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 - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 345  Next >
No, my argument is that if NASA were faking it then they would have to do a very good job of catching and fixing their mistakes before they make into their public archive lest they get caught and shut down.
That is not functionally different from my interpretation of your argument. Crucially, nothing you said supports this version either. The core issue remains: you make boisterous claims about the quality of outcome, but your best supporting argument is "teehee they'd probably try, right?"

Substantiate or GTFO.

If that's how you feel, then feel free to not waste your time and just don't engage.
No, markjo. When I suggested we release you from Purgatory, that was conditional on you not returning to your old posting habits in the upper. If you can't behave, you won't post. You've already had your final warning on this issue, so let's call this a polite reminder.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 02, 2023, 10:37:14 PM »
Because even "shockingly incompetent" people often go to great lengths try to avoid getting caught, especially when getting caught can have some pretty significant ramifications.
That is perfectly consistent with what I'm proposing, yes. Could you please not waste our time with obvious statements that don't advance your position? I know it's indefensible, but at least try.

To remind you: your argument is that if NASA were faking it, they necessarily must successfully do so without making mistakes. Whether or not they're trying to avoid mistakes is entirely immaterial.

Are you suggesting that doesn't care about getting caught?
No. I am suggesting nothing more than what I said. If you have nothing to say on that subject, please consider saying nothing.

It seems that NASA must not only be "shockingly incompetent" about letting obvious mistakes get into their archives, but also shockingly apathetic about getting caught.
Markjo, how things "seem" to you is really close to the bottom of just about everyone's priority list. Your feelsie-wheelsies just don't belong in a serious discussion. Either acknowledge that the logic of your claim is poor even by your usual standards, or present an argument to defend it. No more pointless deflections.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 02, 2023, 02:32:15 PM »
But the key question is whether they really are spotting things that are indicators of fakery or a conspiracy.
Obviously, I agree. However, that has nothing to do with my objection to markjo's argument. "If NASA were faking it, they'd be doing it better" just doesn't gel at all. You could make this argument ad infinitum. Every time someone spots a mistake you can just go "well, if it was a rEaL conspiracy, they just wouldn't have made the mistake!" This relies on the assumption that malicious actors are somehow perfect. This assumption is not substantiated, and, in my opinion, defies common sense and every precedent we know of.

This is irrespective of whether NASA are faking it.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 02, 2023, 11:47:17 AM »
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 would be mighty consistent with most conspiracy theories that have been successfully uncovered, though. "The world" is incompetent - this goes both for conspirators and outside observers. 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"?

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: June 02, 2023, 08:25:57 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.

Markjo, you forget that most people in this world are shockingly incompetent. If mediocrity works for their goals, why do you assume they'd strive for perfection?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 25, 2023, 10:16:48 AM »
You're suggesting I was intending to mislead? Really?
Yes, and I explained to you why I think so. You're encouraged to reply.

What was I trying to do
Yes, that is the question I asked you. I'd be very keen to hear your answer.

But sure, I don't know for a fact. So yeah, my bad, I don't actually know one way or another.

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.
It was pointless, inconsequential, and unimportant, and therefore you fought back. Even if you don't see why that would be suspicious, you must see why it would come across as strange.

I'm not at all convinced that the notion is "incredibly popular", or even popular at all. It sounds to me like you're mistaking seeing lots of posts on social media expressing that viewpoint for the viewpoint being common.

Please remember that SoMe is extremely unrepresentative of the population, with some voices being artificially amplified or suppressed. This isn't even necessarily intentional - it's just that emotive posting attracts responses, and the recommendation algorithms like engagement.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 24, 2023, 09:31:44 PM »
I think a better question would be why you are obsessing over this tiny detail when you've just agreed it doesn't matter.
Because that's how the seed of disinformation* is planted, textbook-style. 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. It rightly arouses suspicion, for the first time ever, around your intentions.

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. After all, the issue is unimportant, and you are not invested in it. But you can't do that. You have to fight back, you always do.

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.

* - Since I expect you to abuse terminology here, as you've been known to do so before, I'm providing a reference for the words "disinformation" and "misinformation" in advance - I mean them as described in this article.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 15, 2023, 05:31:29 PM »
why on earth would he appeal? this judgement is a huge win for trump.
Because he could win again - don't forget, the goal is to make us tired of winning.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 15, 2023, 11:38:48 AM »
Then it's not mansplaining, is it?
It most certainly is. The word "mansplaining" originated as a gender-specific term more than a decade ago, but it has since evolved to represent a general attitude - that of an arrogant person confidently explaining something they have little knowledge about to someone of equal of greater level of expertise than themselves, presenting themselves as superior to the mansplainee. It's still commonly associated to men talking down to someone (n.b., not women), but it's hardly a requirement.

Now, you're gonna go on a truly heart-tugging story about your iNtEnTiOnS, I know; but you simply have to work on how you present yourself. If it talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, etc., etc.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Eurovision
« on: May 15, 2023, 10:38:20 AM »
You can fuck off with that shit. My gender and yours are irrelevant.
Indeed, your mansplaining has extremely little to do with your gender, and extremely much to do with your attitude.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: May 12, 2023, 07:17:15 PM »
There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.

Such as?
This is a very interesting question, and it's a shame our resident sceptic didn't find it in himself to answer.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 10, 2023, 07:30:59 PM »
It is perfectly possible that Trump is a despicable person and a serial abuser, and that the American justice system is nonsensical at the same time. Countering Rushy's point of "the system is insane" with "but Trump bad" is not really addressing what he's saying.

AATW - your proposed system has a critical flaw. If we accept that Trump has grossly misconducted himself around women in the past, and that that is sufficient evidence for future accusations, then any woman aged 40 and up should be able to accuse him of rape and get, say, $10-$20k automatically per accusation. After all, he's done bad things before, so why would we doubt every single accusation?

Which, ngl, is kinda based from my radical anti-capitalist perspective, but I'm not sure I'm brave enough to propose it publicly as you did. I suspect it would cause any proponent not to be taken very seriously.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: May 08, 2023, 09:17:28 AM »
if they were just making this stuff up, they wouldn't have to wait another 2 or 3 years to actually work out how to build something.
As the resident expert in epistemology, how have you established that they have to wait 2 or 3 years, as opposed to simply deciding to?

You'd do well to learn about the Flat Earth Theory before coming here and claiming you're ready to resolve the debate once and for all. Your idea is not original, and by acting the way you are, you're showing a lot of disrespect to both sides of the discussion.

I think that's a very cool idea! I don't immediately have any suggestions, but I'd be very keen to see how it develops!

So your position is that a random guy on the web messing around with autocad and some eclipse data has single-handedly debunked centuries of heliocentric geometry in about 90 minutes, ergo, the earth is flat? And nary a Nobel to show for it? I guess I forgot that everything on the internet is true and should be taken unquestionably as such. Compelling argument.

I suppose equally compelling, the flat earth model doesn't even have a usable, relevant map, let alone work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had thousands of years to make it work.
Yes, I suppose humans don't usually look at where and when the predictability of an eclipse totality will occur. A truly novel approach. Perhaps people just randomly show up somewhere snd get lucky...

And I'm guessing you have verified this random guy's findings as well. Especially comparing it to your flat earth map...Oh wait, that's right, there's no such thing as a flat earth map. I wonder how you lot get yourselves and your stuff from point A to point B without getting lost. I guess it's just by happenstance.
Stack, take your crap where it belongs, unless you're requesting another vacation. This is the nicest I'll ever be to you on this subject.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do liberal elites worship Satan?
« on: April 29, 2023, 05:29:07 PM »
As a member of the liberal elite, I confirm that we all worship Satan. This is not a secret, you could have just asked.

I'll have you know I am functionally illiterate and have no idea how IRC works as I use discord.
Instead of whining about the fact that you don't know something, just Google it. There is no need to repeatedly spam this thread with "hurrrr idk how IRC works"

Globe model wants you to believe that when you're 2 km underground you're 2 km closer to the center of the Earth, but there's no such thing as the center of the globe Earth because the Earth isn't a globe. So in reality what you're doing when you go underground is getting further away from the center of whatever is causing gravity, which explains the decrease in weight. Easily shown and understood with a simple sketch:

Disclaimer: I am not a Round Earther, but I don't think you're representing RE correctly here. In their model, gravitation is not caused by some "element", but rather the entirety of the Earth. Matter pulls other matter towards itself. So, as you go undeground, there is a little bit less Earth underneath you, and a little more Earth above you. All of that still exhibits a pull on you, but not all of it points downward.

It's important that we don't strawman each other in these discussions - what's the point of disproving a RE model that no RE'er believes? We don't like it when they do it to us - let's be better.

A more pressing question for the FE community would be: 'why does g vary at all - surely it should be the same everywhere if any of the FE models are correct?'.
Similarly, this is an intentional misrepresentation of FE. If you can't have this discussion without fairly comparing the sides, consider not participating.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 345  Next >