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.
I’m asking at the individual level, do YOU think Jeranism is spreading good points for FE and why or why not?
I personally don’t. He’s had a history of making some suspiciously bad arguments in favor of FE, while I’ve seen better ones from the wiki here.
Prove that it's real, then? Could be Photoshop, could be anything. But it's definitely CGI. Prove that it's not?
So you're dang right that I don't want you to provide "evidence" of your belief that NASA doesn't fake stuff, because I know for a fact that they do.
How is FE my claim?
Surely all civilizations from the past knew that the Earth is not an absurd spinning ball revolving around the Sun - to insist that it is my claim or somebody else's claim is asanine.
Even now with modern science, you can't come to any conclusion other than the Earth is not that.
So you're dang right that I don't want you to provide "evidence" of your belief that NASA doesn't fake stuff, because I know for a fact that they do.
You also don't need to post a complete copy of every post you're replying to.
Please familiarise yourself with the forum rules.
https://121clicks.com/inspirations/fake-viral-photoshopped-images-that-believed-real
Photoshop is a helluva thing, my guy.
I'm more partial to this version as it distorts the southern hemiplane continents less:
Quote from: Dual1tyNo, I don't need to dance when you tell me to dance. If anything you should be the one dancing for me because you are the reality denier.Nothing personal, though.
If you do not care to support your claims with evidence, nobody cares to pay attention to your claims. If this is how it will be, our conversation will end here because I am not going to drag this on to end up nowhere new.
But are they MY claims, though? No, they're not. They are objective claims which have been discussed hundreds of times before. That's what you're not understanding.Quote from: Everette GrahamQuote from: Dual1tySince I no longer have the video, it can only be an anecdotal point, and that is what it was - I never claimed it was anything beyond an anecdote. You asked "What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?" and that was part of the answer.
You made an assertion that there was a CGI glitch in the video. Even though you cannot find the video now, you still never shared the evidence that the video had a CGI glitch that you had at that time. Or... maybe you had no evidence? Maybe you were only seeing the video from a viewpoint that fits your narrative? Coming up with baseless conclusions about things?
That doesn't compute because back then I didn't have a narrative other than my faith in heliocentrism and the globe. But nowadays I don't have a narrative either, I just go by facts.Quote from: Everette GrahamQuote from: Dual1tyThe point is that's not a good example to debunk the claim that NASA fakes stuff. Like at all. It's not good to use it as evidence that NASA fakes stuff, either. It's just something curious that happened and could be interpreted a certain way, but it's not evidence of anything.
I'm sorry it doesn't fit your standards. I will do better next time, your highness.
I don't think it fits anyone's standards. It's just a video of a little girl talking to Buzz. Where's the evidence about NASA faking stuff? Maybe if Buzz had said "we faked it" or "we can't go there" it would be different.Quote from: Everette GrahamQuote from: Dual1tyYou don't need to tell me "good job", I'm not a dog. But if you think it's an unsupported claim, that's your opinion. I'm not obliged to support my claims every time I make a claim (it's not like Earth not being a spinning globe is my personal subjective claim anyway), and I'm certainly not obliged to provide anything to you specifically just because you have this notion that me not doing that proves your beliefs right somehow.
No, it's not my opinion that your claim was unsupported. You quite literally made the assertion and followed with no evidence. What type of support is that? While you're not obliged to support your claims, you should have 0 expectations for anybody to take your claims seriously without evidence. I do not have the notion that your lack of evidence proves my beliefs. I do, however, strongly believe that your lack of evidence for your claims invalidates them as of this moment.
Again, not my claim.
No, I don't need to dance when you tell me to dance. If anything you should be the one dancing for me because you are the reality denier.
Since I no longer have the video, it can only be an anecdotal point, and that is what it was - I never claimed it was anything beyond an anecdote. You asked "What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?" and that was part of the answer.
The point is that's not a good example to debunk the claim that NASA fakes stuff. Like at all. It's not good to use it as evidence that NASA fakes stuff, either. It's just something curious that happened and could be interpreted a certain way, but it's not evidence of anything.
You don't need to tell me "good job", I'm not a dog. But if you think it's an unsupported claim, that's your opinion. I'm not obliged to support my claims every time I make a claim (it's not like Earth not being a spinning globe is my personal subjective claim anyway), and I'm certainly not obliged to provide anything to you specifically just because you have this notion that me not doing that proves your beliefs right somehow.
Yeah, but I don't need to support it, do I? Not considering all the info that, again, is out there already. All you have to do is remove your cognitive bias brain implant and take a peek at all the available info, not believe me because contrary to what you're saying I don't expect anyone to believe anything I say - that's not why I'm here. If anything, I'm here to tell you to not believe anything anyone says (particularly government agencies like NASA), but only if you want to because I can't force you.
No, I don't have the CGI glitch video, it's long gone from my computer and more likely than not that YouTube video is gone too due to censorship.
Really, that clip of the little girl with Buzz? That's your example? I think you can do better than that if you really believe every ounce of skepticism regarding NASA is unjustified and every piece of evidence that NASA lies is "easily debunked".
Ultimately, the #1 PROOF (not evidence) that NASA is faking stuff is that Earth is not a spinning globe. Since you claim to be open-minded - are you open-minded to that one too? I doubt it!
Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they fake almost everything?
I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.
But obviously if you're a staunch globe believer / NASA lover you will see that and shrug it off, or try to come up with an alternate "logical" explanation which supports a "not CGI" narrative, even though NASA itself provided no statement about it.
That's just one little thing of many. I really can't be bothered to explain why NASA shouldn't be trusted or all the stuff they've faked, especially considering all the info that's already out there about it. It's one of those things that if you know, you know. A really obvious one is the Moon landing, but you probably believe that one too, huh? Even though most people who don't believe it are actually globe believers. But there's a lack of those type of globe believers here, I noticed. Coincidence? Of course not.
NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?
"The same perspective effect". It's already been shown in this thread that it's not. They are in fact different perspective geometries.
The image is somewhat inaccurate. The Sun is not brighter near the edges. The Sun is actually darker near the edges: A long standing mystery in Astronomy.
FE postulates that the celestial bodies we see are projections upon the atmolayer. See this page and section of the Wiki which describes the magnification of the Sun's image upon the atmolayer -
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Sun_Brightness_InconsistentQuoteSun Brightness Inconsistent
Additionally, it should be noted that the sun appears to be inconsistently bright. This is curious, since in the Round Earth model the sun is an object where every point from half of the spherical sun's surface is reaching the eye of the observer. One should expect to see all parts of the sun's body with equal intensity, or with increased intensity at the edges, as intensity is defined by accumulated photons, and the number of miles per square arcsecond increases in those regions.
Find a photo of a Solar Eclipse, which are often taken through a solar filter, and then modify the brightness and contrast settings in order to bring out the areas of the image which are the brightest:
Compare that to the hotspotting seen in a projector's image on a screen:
Source: Hotspotting or brightness inhomogeneity
The hotspot seen in the sun may suggest a projection upon the atmoplane. Projections, such as from a projector shining on a movie screen, tend to have hotspots in them.
Inconsistent Brightness: A Round Earth Mystery
The inconsistent brightness is a problem in RET, and it is well admitted. Astronomers find difficulty in explaining how it works to have outer layers of the sun significantly dimmer than other layers.
Astronomers had to make the surface of the sun, the photosphere, very cold—at only about 6000 degrees Kelvin, compared to the much hotter atmosphere of the sun called the Solar Corona that is about several million degrees Kelvin, which is seen as a wispy aura around the sun seen at Total Solar Eclipse or with a coronagraph; and also significantly different compared to 15 million degrees Kelvin for the Solar Core (Archive). In addition, astronomers had to make the outer cool photosphere layer transparent or semi-transparent so that the radiation from the core could pass through it to the observer.
Article: Solving the Mystery of the Sun's Hot Atmosphere:
“ The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics. ”
“ Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense! ”
—Dr. David H. Brooks, George Mason University
A projection of light would have the effect of inconsistent brightness, with a hot spot at the center, like the hotspot projection example.
The dark edges of the sun can also be seen in this historical reference:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun#Sun_SphericalQuoteThe Story of the Stars
New Descriptive Astronomy
Joel Dorman Steele, Ph.D.,
The Solar System p.44
“ Spots Apparently Change Their Speed and Form as They Pass Across the Disk — A spot is seen on the eastern limb; day by day it progresses, With a gradually-increasing rapidity, until it reaches the center; it then Slowly loses its rapidity, and finally disappears on the western limb. The diagram illustrates the apparent change which takes place in the form. Suppose at first the spot is of an oval shape; as it approaches the center it apparently widens and becomes circular. Having passed that point, it becomes more and more oval until it disappears. ”
Okay, here's the photo i'm referring to that is pretty common in space media:
Earth Rise
You can read more about "Earth Rise" Pictures here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise
As you can see, the earth is much smaller compared to the moon as opposed to the very large earth compared to the moon in the new DSCVR shot.
Stack, using your image (which is great btw) it looks like if somebody was standing on the moon, they would be dwarfed by a very large earth which you don't see in the "Earth Rise" picture above.
Astro it's definitely possible that the whole thing could be photoshopped to some level.
Dunkin, I think you have the most reasonable counterargument... Using a long focal length lens or something similar you can produce an image like this based on research.
Regarding the 1 million Mile Mark, I am more interested in showing you the relative distance Dscvr is from the earth and moon - like Stack's image illustrates.
Any of the above theories have some elements of truth but none can be ruled out I feel.
Hi All,
It's been a while. I couldn't help but take this most recent photo of the dark side of the moon by NASA's DSCOVR satellite very seriously.
This satellite orbits more than a million miles above earth's surface and this is there first public photo. What's strikes me most is the apparent size of the Moon and Earth. Most photos from the moon show the earth as a small dot. Obviously, within this photo the moon looks smaller and nearer to earth. I think this fits well within the Flat Earth notion of the cosmos.
Here's a good article by HuffPost with more details above DSCOVR: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nasa-photo-moon-dark-side_n_55c23d3ae4b0138b0bf4abb5
Except it doesn't disappear from view in only a select few regions, the ISS disappears from view while above the horizon (when obstructed) everywhere that it appears above the horizon.You are saying once it disappears from your view, it is also invisible to everyone else?
Come now...
Your horizon isn't everyones' horizon.
I wrote it could have been occulted by clouds due to an initial misunderstanding of what the OP was stating.Observing the ISS is very easy as long as you are in the right place. There are numerous websites that will tell you when and where exactly to look for the ISS. If you are in a location on earth where observing the ISS is impossible, you can simply look for smaller satellites. Though this is harder to do, it is still very possible.I still have no idea why this is so difficult.
Things in the sky come and go from view.
It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
I think the question is how do these ISS trackers know exactly when it will be viewable by you in your location, when it will come into view and when it will leave your view? And you're saying that it's clouds that determine this. So how do these trackers know when there will be clouds obscuring your view?
And just as a side note, the trackers are predicated on the ISS' 90 minute orbit around a globe earth, so it is somewhat relevant to the shape of the world.
Regardless, the comings and goings of overhead objects circling over our heads isn't based on the shape of the earth. The trackers can predict this just like someone can say what time the sun will appear.
The question was " how does FE explain satellites suddenly disappearing as they move through the night sky."It could have been occulted by a cloud lying between its location and the sun.THe object could have passed through a section of the sky at an angle causing it to be occulted by another object in the sky.
That's quite literally what we observe. The Earth's shadow is cast onto the ISS, and that is why it disappears while above the horizon. As far as it being occulted by ANOTHER object, I'd like to know what object you're referring to. Remember that it needs to be big enough to make the ISS completely disappear while above the horizon.
I see shiny airplanes flying overhead all the time, then they are no longer shiny.
A cloud predicted by NASA?
https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/home.cfm
You may not like my answer.
Regardless, the Sun does not constantly illuminate the entirety of the flat earth plane.
NASA would hopefully know when their materials would disappear from the view of persons in select regions.
THe object could have passed through a section of the sky at an angle causing it to be occulted by another object in the sky.
In Flat Earth (FE) theory, the Sun is not moving in a circle around the surface of the Earth. Instead, the Sun is thought to be a celestial body that is fixed in one stationary position near the North Pole. This means that when satellites or other objects move into the shadow of the Earth, they are blocked from direct sunlight and can suddenly disappear from view, as you experienced. This phenomenon is known as an eclipse, and it occurs due to the way the Sun's light interacts with the Earth's atmosphere, which is why the ISS will eventually reappear after a few minutes when it moves back into direct sunlight.
