.

Hi Pete

I keep seeing you and other people do this. I'm actually on your side on this. Note that I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I'd rather discuss with you your thoughts about this subject, instead of what I think are your thoughts on the subject. The latter gets us nowhere, as we're seeing in this thread. Since there are many models (or no models apparently, in some people's view) let's just focus on you, then. I think that will be the most productive use of our time here.

On what model or, system of measurements, do you base your position that the earth is flat? That's what I was getting at anyways in my first post where I asked what would be an appropriate correction to CHL's assumptions, so let's just jump to that end and discuss it.

If you have time (I know you said you're a busy guy, so am I), could you go over some of the wave tops? I don't need supreme detail - though an idea of some of the maths involved would be a nice addition. For example, if I were making some claim based on arc lengths I'd bring up trigonometry but save the details of S=rθ

NOTE: My arc length bit is just a "for instance."  I just want to provide an idea of the level of detail (not much) that I'm looking for as a stepping off point for our conversation.

JQV

Just so you know Pete doesn't normally take a stance on these issues. As such it can be frustratingly difficult to get a straight answer from him. After all you can't be wrong if you don't commit to anything.

6
I thought the sunset explanation was just perspective. How waves lower than your eye level could hide a sun 3000 miles in the air is anyone's guess.

7
I don't agree with that at all. He died along the way.

He didn't die along the way. He was very much alive when they picked him up.

He died later at the hospital I believe.

8
Take a cup of water, start driving, stay at a constant speed. Does the water fall out

Hahaha it would if I was doing donuts! And we supposedly live on a sphere, not in a cup... so yeah if the water was around the outside of the cup, I'd be soaking!

So does this prove gravity? Or Centripetal Force?

Does it though?



No but that wasn't the point.

You're claiming water would fly out of control in a cup spinning rapidly in circles. Based on this video what are thoughts now? Have you done any experiments to verify your claim?

I haven't so that's why I'm asking.

9
Take a cup of water, start driving, stay at a constant speed. Does the water fall out

Hahaha it would if I was doing donuts! And we supposedly live on a sphere, not in a cup... so yeah if the water was around the outside of the cup, I'd be soaking!

Does it though?



10
You have experience of receiving a paycheck ... over and over and over again, its not blind faith to expect it to come again. When you have never experienced something yourself, like space travel ... you have to have faith to believe it. I dont know how to say that any simpler....

You’re still confusing two separate conversations. Here's what you said:

Quote
The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.

We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.

Having faith in something (science) does not make it a religion.

11

The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.

We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.

Faith does not imply religion.

I have faith my next paycheck will come the same time it always does. Does this mean I worship my job?

They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?

Have you ever seen any of your internal working organs? Your brain?

This line of thinking makes no sense. You assume because you have not seen it, it cannot exist.

The paycheck analogy is just stupid, really really stupid.

So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.

How so? According to your post above if you have faith in something then it's basically a religion. Are you saying that's not what you meant?

There's a difference between blind faith and faith. What you are describing is blind faith.

Exactly its blind faith to believe in what you are told about space from people 'smarter" than you, but not blind faith to expect a paycheck that you have experienced every month. What's difficult to understand about that?

That's not what I'm referencing. I'm talking about your claim that science is a religion because it takes faith. Just because you have faith in something does not make it a religion, hence my paycheck analogy. You're confusing that point with space travel which is another discussion.

12

The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.

We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.

Faith does not imply religion.

I have faith my next paycheck will come the same time it always does. Does this mean I worship my job?

They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?

Have you ever seen any of your internal working organs? Your brain?

This line of thinking makes no sense. You assume because you have not seen it, it cannot exist.

The paycheck analogy is just stupid, really really stupid.

So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.

How so? According to your post above if you have faith in something then it's basically a religion. Are you saying that's not what you meant?

There's a difference between blind faith and faith. What you are describing is blind faith.

13

The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.

We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.

Faith does not imply religion.

I have faith my next paycheck will come the same time it always does. Does this mean I worship my job?

They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?

Have you ever seen any of your internal working organs? Your brain?

This line of thinking makes no sense. You assume because you have not seen it, it cannot exist.

14
I never claimed NASA bought SpaceEx ... just I think Elon might be being propped up as some kind of cool independent iron man rich guy type of person as NASA's credibility has taken a bit of a nose dive...

You said you believe SpaceX was being propped up as "independent" and "private" implying they are neither. If they aren't private then what are they?

15
Why are you bringing up a film? Makes zero logical sense.

Because anything can be faked

No, it cannot.

Look on YouTube, and you can find amateur video from folks in California who saw for themselves the final burn of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy / Tesla, that which took it out of Earth orbit and out toward Mars. How would anyone fake this?

Other amateur observers tracked it once it had left, and imaged it with their telescopes once it had passed the Moon. Again, how would you fake this such that at least two independent observers came out with imagery of it?

Who are these "amateurs"? You sure these people are legit and not involved?

You're starting to enter conspiracy theory territory now. You'll need to continue making outlandish claims with no evidence to support your assertion that space travel is fake instead of simply accepting that something has gone into space.

Consider this: why would SpaceX feel the need to put on such an extravagant show? What monetary gain did they receive from this and future related projects? They can't funnel tax payer money like NASA since they are a private entity.

So what do they get out of all this?

Look into SpaceEx, Tesla was a company on its arse, until out of nowhere they get a couple of billion contract ... me thinks they are being propt up as an "independent" "private" company ... seeing as NASA's credibility is a bit shifty these days ... I don't trust Elon ... creating Paypal dont make you a scientist!  ::)

SpaceX, according to their site, was founded in 2002. The NASA contract was done in 2016 with the intent of them launching a satellite in 2021. They did not buy or create SpaceX they hired them for a job. That's what it means to be contracted.

16
Why are you bringing up a film? Makes zero logical sense.

Because anything can be faked

No, it cannot.

Look on YouTube, and you can find amateur video from folks in California who saw for themselves the final burn of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy / Tesla, that which took it out of Earth orbit and out toward Mars. How would anyone fake this?

Other amateur observers tracked it once it had left, and imaged it with their telescopes once it had passed the Moon. Again, how would you fake this such that at least two independent observers came out with imagery of it?

Who are these "amateurs"? You sure these people are legit and not involved?

You're starting to enter conspiracy theory territory now. You'll need to continue making outlandish claims with no evidence to support your assertion that space travel is fake instead of simply accepting that something has gone into space.

Consider this: why would SpaceX feel the need to put on such an extravagant show? What monetary gain did they receive from this and future related projects? They can't funnel tax payer money like NASA since they are a private entity.

So what do they get out of all this?

17
Thats a massive schedule list ... but it doesn't really prove anything. Have rockets been viewed going all the way up into space? Does their trajectory form an arc and plunge into the sea?

Yes they have.

Have you seen the falcon heavy live stream?

18
Except that's not the scenario at all.

Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake

Actually that's a negative claim. Pete is claiming that something didn't happen.

He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.

19

Absolutely not.

Consider the following:

Bobby: I ate a ham sandwich for dinner last night. Here is a picture of me eating a ham sandwich. Prove me wrong.

Pete: I don't have to prove you wrong at all.

*Pete walks away.*

This is a completely valid response. Completely. The burden is not then on Pete to prove that Bobby did not eat a ham sandwich for dinner.  Pete does not have to rebut Bobby's evidence.

Except that's not the scenario at all.

Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: May 19, 2018, 03:30:20 PM »
I have been assuming that your camera is leveled exactly horizontally here. If the camera were fixed in a horizontal position the pixels need to match up in frame to ensure that the center of the lens was in line with the objects. You are right. I have been assuming that the camera was exactly horizontal. I was wrong to assume too much. If you are just tilting the camera willy nilly, there could be several issues with the leveling, enough that a pixel count is insufficient.

How am I supposed to know how much you are tilting your camera at and the altitude of the center of the lens?

Regardless, the illustration I have provided shows that this is a very sensitive experiment.

So I guess this experiment is no longer valid then?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >