1

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Gamergate!

« on: September 05, 2014, 06:55:23 PM »

Yes, how dare she be victimized.  How selfish of her.

Being a victim doesn't make her a good person.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constellations and their respective hemispheres

« on: August 27, 2014, 03:55:50 PM »

What you would need to penetrate the "atmolayer" or whatever it's called is a telescope with infrared capabilities. IR has a longer wavelength that can pass through dense clouds and atmosphere where visible light cannot.

I can assure you infrared does the opposite of what you seem to think it does. Nearly everything absorbs IR radiation, it doesn't get as far as visible light through most substances, including the atmoplane.

Which is why sunsets appear blue, because all the longer wavelength light, like reds and IR, are absorbed by the air. 

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do FEers mean by "theory"

« on: August 11, 2014, 05:37:58 PM »

Everything we know could be wrong, or we could just be misunderstanding things: like gravity. That's why it's a theory.

The moment you start calling gravity a law is the moment science stops making progress.

That is you misunderstanding the part of gravity that is called a law. Only the mathematical formulation of G•(m1•m2/r^2) is a law. It is extremely accurate to precise tolerances and that will never change. That is the only part that is a law. If it does change, you will likely see a lot of sheepish atheists going to mass.

Well said. Keep up the good work.

@Thork and Vx: Science is fine with "everything" could be wrong. Rowbotham and the other zetetics though insist that their conclusions are beyond contradiction. Whether something could be wrong does not make it a theory. Science considers everything open to review, revision, and reconsideration. That's a philosophy Rowbotham and the rest of the zetetics would do well to embrace.

Exactly. "Everything you know could be wrong" is just empty rhetoric. Show me how what I know is wrong, and provide a better explanation. Anything less is just smug pseudoscientific posturing.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gecko Sex Satellite

« on: July 26, 2014, 12:13:08 AM »

The five geckos are in space for a study of the effect of weightlessness on their sex lives and development.

Wait a minute. 5? What kind of a sicko puts 5 up there? One of the geckos is going to be left out. I hope it is that gecko that has started breaking things.

Why would one be left out?

Because all geckos are monogamous, heterosexual, God-fearing creatures.

5

Arts & Entertainment / Re: It's official - Hollywood has run out of movie ideas

« on: July 22, 2014, 09:26:08 PM »

It seems to me like someone takes a bit of a risk on a certain type of movie, it catches on (expected or not) and Hollywood proceeds to make it over and over again until the genre bombs and everyone says "omg totally didn't see that coming".  But yeah, I find your argument pretty funny given the constant success of the Transformers movies. The new one was utter shit but still made megabucks, and it's totally the fault of the consumer. Michael Bay is just giving people what they want.

If that's true then why do these huge blockbusters spend so much on marketing? I'm guessing that the people who actually want to sit and get pummeled by non-stop explosions for 2 hours are actually in the minority, and the rest just get sucked in by all the hype.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Dealing with Conspiracy Theories

« on: July 21, 2014, 06:56:06 PM »

Vauxhall, are you saying there were astronauts that jumped off the Moon?

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Dealing with Conspiracy Theories

« on: July 21, 2014, 05:10:00 PM »

I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?

Real strong argument there.

No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?

Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.

That is not what he said Tom.  You should address what is actually written. 

Technically I think Tom is committing the genetic fallacy by saying that information that comes from a "children's author" is not strong, but regardless, it is a fruitless comment to engage in since it is mostly content free.

Tom is a genetic fallacy

In response to the subject of missing tracks it was stated that the children's author Phil Plat has destroyed all moon landing hoax allegations. It is implied "Phil Plat busted all of this already".

If so, then it should be easy to look at his work which addresses the subject of missing tracks.

If not, and his analysis was incomplete, the burden is on Gulliver and others to bust it.

I can agree to that, but you keep mentioning "children's author" pejoratively, which is pretty weak.

Agreed, and it is the genetic fallacy. It's like prefacing every mention of Richard Feynman with "bongo player" or "safe cracker" or "sketch artist".

8

Arts & Entertainment / Re: FES Book Club

« on: July 18, 2014, 07:26:00 PM »

Just started reading this classic:

squick

Christ, I think I remember some kids in grade 6 telling me about this book. I never read it and I assumed they were just full of shit.

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: July 09, 2014, 05:06:56 AM »

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.

Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?

I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.

Did you forget this already?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61615.msg1614468#msg1614468

I cropped myself out of the photo because I didn't want to reveal my face. I request you take that down, please. I will report you.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: July 08, 2014, 10:20:46 PM »

Okay, so then you think the space program is real?

That is irrelevant. That is not what we are discussing.

http://i.imgur.com/BRDMamu.jpg

What is on the right side of the smaller moon and why is it there? That is what we are discussing.

Maybe you should ask the person who made the image:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2010/2710.html

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: July 08, 2014, 04:55:57 AM »

"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"

It really can't get much clearer than that.

Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?

Are you suggesting it's possible to make a lens that causes the stars to appear where they should according to some predetermined map?

Yes. They have them already. They are called kaleidoscopes.

If I bought a telescope that acted like a kaleidoscope I would take it back to the store and get a refund.

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice

« on: July 08, 2014, 03:19:28 AM »

"How did you make your telescope? What sort of materials were used? Did you buy them pre-made?"

It really can't get much clearer than that.

Are you having a difficult time understanding any of these questions?

Are you suggesting it's possible to make a lens that causes the stars to appear where they should according to some predetermined map?

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Kendall Jones

« on: July 04, 2014, 07:28:40 PM »

I like how at the end, he just comes right out and says that there's absolutely no grey area, it's either "suicidal nihilist" or "pro life zealot". It's no secret that polarizing crap like this gets good ratings, or page views, or whatever, but it's still nauseating to me. It's also funny how he seems to have zero insight into human nature. Of course people get excited about seeing a hunter gloating over a dead animal, as compared to faceless statistics on abortion. People are wired to have a stronger reaction to individuals. If you ran the "Kendall Jones loves killing lions" story alongside a story where a particular child was killed, that would be a fair comparison, and obviously the child would get a bigger reaction.

I'd say this Matt Walsh guy needs to pull his head out of his ass, if I didn't already think this article is just another case of calculated pandering to the right. Bleh. I feel like I need to take a shower now.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: House speaker seeks to sue president

« on: June 26, 2014, 05:19:58 PM »

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/25/boehner-suing-obama/11355639/

I thought lawsuits were personal.  Like when no crime has technically been committed but one party feels they need some kind of justice.  Does this mean that Boehner is just being pissy?

He's a pissy Boehner. That is never a good thing.

15

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 25, 2014, 06:12:31 PM »

Facemasks are of the future.

Solar Freakin' Facemasks

Million dollar idea right there

2 mil at least

16

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 25, 2014, 05:35:14 PM »

Facemasks are of the future.

Solar Freakin' Facemasks

17

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 24, 2014, 11:53:06 PM »

It depends on what you are arguing. The question "If x is so great why hasn't it been done before" is a good starting point. If taken seriously, the answers will help determine whether it's a good idea to try "x" or not.

In the case of Solar Roadways, answers like "because glass is too slippery, will get scratched, etc" and "because the solar panels don't generate nearly enough power" highlight the problems right away. It may not be an argument itself, but not asking that question at the beginning of a project would be short sighted.

18

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 24, 2014, 10:08:59 PM »

Likewise, if Xbox One is so great, why was it never created until now? It's a terrible argument.

Except Solar Roadways isn't the Xbox One. It's more like the Ford Nucleon: something we have the technology for but nobody asked for and is a potential disaster.

19

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 24, 2014, 09:04:49 PM »

Over the centuries, a variety of materials have been used to make roads: dirt, gravel, cobble stones, bricks, concrete, asphalt, etc.  If glass is such a wonderful material, then why hasn't anyone used it to make roads before now?

Here's a better question:
Why did they use all those other materials?  If asphalt is so great, why didn't they just start with that and skip the other crap?

If Xbox One is so great (I don't know if it is, I still have a 360), why did they bother with the Atari 2600?

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do YOU believe in Communism?

« on: June 24, 2014, 08:02:43 PM »

To be fair Capitalism's problems are different from Communism's. I'll take having to choose from 50 different kinds of bread to not having any for a week.