The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Media => Topic started by: Tron on February 09, 2022, 08:16:57 PM
-
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/DlSEkdq.png)
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
-
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.
Why wouldn't it look like that from 1 million miles out?
(https://i.imgur.com/x603IHG.jpg)
-
I couldn't help but take this most recent photo of the dark side of the moon by NASA's DSCOVR satellite very seriously.
So there is absolutely no chance that this sort of photo could have been produced by Photoshop? Take an image of the Earth taken from space by a satellite and then paste a photo of a grey disk that looks kind of like the Moon and plant it on top of the image of Earth. You could then resize the image of the Moon to whatever you wanted.
I couldn't help but take this most recent photo of the dark side of the moon
Don't you mean 'far side' of the Moon because through the course of a month the entire Moons surface gets illuminated by sunlight.
Most photos from the moon show the earth as a small dot
Care to provide a link to such a photo? As seen from the Moon the Earth has a diameter on the lunar sky of 2.5 degrees or 5x the apparent diameter of the Moon as seen from Earth.
-
Obviously they are using a lens with a long focal length, so distant objects look closer to each other. Its the same reason that Formula 1 cars look closer together and travelling slower when the TV camera zooms in to the far end of a long straight. And how do we reconcile a satellite at an altitude of "several million miles" with a flat-Earth dome?
Also, I think you mean the far side of the moon.
There is no Dark Side of the Moon really; as a matter of fact, its all dark.
-
And how do we reconcile a satellite at an altitude of "several million miles" with a flat-Earth dome?
Absolutely. On one hand you have the FEers who seem happy to talk about satellite images of the Earth taken from an L point and then on the other you get others who deny that satellites even exist but are just some sort of projection onto this non-existent dome.
So which is it?
-
Okay, here's the photo i'm referring to that is pretty common in space media:
Earth Rise
(https://i.imgur.com/zweOs1t.jpg)
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.
-
I found this sequence of images of the Moon transiting the Earth as seen from the Dscvr satellite. Of which your image is one frame.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/galleries/2015/lunar_transit
This is exactly what you would expect to see surely given that the Earth is much bigger than the Moon. How does this image in any way provide any evidence to suggest the Earth is flat?
As for your other image, this was taken obviously very much closer to the Moon compared to the Earth at over 380,000km away so again no surprises there. At such close proximity to the Moon it would look a lot bigger than the Earth.
Seems to me that you are seeing what you want to believe rather than perhaps what the photos are actually showing you.
Regarding this comment you made earlier...
This satellite orbits more than a million miles above earth's surface
There is really no direction as such in space so what makes you say 'above' Earths surface rather than simply a million miles away from Earth?
-
Okay, here's the photo i'm referring to that is pretty common in space media:
Earth Rise (IMG)
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.
Your earthrise is not an original single-frame photo. I really don't care if it's "pretty common in space media", all you've done is lift it from Imgur, according to the image address; there's no provenance to it, and nothing to suggest that NASA claims any ownership of it. It has no worth in terms of drawing comparison between DSCOVR and Apollo photos.
-
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.
I'm not sure I follow. The Moon is allegedly approx. 1/4 the size of Earth. The Moon is allegedly approx. 240,000 miles from Earth, give or take.
Now standing on the Moon, start walking another 760,000 miles away from the Earth. Turn around and look back at the Moon in front of the Earth. What would you expect to see?
-
I am not in any way any kind of conspiracy theorist but I am pretty experienced when it comes to being an amateur astronomer. That Earthrise photo that Metatron has posted just doesn't look right. The large crater just left of centre looks suspiciously like the crater Copernicus for example which has a diameter approaching 50 miles. That being the case those footprints to the right of the crater are truly enormous!
So something just ain't right there...
-
Apparently, giants on the moon. If you do an image search using the image posted, you get all sorts of, shall we say, artistic renderings. Probably one of the more famous "Earthrise" images is the one from the wiki page cited:
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/AS8-14-2383HR.jpg)
Taken by Apollo 8 crewmember Bill Anders on December 24, 1968, at mission time 075:49:07 [8] (16:40 UTC), while in orbit around the Moon, showing the Earth rising for the third time above the lunar horizon. The lunar horizon is approximately 780 kilometers from the spacecraft. Width of the photographed area at the lunar horizon is about 175 kilometers. [9] The land mass visible just above the terminator line is west Africa.
-
The "Earthrise" image MetaTron posted is a stock image from Getty. It is obviously not meant to be taken as a photograph.
-
The earth's diameter is 12,742km
The moon's is 3,475
The distance from the earth to the moon is 384,400
And the satellite is at a distance of 1609344 (I just converted 1,000,000 miles to km)
Using this angular size calculator: http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm
Angular size of earth from 1609344km = 0.45364 Degrees
Angular size of moon from 1,224,944km (1609344-384,400) = 0.16254 Degrees
0.45364 / 0.16254 = 2.79
So the earth should be 2.79 times bigger than the moon.
If you look at the image, earth is 380 pixels, the moon is 140.
380 / 140 = 2.714
Given that the resolution is quite small, I've taken a rough Googled number for the distance to the moon and assumed the satellite is exactly a million miles away, which I doubt is the case, I'd suggest that 2.79 and 2.714 are close enough that this is pretty much what you'd expect to see from this distance.
-
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.
Using the same angular size calculator, the earth from the moon should have an angular size of 1.9 Degrees.
A bit more than a dot but yeah, pretty small. But you're comparing a photo of the earth from the moon with a photo of the earth and moon from a distance.
That's not a valid comparison. If you do the actual maths (see previous post) you'll see that the photo in terms of the moon and earth's relative sizes is what you'd expect.
-
I'm not sure I follow. The Moon is allegedly approx. 1/4 the size of Earth. The Moon is allegedly approx. 240,000 miles from Earth, give or take.
Now standing on the Moon, start walking another 760,000 miles away from the Earth. Turn around and look back at the Moon in front of the Earth. What would you expect to see?
When you travel farther from Earth or any other object you expect it's image to get smaller. From 240,000 miles away Earth looks smaller then the image DSCOVR shot from 1,000,000 miles away..
-
So I drew this all out, to scale. Far too big an image to post, but here's the link:
https://i.ibb.co/fnjLFyM/MoonPic1.jpg
The satellite is on the left, the earth to the right. Moon in the middle (nearer the earth than the satellite, as I said it's to scale - not perfectly, but good enough).
I drew the sight lines from the satellite to the moon and earth, this is the relevant section:
(https://i.ibb.co/02dtMqM/Moon-Pic-Section.jpg)
That represents what you'd see from the satellite. The inner dotted lines go to the moon, the outer ones extend to the earth, but you can take this section and it would be the relative sizes of what you'd see. I then took the image in the OP, very badly amended it so the moon is in the middle of the earth (to match my diagram), then resized and rotated the section above to match and overlaid it.
Et voila:
(https://i.ibb.co/Lz7c6xL/MoonPic2.jpg)
All pretty rough but it matches up fairly well. So, along with my maths above, the OP picture is pretty much what I'd expect to see from a million miles.
-
The real question is: How gullible do you have to be to believe the data used to generate that image really came from 1 million miles away?
The answer is: Pretty much as gullible as a 5 year old who believes Santa is responsible for his presents.
-
The real question is: How gullible do you have to be to believe the data used to generate that image really came from 1 million miles away?
The answer is: Pretty much as gullible as a 5 year old who believes Santa is responsible for his presents.
If you have evidence for fakery then present it, otherwise you're just doing this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
-
The real question is: How gullible do you have to be to believe the data used to generate that image really came from 1 million miles away?
The answer is: Pretty much as gullible as a 5 year old who believes Santa is responsible for his presents.
If you have evidence for fakery then present it, otherwise you're just doing this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
LOL. The onus is on the ones making the claims. If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid. "Because NASA says so" is not proof I'm afraid.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
A globe defender talking about fallacies is always the funniest.
-
You are asked to get proof you went to the moon.
You go to the moon, take pictures, take rocks back home, get video, measurements, perform experiments. You thoroughly explain how it‘s done and televise it globally.
You are again asked for proof, despite having exhausted all means of providing proof. The onus is no longer on the party that claims to have gone to the moon.
If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid.
What, exactly, is the problem with data coming from a million miles away? I find it perfectly understandable. Maybe instead of looking for an easily digestible single fact, consider the gestalt of spaceflight and its history. For most people, the sheer breadth and depth of the industry and its achievements is more than enough proof. For some people it’s not enough, sure. I’m sure the people actually doing shady business are happy that people are wasting their time looking into space being fake.
-
You are asked to get proof you went to the moon.
You go to the moon, take pictures, take rocks back home, get video, measurements, perform experiments. You thoroughly explain how it‘s done and televise it globally.
You are again asked for proof, despite having exhausted all means of providing proof. The onus is no longer on the party that claims to have gone to the moon.
If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid.
What, exactly, is the problem with data coming from a million miles away? I find it perfectly understandable. Maybe instead of looking for an easily digestible single fact, consider the gestalt of spaceflight and its history. For most people, the sheer breadth and depth of the industry and its achievements is more than enough proof. For some people it’s not enough, sure. I’m sure the people actually doing shady business are happy that people are wasting their time looking into space being fake.
As usual, the globe believer doesn't know the definition of proof or the difference between proof and evidence.
I find it perfectly understandable believable.
Of course you do - that's why you're a globe believer. And a Moon landing believer. And probably a COVID believer too. Is there any mainstream narrative you don't believe, by the way? ::)
-
You would love to think I just eat up whatever narrative. I’m here because I’m a skeptic in the first place. I found out the earth is a globe myself without believing what any external source said. I carefully and honestly considered all possibilities and eventually realized the earth is a globe.
There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.
-
You would love to think I just eat up whatever narrative. I’m here because I’m a skeptic in the first place. I found out the earth is a globe myself without believing what any external source said. I carefully and honestly considered all possibilities and eventually realized the earth is a globe.
Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? ;D Here's a quote that I found on the internet:
Sadly, or sillily, internet skeptics are really just bulwarks for established orthodoxies. They learn Logical Fallacy 101 but never really doubt their own doubts - which is the essence of skeptictism. They have an arrogance and smugness that an actual skeptic couldn't possibly have because it is inconsistent with the very notion of doubt.
There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.
Such as?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkWcvXLjquk
-
Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? ;D Here's a quote that I found on the internet:
Whilst I can't speak for Realestfake, some of us actually find stuff out without using the internet.
-
You would love to think I just eat up whatever narrative. I’m here because I’m a skeptic in the first place. I found out the earth is a globe myself without believing what any external source said. I carefully and honestly considered all possibilities and eventually realized the earth is a globe.
Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? ;D Here's a quote that I found on the internet:
Sadly, or sillily, internet skeptics are really just bulwarks for established orthodoxies. They learn Logical Fallacy 101 but never really doubt their own doubts - which is the essence of skeptictism. They have an arrogance and smugness that an actual skeptic couldn't possibly have because it is inconsistent with the very notion of doubt.
There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.
Such as?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkWcvXLjquk
Are you suggesting that video is evidence that Neil DGT thinks the earth is flat?
-
Are you suggesting that video is evidence that Neil DGT thinks the earth is flat?
I mean, Neil probably knows that the Earth is flat. It sure seems that way. ::)
Are you saying that you think that the globe is "locally flat"? No such thing as "locally flat" on a sphere I'm afraid. And the size of the ball Earth is XS compared to the other cosmic balls you believe in, so ironically because that one ball is relatively small, you have a big problem on your hands. Oh, balls!
-
Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? ;D Here's a quote that I found on the internet:
Sadly, or sillily, internet skeptics are really just bulwarks for established orthodoxies. They learn Logical Fallacy 101 but never really doubt their own doubts - which is the essence of skeptictism. They have an arrogance and smugness that an actual skeptic couldn't possibly have because it is inconsistent with the very notion of doubt.
What? Thanks for the quote(?), but I’m talking about the real world.
-
What? Thanks for the quote(?), but I’m talking about the real world.
Sure you are. ;)
What mainstream narratives don't you believe? C'mon, spill the beans. :D
-
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.
-
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/DlSEkdq.png)
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
The moon and the earth are experiencing the same perspective effect as images like this are experiencing.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/460262090352099329/1113334561372381184/hypatia-h_f7568956cf7bfbbd79054b764e0d2c0c-h_a81eb381ab9abe20a6f0a4b38d101993.png?width=1015&height=676)
-
Okay, here's the photo i'm referring to that is pretty common in space media:
Earth Rise
(https://i.imgur.com/zweOs1t.jpg)
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.
I hope you genuinely don't believe that's a real image. The lunar surface, the stars, etc. It's obviously a fake, but I believe that I understand your point, which I addressed in my previous reply.
-
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/DlSEkdq.png)
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
The moon and the earth are experiencing the same perspective effect as images like this are experiencing.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/460262090352099329/1113334561372381184/hypatia-h_f7568956cf7bfbbd79054b764e0d2c0c-h_a81eb381ab9abe20a6f0a4b38d101993.png?width=1015&height=676)
"The same perspective effect". It's already been shown in this thread that it's not. They are in fact different perspective geometries.
But does it matter? Not really. What matters is what I already explained - that you don't know where the data used to generate that image came from.
-
"The same perspective effect". It's already been shown in this thread that it's not. They are in fact different perspective geometries.
Why, thank you for the correction! Would you care to explain to everyone in the thread what the difference is?
-
"The same perspective effect". It's already been shown in this thread that it's not. They are in fact different perspective geometries.
Why, thank you for the correction! Would you care to explain to everyone in the thread what the difference is?
Listen. You're asking me to explain the difference between the ground and the sky. If it's not obvious to you already that there's a perspective difference between a small Earth and a huge Earth (even if you don't know the geometrical details), it's a waste of time for me to explain the difference.
My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion. Now, if the best you can come up with against this argument is "incredulity", that's like saying that if you don't believe that a literal Jesus literally resurrected from death or literally walked on water you're being incredulous. Needless to say, this is a fallacy.
It's up to you if you want to be another believer of the secular religion. Or, alternatively, you could grow some real balls and develop some independent thought (which we're all capable of, by the way). Which one is it gonna be? ::)
-
My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion.
You could apply that to anything which you can't directly verify, which is quite a lot of things.
BUT, it doesn't have to be a blind faith.
We all have a model of reality in our heads. How credible we find things is dependent on whether they conform to that model.
If, for example, you told me you could fly, then I wouldn't believe you. Because, famously, humans can't fly. You'd have to provide some pretty good evidence before I'd believe you. Even if you showed me video of you doing it I'd suspect some trickery.
If you told me that you could do a backflip then I might raise an eyebrow but if you showed me a video of you doing it (pre-supposing that I know it's you) then I'd believe you. I know it's something humans have the ability to do although most can't.
If you told me you could walk then I wouldn't particularly ask you to evidence that. Most people can.
When it comes to space flight. Well, I know that rockets exist. I've personally seen a Shuttle launch when I happened to be in Florida at the right time. The ISS is said to be orbiting the earth. You can look up where and when you can see it and you can observe it directly. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. By triangulation you can calculate the height and speed of it and cross-check that against NASA's claims. Radio hams have been able to contact the astronauts.
Satellite TV demonstrably works. The claim is that it works by dishes pointing at geostationary satellites above the equator. I've observed dishes in countries a lot closer to the equator angled up at a much steeper angle than ones in the UK, which makes sense in that context. And when my neighbour did some building work which blocked the dish I lost my TV signal. And GPS also demonstrably works, and does so in the middle of the ocean.
And of course it's not just NASA sending up satellites and astronauts. Many countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises are now getting in on the act. So we don't just have to take NASA's word for it. I've mentioned above ways anyone can verify their claims about the ISS. When it comes to the moon missions, you had teams in Australia relaying signals for them, you had Jodrell Bank in the UK tracking the Apollo craft - and an unmanned Russian one which was trying to steal a march on them. You don't just need to take NASA's word for it.
NASA and others have provided plenty of evidence of what they're doing, some of that evidence you can verify yourself. Have you? Independent thought isn't just claiming every mainstream narrative is false because it's mainstream.
-
My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion.
You could apply that to anything which you can't directly verify, which is quite a lot of things.
BUT, it doesn't have to be a blind faith.
We all have a model of reality in our heads. How credible we find things is dependent on whether they conform to that model.
If, for example, you told me you could fly, then I wouldn't believe you. Because, famously, humans can't fly. You'd have to provide some pretty good evidence before I'd believe you. Even if you showed me video of you doing it I'd suspect some trickery.
If you told me that you could do a backflip then I might raise an eyebrow but if you showed me a video of you doing it (pre-supposing that I know it's you) then I'd believe you. I know it's something humans have the ability to do although most can't.
If you told me you could walk then I wouldn't particularly ask you to evidence that. Most people can.
When it comes to space flight. Well, I know that rockets exist. I've personally seen a Shuttle launch when I happened to be in Florida at the right time. The ISS is said to be orbiting the earth. You can look up where and when you can see it and you can observe it directly. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. By triangulation you can calculate the height and speed of it and cross-check that against NASA's claims. Radio hams have been able to contact the astronauts.
Satellite TV demonstrably works. The claim is that it works by dishes pointing at geostationary satellites above the equator. I've observed dishes in countries a lot closer to the equator angled up at a much steeper angle than ones in the UK, which makes sense in that context. And when my neighbour did some building work which blocked the dish I lost my TV signal. And GPS also demonstrably works, and does so in the middle of the ocean.
And of course it's not just NASA sending up satellites and astronauts. Many countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises are now getting in on the act. So we don't just have to take NASA's word for it. I've mentioned above ways anyone can verify their claims about the ISS. When it comes to the moon missions, you had teams in Australia relaying signals for them, you had Jodrell Bank in the UK tracking the Apollo craft - and an unmanned Russian one which was trying to steal a march on them. You don't just need to take NASA's word for it.
NASA and others have provided plenty of evidence of what they're doing, some of that evidence you can verify yourself. Have you? Independent thought isn't just claiming every mainstream narrative is false because it's mainstream.
You're rambling... I'm talking about none of those things.
When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude. Not even with the ISS. And of course, nothing to do with rockets. But you already know that these things are different, and yet you're deliberately comparing them for the sake of making an argument and trying to legitimize NASA & the globe.
I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly. Even if someone tries to trick you with a video, that can be safely dismissed as something pretty innocent because it's for entertainment purposes (think Criss Angel on Mindfreak) - but if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different. Especially since in the case of NASA, the trickery and the deception that they constantly fabricate and push into the mainstream has cosmological implications.
Apparenty, I needed to explain this to you.
-
When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude.
Of course it does. Again, it's about our model of reality.
If we accept satellites exist and are beaming data from space to our satellite dishes - I've outlined some evidence for that - then why couldn't data be sent from a million miles away? Because it's a big number?
If we accept the ISS exists and is orbiting the earth - I've outlined the evidence for that - then why can't a satellite orbit at a greater distance? Again, is it just because it's a big number?
What is the difference in principle between the ISS, GPS satellites, TV Satellites and the DSCOVR one which the OP references? The principles which get them into orbit are the same.
I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly.
I do. My model of reality tells me that humans can't fly.
It also tells me that humans can send objects into orbits around the earth. Multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on it, the ISS can be directly observed, I have personally seen a Shuttle launch.
if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different.
Well, sure. IF NASA are doing the trickery. I've explained why I don't believe they are. There is good evidence for satellites existing. Evidence you can check yourself.
Have you? Or are you just declaring everything mainstream fake because it's mainstream?
-
When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude.
Of course it does. Again, it's about our model of reality.
If we accept satellites exist and are beaming data from space to our satellite dishes - I've outlined some evidence for that - then why couldn't data be sent from a million miles away? Because it's a big number?
If we accept the ISS exists and is orbiting the earth - I've outlined the evidence for that - then why can't a satellite orbit at a greater distance? Again, is it just because it's a big number?
What is the difference in principle between the ISS, GPS satellites, TV Satellites and the DSCOVR one which the OP references? The principles which get them into orbit are the same.
I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly.
I do. My model of reality tells me that humans can't fly.
It also tells me that humans can send objects into orbits around the earth. Multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on it, the ISS can be directly observed, I have personally seen a Shuttle launch.
if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different.
Well, sure. IF NASA are doing the trickery. I've explained why I don't believe they are. There is good evidence for satellites existing. Evidence you can check yourself.
Have you? Or are you just declaring everything mainstream fake because it's mainstream?
Where have I claimed that satellites are fake, darling? Can you quote me saying that or all you have is your strawman fallacious crap?
It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there. Capisce? And no, satellite TV has nothing to do with DSCOVR. Now, pish off with your argumentative crap and have fun with your "model of reality". ;D
-
It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.
What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.
-
It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.
What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.
Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.
Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?
-
It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.
What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.
Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.
Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?
Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?
-
It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.
What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.
Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.
Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?
Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?
Safe to say that they are operating nothing except a computer program. And yes, SpaceX / NASA launched it.
-
It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.
What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.
Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.
Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?
Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?
They are operating nothing except a computer program. And yes, SpaceX / NASA launched it - and?
It was launched by spacex from an air force installation (now space force). Exactly where did NASA come in to it? Do NOAA believe they have a satellite but the data is being faked? Did spacex and the air force think they were launching a satellite but it was secretly swapped out and their own transmissions and signals faked or did they know it failed and they are part of the coverup as well?
-
It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.
What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.
Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.
Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?
Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?
They are operating nothing except a computer program. And yes, SpaceX / NASA launched it - and?
It was launched by spacex from an air force installation (now space force). Exactly where did NASA come in to it? Do NOAA believe they have a satellite but the data is being faked? Did spacex and the air force think they were launching a satellite but it was secretly swapped out and their own transmissions and signals faked or did they know it failed and they are part of the coverup as well?
Yeah, an air force (government) installation that NASA (government) uses all the time. ;D SpaceX provides the rocket, that's about all. The "mission" itself is managed by NASA and NOAA (government). You can read about it online, it's not a "conspiracy theory".
They don't have to swap anything, all they have to do is fake the telemetry. The satellite itself probably went nowhere except maybe the Bermuda Triangle. It certainly did not leave Earth! ;D
-
NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?
What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?
-
NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?
What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
So it wasn't a CGI glitch because if it was it would've been caught. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
Well, they didn't catch it. That was the beauty of it. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
Amazing the arguments you NASA lovers come up with. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
-
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?
-
Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is?
No. Science is about making and testing hypotheses which explain how the world and universe work.
The hypotheses are never said to be 100% proven, but with testing you can build confidence in them being correct.
And they should always be open to improvement or replaced entirely if a better model comes along.
But this claim, like many claims, can't be directly tested. You've already agreed there is no way to prove that the image in the OP came from a satellite a million miles away.
So we're back to how credible you find the claim, and that relates to your model of reality. Is there anything that makes you think it's not possible to send signals from a million miles away? On page 1 of this thread I did some analysis of the image in the OP in terms of the scale of the moon relative to the earth and it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect to see from the distance claimed. So while I can't prove that this image is as claimed, I've no particular reason to believe it isn't. Your only response to my analysis was to claim that anyone who believed the data come from a million miles away was gullible. You didn't elaborate.
Earlier in this thread you said:
"If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid"
But now you're agreeing that can't be done.
And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all.
In your opinion. But you've provided very little evidence to back that up. You said they "fake almost everything" but provide no evidence.
You talk about the "CGI glitching". Can you show that example? Are you an expert in image or video analysis? Do you understand about artefacts from video compression?
What investigation have you done on the ISS? That's something you can directly observe so that's a good starting point.
Have you witnessed any rocket launches?
When it comes to the moon landings I've mentioned Jodrell Bank in the UK who were tracking the craft, and the team in Australia who were relaying signals.
Most moan hoax "evidence" I've seen is based on an ignorance of what actually happened or of basic physics, or simple incredulity.
And, again, you don't just have to take NASA's word for it. Multiple countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises have launched things too.
-
Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they fake almost everything?
Wow, an original claim that you would still refuse to support if your life depended on it. I ask you what has led you to believe that NASA is incredible, and you respond with "They fake almost everything." This is a really broad response with no elaboration. It's a claim you freely throw out without caring to support it.
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.
Would you care to provide the source of this video so we can all access it? Surely you don't expect me to just blindly believe you, right? On top of that, what evidence do you have that it was in fact CGI, rather than just an average glitch? I know a lot of conspiracy theorists like to throw out "CGI" at most of what NASA shows the world, but they never care to show us the evidence that what NASA is showing us contains CGI. So unless you can genuinely provide airtight evidence that the specific video you are referring to contains malicious CGI, I, along with everyone else, can and should dismiss your claim.
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.
Incorrect. I am not close-minded and I am very welcome to a change of my views. If you can provide truthful and sufficient evidence that NASA included malicious CGI in one of their videos, I would accept your evidence upon further research to ensure your evidence is truly truthful.
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.
All of the videos and conspiracy theories I've seen about NASA faking things are easily debunked. Whether it be glitches in ISS videos or live streams, space telescope imagery, satellite data & imagery, moon landings, you name it. I'm almost certain I've heard it all at this point. The biggest flaw I notice in all of these conspiracy theories is that none of them genuinely provide actual evidence. If evidence is provided, it's usually taken out of context. For example, a lot of moon landing deniers like to show off a small section of an interview that Buzz Aldrin had with a little girl. The issue is that they never let Buzz Aldrin finish his sentence in any of the clips shown. Or better yet, they never show how the interview even starts out. If these conspiracy theorists were honest about their evidence, they would be happy to show everybody the full interview, rather than a cherry-picked clip that was thrown way out of context. The few times that I have brought that up to some of these people, I tend to have my comments deleted, I get blocked, or my comment just never surfaces and remains hidden under all of the gullible people that fell for the clip, angrily shaming Buzz Aldrin and NASA like robots. So to answer your question, yes, I believe in the moon landings. Being an astrophotographer myself has only strengthened the evidence that the moon landings were real. Of course, as I stated earlier, if you would care to provide sufficient evidence that the moon landings were faked, I'd absolutely look into it without a doubt. With all of this being said, I hope I can receive a response from you including the video you referred to & sufficient evidence for all of the assertions you have made here. If not, do not expect anybody to believe what you say. Everybody can, and most likely will simply dismiss your assertions.
-
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.
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 said, the people that do...are they really experts in video/image analysis? In previous conversations we've established that I'm certainly not, but I know as much as many of the things claimed to be "CGI glitches" are video compression artefacts, or they're people with a certain agenda just seeing what they want to see. I did create a thread on here some time back where 3 VFX artists analysed some of the Apollo footage and concluded that it couldn't have been faked given the technology at the time. In the ensuing thread there was very little attempt to respond to what the experts said. I seem to remember Thork going off on a tangent.
-
3 VFX artists
Most of your kindergarten proofs are not worth replying to. You are going to need better evidence than "artists" with no known credentials who claim that it was impossible for NASA to fake the moon landings.
-
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"?
-
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"?
No, that doesn't surprise me.
But the key question is whether they really are spotting things that are indicators of fakery or a conspiracy.
Or are they people who already have a certain agenda seeing things because they want to, or doing things like misidentifying video compression artefacts as "CGI glitches".
Do they have any actual expertise in the field they're discussing?
Most of the moon landing hoax "evidence" I've seen is based on ignorance, it's not well researched evidence which is about to crack the whole case wide open.
-
Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is?
No. Science is about making and testing hypotheses which explain how the world and universe work.
The hypotheses are never said to be 100% proven, but with testing you can build confidence in them being correct.
And they should always be open to improvement or replaced entirely if a better model comes along.
Not really. A hypothesis is meant to be used as a tool like math; both of those were never meant to be what science revolves around, contrary to what they tell you these days. A big part of the problem is that science got corrupted by power and the scientific method got polluted from the 17th century by inductivism. Which again, could be a useful tool, but it was given much more importance than it deserves because they were already all in with Copernicanism at that point and they needed a justification to call it science when it was obviously not. Well, you would call it science, but that's what all pseudoscientists or pseudoscience believers claim their pseudoscience is too.
But this claim, like many claims, can't be directly tested. You've already agreed there is no way to prove that the image in the OP came from a satellite a million miles away.
So we're back to how credible you find the claim, and that relates to your model of reality. Is there anything that makes you think it's not possible to send signals from a million miles away?
Earlier in this thread you said:
"If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid"
But now you're agreeing that can't be done.
No, I'm back to explaining how science is not about credibility. Can you prove that unicorns or leprechauns exist? No? Maybe they're not real, then. Isn't that my whole point? I think it is, thank you. Even if there were unicorns and leprechauns all over the earth, that still doesn't prove that you can strap them to a rocket and they will reach "L1" because of some imaginary slingshot effect based on the core assumption that the Earth is a spinning ball.
Not to mention that in order to talk about the possibility of signals sent from 1 million miles away, you need to prove that it's even possible for a signal-emitting device (or anything at all) to get there in the first place. The only place that "L1" exists is in people's imagination. In other words, no proof at all that it exists.
Have you witnessed any rocket launches?
Is that supposed to be evidence of anything other than they launch rockets? You NASA lovers crack me up with your "arguments".
And, again, you don't just have to take NASA's word for it. Multiple countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises have launched things too.
Well, that proves the current accepted model of the universe, then.
You do realize that what you're calling "space" is actually LEO, right? Most (well, really all) of the "space" operations are well below the LEO boundary. So basically a few hundred miles max. And that's assuming that an object can go that high, which is already a big assumption. A few hundred miles is what % of 94 billion light years? I'm not even gonna do that math - you do that for me since you're the Star Trek fan. ;D
-
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.
-
Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they fake almost everything?
Wow, an original claim that you would still refuse to support if your life depended on it. I ask you what has led you to believe that NASA is incredible, and you respond with "They fake almost everything." This is a really broad response with no elaboration. It's a claim you freely throw out without caring to support it.
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.
Would you care to provide the source of this video so we can all access it? Surely you don't expect me to just blindly believe you, right? On top of that, what evidence do you have that it was in fact CGI, rather than just an average glitch? I know a lot of conspiracy theorists like to throw out "CGI" at most of what NASA shows the world, but they never care to show us the evidence that what NASA is showing us contains CGI. So unless you can genuinely provide airtight evidence that the specific video you are referring to contains malicious CGI, I, along with everyone else, can and should dismiss your claim.
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.
Incorrect. I am not close-minded and I am very welcome to a change of my views. If you can provide truthful and sufficient evidence that NASA included malicious CGI in one of their videos, I would accept your evidence upon further research to ensure your evidence is truly truthful.
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.
All of the videos and conspiracy theories I've seen about NASA faking things are easily debunked. Whether it be glitches in ISS videos or live streams, space telescope imagery, satellite data & imagery, moon landings, you name it. I'm almost certain I've heard it all at this point. The biggest flaw I notice in all of these conspiracy theories is that none of them genuinely provide actual evidence. If evidence is provided, it's usually taken out of context. For example, a lot of moon landing deniers like to show off a small section of an interview that Buzz Aldrin had with a little girl. The issue is that they never let Buzz Aldrin finish his sentence in any of the clips shown. Or better yet, they never show how the interview even starts out. If these conspiracy theorists were honest about their evidence, they would be happy to show everybody the full interview, rather than a cherry-picked clip that was thrown way out of context. The few times that I have brought that up to some of these people, I tend to have my comments deleted, I get blocked, or my comment just never surfaces and remains hidden under all of the gullible people that fell for the clip, angrily shaming Buzz Aldrin and NASA like robots. So to answer your question, yes, I believe in the moon landings. Being an astrophotographer myself has only strengthened the evidence that the moon landings were real. Of course, as I stated earlier, if you would care to provide sufficient evidence that the moon landings were faked, I'd absolutely look into it without a doubt. With all of this being said, I hope I can receive a response from you including the video you referred to & sufficient evidence for all of the assertions you have made here. If not, do not expect anybody to believe what you say. Everybody can, and most likely will simply dismiss your assertions.
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!
-
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.
Uh, yes, you absolutely need to support your claims. Just telling me that the info is out there isn't enough. It's a cop-out for providing evidence. You couldn't even care to elaborate on the info. You're extremely broad with your answers and it's telling me everything I need to know about how this discussion will continue.
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.
Okay, so then there's no point in bringing your little video up if you can't even provide an ounce of evidence that this video even existed.
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".
It's common and everyone here knows about the video. I was giving an example that everybody here can easily understand and relate to.
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!
Another unsupported claim. Good job. It's even more dishonest that you say proof rather than evidence.
-
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.
Uh, yes, you absolutely need to support your claims. Just telling me that the info is out there isn't enough. It's a cop-out for providing evidence. You couldn't even care to elaborate on the info. You're extremely broad with your answers and it's telling me everything I need to know about how this discussion will continue.
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. ;D Nothing personal, though.
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.
Okay, so then there's no point in bringing your little video up if you can't even provide an ounce of evidence that this video even existed.
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.
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".
It's common and everyone here knows about the video. I was giving an example that everybody here can easily understand and relate to.
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.
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!
Another unsupported claim. Good job. It's even more dishonest that you say proof rather than evidence.
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.
-
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?
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. Are you suggesting that doesn't care about getting caught? 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.
-
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?
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. Are you suggesting that doesn't care about getting caught? 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.
You're assuming that it was an obvious mistake, but it wasn't an obvious mistake at all. That glitch only happened for approximately a second at some random point in the video. Easily could've gone unnoticed. And it did go unnoticed. How someone found that after it was uploaded to the archive, I don't even know. It's not like it was a relevant video, either. Just some inconsequential "camera footage" about nothing.
Other than that, they can get away with pretty much anything because it's all about faith anyway. NASA is simply a church at the end of the day.
-
No, I'm back to explaining how science is not about credibility.
What do you mean "explaining"? You asked above if I thought science was about credibility and I said no.
Can you prove that unicorns or leprechauns exist? No? Maybe they're not real, then. Isn't that my whole point?
If that is your whole point then it's a pretty silly one. You can't prove anything to the standard you demand - we've established that it's not possible for NASA or anyone else to prove that the picture was taken from a million miles away. So, like a lot of things, we can only base our opinion on how credible the claim is.
Unicorns and leprechauns are, famously, mythical. Pretty much no-one claims they exist. If anyone did then they'd better have some very compelling evidence.
Not to mention that in order to talk about the possibility of signals sent from 1 million miles away, you need to prove that it's even possible for a signal-emitting device (or anything at all) to get there in the first place.
Again, like many things, that can't be proven to the standard you demand. But the fact that rockets exist is relevant to how credible this is. If the technology which is said to get things in to orbit didn't even exist then a claim about satellites existing would be akin to a claim about unicorns.
But rockets do exist. GPS Satellites exist, the ISS exists and can be observed. Those things are in low earth orbit, but TV satellites aren't, they're 23,000 miles above the equator. So why is it such a leap to think that things can't orbit further out?
Well, that proves the current accepted model of the universe, then.
Why are you straw-manning me? I didn't say it proved anything.
But you keep obsessing over NASA as if they have some monopoly on space. They do not.
The first module of the ISS was launched from Kazakhstan.
Your issue with NASA is that they "fake almost everything" and your basis for that is apparently in part some video which you claim had some CGI glitch (I have suggested an alternative explanation) and which you now can't find. Compelling stuff.
You paint yourself as this "independent thinker" but all you present is arguments from incredulity.
-
No, I'm back to explaining how science is not about credibility.
What do you mean "explaining"? You asked above if I thought science was about credibility and I said no.
Can you prove that unicorns or leprechauns exist? No? Maybe they're not real, then. Isn't that my whole point?
If that is your whole point then it's a pretty silly one. You can't prove anything to the standard you demand - we've established that it's not possible for NASA or anyone else to prove that the picture was taken from a million miles away. So, like a lot of things, we can only base our opinion on how credible the claim is.
Unicorns and leprechauns are, famously, mythical. Pretty much no-one claims they exist. If anyone did then they'd better have some very compelling evidence.
Not to mention that in order to talk about the possibility of signals sent from 1 million miles away, you need to prove that it's even possible for a signal-emitting device (or anything at all) to get there in the first place.
Again, like many things, that can't be proven to the standard you demand. But the fact that rockets exist is relevant to how credible this is. If the technology which is said to get things in to orbit didn't even exist then a claim about satellites existing would be akin to a claim about unicorns.
But rockets do exist. GPS Satellites exist, the ISS exists and can be observed. Those things are in low earth orbit, but TV satellites aren't, they're 23,000 miles above the equator. So why is it such a leap to think that things can't orbit further out?
Well, that proves the current accepted model of the universe, then.
Why are you straw-manning me? I didn't say it proved anything.
But you keep obsessing over NASA as if they have some monopoly on space. They do not.
The first module of the ISS was launched from Kazakhstan.
Your issue with NASA is that they "fake almost everything" and your basis for that is apparently in part some video which you claim had some CGI glitch (I have suggested an alternative explanation) and which you now can't find. Compelling stuff.
You paint yourself as this "independent thinker" but all you present is arguments from incredulity.
Son, if all you have is the credibility argument, all that does is support my point. Credibility is just another word for believing. It literally comes from the latin CREDO (creed). Believing belongs to religion, not science. Thank you for supporting my point.
-
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.
-
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. ;D 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.
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.
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?
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.
I'm sorry it doesn't fit your standards. I will do better next time, your highness.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
Markjo, how things "seem" to you is really close to the bottom of just about everyone's priority list.
If that's how you feel, then feel free to not waste your time and just don't engage.
-
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.
-
Son, if all you have is the credibility argument, all that does is support my point. Credibility is just another word for believing. It literally comes from the latin CREDO (creed). Believing belongs to religion, not science. Thank you for supporting my point.
You are so close to an epiphany.
All you need to do now is understand that pretty much everything you are stating is also merely a belief based on what you find credible.
There is no difference between “believing” something and “knowing” it, other than your own perceived certainty. Truth exists independently of your beliefs.
Believing doesn’t “belong” to science or religion. Cogito ergo sum, basically. You know you exist, everything else you think you know is simply based on evidence and what you find credible. There is, of course, a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief. I have outlined the evidence for believing NASA’s claims, you have ignored it all and presented nothing but an argument from incredulity.
-
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. ;D 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
Son, if all you have is the credibility argument, all that does is support my point. Credibility is just another word for believing. It literally comes from the latin CREDO (creed). Believing belongs to religion, not science. Thank you for supporting my point.
You are so close to an epiphany.
All you need to do now is understand that pretty much everything you are stating is also merely a belief based on what you find credible.
There is no difference between “believing” something and “knowing” it, other than your own perceived certainty. Truth exists independently of your beliefs.
Believing doesn’t “belong” to science or religion. Cogito ergo sum, basically. You know you exist, everything else you think you know is simply based on evidence and what you find credible. There is, of course, a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief. I have outlined the evidence for believing NASA’s claims, you have ignored it all and presented nothing but an argument from incredulity.
LOL. If truth exists independently of beliefs, how is there not a difference between believing and knowing other than subjective certainty? See? You're not making any sense.
There is a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief, but evidence based belief is the reason that innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit, all the time. That's what you're supporting.
Of course I'm incredulous of anything NASA produces. That's actually a compliment. Thank you.
-
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. ;D 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah no, you're running away at this point. I'm not continuing my conversation with you if you're going to make claims and then turn around and say they're not your claims because other people have said the same thing. That's not how this works. If that is how it worked, you shouldn't be wanting any evidence from any of us regarding NASA and other space agencies.
-
Yeah no, you're running away at this point. I'm not continuing my conversation with you if you're going to make claims and then turn around and say they're not your claims because other people have said the same thing. That's not how this works. If that is how it worked, you shouldn't be wanting any evidence from any of us regarding NASA and other space agencies.
I'm running away... :D Ok, if it makes you happy.
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. Fundamentally, FE is about saying that the Earth is not that, contrary to the (absurd) claim that it is. Even now with modern science, you can't come to any conclusion other than the Earth is not that if you really do your research with your CBBI (cognitive bias brain implant) removed. 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. I looked at a bunch of that "evidence" already. And I'm saying "evidence" in quotation marks because it's like saying that a picture of a pink elephant wtih wings is evidence of a pink elephant with wings. One of two possibilites: The elephant got painted pink and they glued some wings on, OR the elephant is photoshopped af.
So, you believing that CGI is real is completely irrelevant.
-
Yeah no, you're running away at this point. I'm not continuing my conversation with you
Everette, this is not an airport. You do not need to announce your departure from the conversation. You also don't need to post a complete copy of every post you're replying to.
Please avoid posting large amounts of content which do not contribute to the topic at hand. Some examples would be:
- Unnecessary and unabridged use of the quote function.
- "Oh, if X is your argument, don't been bother" (posted with absolutely no other content)
- Your post above
Please familiarise yourself with the forum rules.
-
You also don't need to post a complete copy of every post you're replying to.
I believe I've only done that once within this whole thread. My dearest apologies.
Please familiarise yourself with the forum rules.
If this (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0) is all of the resources I have regarding the rules, I'm not sure which rules I've broken.
Again, my apologies for any mistakes I've made. I will work on it.
-
How is FE my claim?
As I explained previously, although others have made the claim in the past, it doesn't make the claim any less yours if you still make the 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.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Even now with modern science, you can't come to any conclusion other than the Earth is not that.
Modern science has gotten us images such as this:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/orion_day_13_advisory.jpg)
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.
I will remember this. Don't let yourself forget. ;)
-
How is FE my claim?
As I explained previously, although others have made the claim in the past, it doesn't make the claim any less yours if you still make the claim.
If you say so. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
There's a difference between a subjective claim and an objective claim.
Example of objective claim: "We live on a pear-shaped spinning Earth."
Example of subjective claim: "I'm hearing voices in my head."
But ironically, the people claiming they hear voices in their heads is actually more scientific than the pear-shaped spinning Earth.
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.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Oh, so you admit it's about credibility (belief) and not about science or fact. :D
Even now with modern science, you can't come to any conclusion other than the Earth is not that.
Modern science has gotten us images such as this:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/orion_day_13_advisory.jpg)
Yes, I already know that images are the best "proofsie" that the globe believer has. Here's an image of Superman flying:
(https://i.imgur.com/rZrstYY.jpg)
I took that picture myself and it's 100% real, I swear on everything. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
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.
I will remember this. Don't let yourself forget. ;)
Seems like you already forgot since you're already providing an image from NASA.gov and assuming it's real. (https://i.ibb.co/jGbbc3f/rofl2.png)
-
LOL. If truth exists independently of beliefs, how is there not a difference between believing and knowing other than subjective certainty? See?
No, I don't see.
Of course truth exists independently of belief. I mean, let's take the shape of the Earth. The Earth is a physical object, yes? It has a shape. That shape doesn't depend on your belief about it, or mine, or anyone else's.
If the earth is flat then it is flat whatever you or I believe. If it's a globe then it's a globe whatever you or I believe.
It can't be flat for you because you believe it to be and a globe for me because I believe it to be.
If you believe it's flat and I believe it's a globe then there are only two possibilities:
1) One of us is wrong
2) Both or us are wrong (it could be a cube).
We cannot both be correct because we believe contradictory things. The truth of the matter is absolute and it is independent of our beliefs about it.
The only semantic difference between these three sentences:
"I think the earth is a globe"
"I believe the earth is a globe"
"I know the earth is a globe"
Is the level of certainty you're expressing. A lot of people "know" that Aled Jones sang Walking In The Air in The Snowman (he didn't) or that Vikings had horns on their helmets (they didn't). Saying you "know" something doesn't make you correct, you're just saying you're certain about something. You can be certain and wrong at the same time.
There is a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief, but evidence based belief is the reason that innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit, all the time. That's what you're supporting.
It's not merely that I'm supporting it. It's the only game in town.
The only way to come to a belief about pretty much anything is by assessing the evidence. What else is there?
You simultaneously demand proof - I see you're doing it in another thread here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=20002.msg280628#msg280628
While in this thread you're accepting that that proof cannot exist.
Of course I'm incredulous of anything NASA produces. That's actually a compliment. Thank you.
It's neither a compliment nor an insult. If you blindly believe everything you're told by an authority then that's foolish.
But if you blindly disbelieve everything you're told by an authority then that's equally foolish.
-
LOL. If truth exists independently of beliefs, how is there not a difference between believing and knowing other than subjective certainty? See?
No, I don't see.
Of course truth exists independently of belief. I mean, let's take the shape of the Earth. The Earth is a physical object, yes? It has a shape. That shape doesn't depend on your belief about it, or mine, or anyone else's.
If the earth is flat then it is flat whatever you or I believe. If it's a globe then it's a globe whatever you or I believe.
It can't be flat for you because you believe it to be and a globe for me because I believe it to be.
If you believe it's flat and I believe it's a globe then there are only two possibilities:
1) One of us is wrong
2) Both or us are wrong (it could be a cube).
We cannot both be correct because we believe contradictory things. The truth of the matter is absolute and it is independent of our beliefs about it.
Correct, it can't be a globe and flat at the same time. I suppose it has a shape, but flat is not a shape - it's about the surface. As far as I'm concerned, FE fundamentally is about KNOWING that there's no curvature, and therefore no globe.
The only semantic difference between these three sentences:
"I think the earth is a globe"
"I believe the earth is a globe"
"I know the earth is a globe"
Is the level of certainty you're expressing. A lot of people "know" that Aled Jones sang Walking In The Air in The Snowman (he didn't) or that Vikings had horns on their helmets (they didn't). Saying you "know" something doesn't make you correct, you're just saying you're certain about something. You can be certain and wrong at the same time.
You don't say? Even if they express different levels of certainty, all those are subjective claims. Irrelevant to science or objective truth. A true, objective statment would be: "You can't square a circle". Or, "The Earth is not a globe.". Why? Because it can be proven. No beliefs required.
There is a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief, but evidence based belief is the reason that innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit, all the time. That's what you're supporting.
It's not merely that I'm supporting it. It's the only game in town.
The only way to come to a belief about pretty much anything is by assessing the evidence. What else is there?
You simultaneously demand proof - I see you're doing it in another thread here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=20002.msg280628#msg280628
While in this thread you're accepting that that proof cannot exist.
That's the point. For you globe believers to realize there's no proof for your beliefs and that's why they are and will remain beliefs. Starting with your belief in curvature that isn't there.
Of course I'm incredulous of anything NASA produces. That's actually a compliment. Thank you.
It's neither a compliment nor an insult. If you blindly believe everything you're told by an authority then that's foolish.
But if you blindly disbelieve everything you're told by an authority then that's equally foolish.
Oh, that's okay - even if you didn't mean it as a compliment I took it as a compliment because it is in fact not equally foolish. Disbelieving is my bread and butter. 8)
-
A true, objective statement would be: "You can't square a circle". Or, "The Earth is not a globe.". Why? Because it can be proven.
Those are both statements which have an absolute truth value. But there is a difference.
The first of those statements is couched in the language of mathematics where things are clearly defined. So yes, that statement is true because the definitions of "square" and "circle" are contradictory.
The second of those statements cannot be proven. Many would say that the fact that the earth is a globe has been proven and yet here we are in the 21st century with some people claiming the reverse.
That's the point. For you globe believers to realize there's no proof for your beliefs and that's why they are and will remain beliefs.
For the second time in this thread you are on the verge of an epiphany. All you need to do now is understand that if the statement
"The earth is a globe" cannot be proven to the standard you require, and can only be based on evidence. Then clearly the same can be said of "The earth is not a globe".
One could argue that the known distances between places proves that the earth has to be a globe, because there's only one shape those places can be mapped on, given the known distances, which works. And it ain't flat. But of course FE denies that, usually by disputing that the distances are known. And this is the problem. Any position can be rejected or defended depending on which evidence you decide to accept or reject.
Starting with your belief in curvature that isn't there.
I'm not clear what this means. No-one sensible claims that curvature can be discerned from "normal" altitudes, and I include commercial airplane travel in that.
-
The second of those statements cannot be proven. Many would say that the fact that the earth is a globe has been proven and yet here we are in the 21st century with some people claiming the reverse.
Yeah, they would say that - but sadly for them it's not true. :'( Being in the 21st century only helps you understand that better. But that's assuming that your true intention is to understand things for what they are.
"The earth is a globe" cannot be proven to the standard you require, and can only be based on evidence. Then clearly the same can be said of "The earth is not a globe".
One could argue that the known distances between places proves that the earth has to be a globe
There's no such thing as "standards of proof" because the proof itself should be the standard. Understand? I don't care how much evidence you think you have because evidence ≠ proof.
I don't care what "one could argue" either, I only care about facts.
I'm not clear what this means. No-one sensible claims that curvature can be discerned from "normal" altitudes, and I include commercial airplane travel in that.
It is clear.
-
That's the point. For you globe believers to realize there's no proof for your beliefs and that's why they are and will remain beliefs.
Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence that the earth is a globe that doesn't come from NASA or any government agency. It's just a matter of whether or not you choose to accept any of that evidence.
-
That's the point. For you globe believers to realize there's no proof for your beliefs and that's why they are and will remain beliefs.
Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence that the earth is a globe that doesn't come from NASA or any government agency. It's just a matter of whether or not you choose to accept any of that evidence.
So in other words, no proof that it's a globe? I thought so.
I already looked at all of that evidence. None of it means what you think it means (what you want to believe it means).
-
So in other words, no proof that it's a globe? I thought so.
Well, none that you would accept.
I already looked at all of that evidence. None of it means what you think it means (what you want to believe it means).
I don't know about that. A lot of the evidence makes a lot more sense in an RE context than in an FE context. For example, I have yet to see any FE explanations of why everyone in the world sees the same side of the moon that makes any sense to me.
-
For example, I have yet to see any FE explanations of why everyone in the world sees the same side of the moon that makes any sense to me.
Really? Have you tried the radical approach of asking? This is a pretty basic question, and one that even someone of your sophistication should be able to grasp.
-
So in other words, no proof that it's a globe? I thought so.
Well, none that you would accept.
I will accept proof. You got some?
Try understanding the difference between evidence and proof before you dip your toes in that, though.
-
For example, I have yet to see any FE explanations of why everyone in the world sees the same side of the moon that makes any sense to me.
Really? Have you tried the radical approach of asking? This is a pretty basic question, and one that even someone of your sophistication should be able to grasp.
I've seen the explanations in previous threads and in the wiki. My statement stands. Bendy light just won't cut it until someone comes up with a usable formula.
Try understanding the difference between evidence and proof before you dip your toes in that, though.
Well, in science, evidence is data collected but proof isn't really a thing. It's more or less the result when you have a sufficient weight of evidence to be pretty sure that you've come to the correct conclusion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
So, what's your distinction between the two?
-
Try understanding the difference between evidence and proof before you dip your toes in that, though.
Well, in science, evidence is data collected but proof isn't really a thing. It's more or less the result when you have a sufficient weight of evidence to be pretty sure that you've come to the correct conclusion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
So, what's your distinction between the two?
I thought you said there was proof for the globe, but the problem was that I wouldn't accept it? Now that I told you I would accept it, you had to switch the narrative to the mainstream narrative that there's no such thing as scientific proof. Unfortunately for thou, I am more than familiar with that narrative. The only reason it's mainstream nowawdays is because they know they have no proof for the big theories such as the globe, relativity, evolution, virology, etc. Because they're simply not true. So really, the ones saying there's no such thing as scientific proof and that science is all about theories, credibility and consensus are the ones who are not the real scientists.
The biggest misconception in mainstream science is that facts are evidence-dependent and that they can change at any moment as soon as the next batch of contradictory evidence is accepted by the consensus. In other words, they (the mainstream morons) want you to believe that there's no such thing as truth, or that truth is based on consensus. This shows that science is no longer an honest pursuit and that it has been corrupted to the core. Hence, why we got so many so-called scientists who believe in absurdities such as the globe. Meanwhile, the real scientists who know we don't live on an absurdity get marginalized and ridiculed.
The mainstream morons are nothing but a bunch of ZEALOUS BULLIES. You can see that when people such as Mr. Dawkins is hailed as a hero of mainstream science for being a bully vs. creationists, for example. Same thing with people such as deGrasse Tyson being a bully vs. flat-earthers, even though his most famous claims are "that stuff is flat!" and "it's pear-shaped". ;D
Did you know that deGrasse Tyson was scheduled to have a debate with Dubay on JRE but it got cancelled? Yes, that is a fact. I'm not the biggest Dubay fan, but the fact that the mainstream heroes are avoiding scientific debate with certain people should give you a clue that they're all about pushing a narrative, and that those certain people are dangerous to the narrative. Not that science is about debates - the debates are meant for public forums such as the aforementioned JRE, not for scientific research or progress. And not that I'm mad that people like deGrasse Tyson exist either, I actually find him hilarious. But he is a priest, nothing more. Like I said before in one of my other comments, he probably knows that the Earth is flat and is playing a role. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
-
Lol at quoting the “pear shaped” thing
Painfully obviously meant playfully as “a sphere but morphed 0.0001% into a pear shape”.
-
Lol at quoting the “pear shaped” thing
Painfully obviously meant playfully as “a sphere but morphed 0.0001% into a pear shape”.
That a fact? :D
-
Yeah, they would say that - but sadly for them it's not true.
OK. Now all you've got to do is understand that your statement is simply your opinion and one which you have based on evaluating the evidence available to you.
I don't care how much evidence you think you have because evidence ≠ proof.
Correct. And again, now all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.
Outside of that all we have is evidence, and that's all we can base our opinions on.
I don't care what "one could argue" either, I only care about facts.
Cool. Me too. But establishing what the facts are is the tricky bit. I've given examples of things which people regard as "facts" which are actually incorrect.
But it is a fact that the claimed distances between on earth places cannot be mapped on a flat plane.
That can be proven because now we are back in the world of mathematics, in this case Euclidian geometry.
What is your response to that?
To respond to another of your posts:
The only reason it's mainstream nowawdays is because they know they have no proof for the big theories such as the globe, relativity, evolution, virology, etc. Because they're simply not true.
No scientific theory should be said to be proven in the strictest sense.
They aren't "true" in the strictest sense either, they are simply the best models which fit the current evidence.
The biggest misconception in mainstream science is that facts are evidence-dependent and that they can change at any moment as soon as the next batch of contradictory evidence is accepted by the consensus.
Facts themselves don't change, but what is regarded as factual can of course change. Things which were thought to be true, and therefore declared incorrectly as facts, can be found to be untrue. The ancients believed there were 4 elements, for example. Even when they realised the earth was a globe they believed it was at the centre of the universe and everything went around us. That was taught as a "fact" for centuries before it was found to be incorrect.
Over time models have got better as observations have. Better models make better predictions, that's the test.
In other words, they (the mainstream morons) want you to believe that there's no such thing as truth, or that truth is based on consensus.
Facts are not dependant on evidence, as I've said the truth is independent of belief. But determining what is true is the difficult part.
Hence, why we got so many so-called scientists who believe in absurdities such as the globe. Meanwhile, the real scientists who know we don't live on an absurdity get marginalized and ridiculed.
This is quite a common conspiracy theory tactic. Declare all the experts who are telling you that you're wrong as not real experts. But the ones who are saying what you want to believe - they're the real ones. If you do that you can convince yourself that anything is true.
-
all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.
Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump? You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.
-
all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.
Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump? You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.
By your own logic of course it isn't. It's evidence. Pretty strong evidence. But maybe something else was going on. You might be incapable of jumping, but just as you bent down Zeus took pity on you and lifted you up in invisibly.
People like you who follow mainstream jumping just don't understood the truth of invisibly Zeus lifting
-
all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.
Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump? You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.
By your own logic of course it isn't. It's evidence. Pretty strong evidence. But maybe something else was going on. You might be incapable of jumping, but just as you bent down Zeus took pity on you and lifted you up in invisibly.
People like you who follow mainstream jumping just don't understood the truth of invisibly Zeus lifting
Absolute clown comment. 🤡
-
Try understanding the difference between evidence and proof before you dip your toes in that, though.
Well, in science, evidence is data collected but proof isn't really a thing. It's more or less the result when you have a sufficient weight of evidence to be pretty sure that you've come to the correct conclusion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
So, what's your distinction between the two?
I thought you said there was proof for the globe, but the problem was that I wouldn't accept it? Now that I told you I would accept it, you had to switch the narrative to the mainstream narrative that there's no such thing as scientific proof.
And I thought that you were going to enlighten me with your explanation of the difference between evidence and proof.
-
all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.
Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump?
No. It's evidence.
I mean, I saw Penn and Teller one time and Teller produced a load of coins out of thin air.
That's proof he can create them out of nothing, yes? That's what I saw him do.
Do you see the problem?
You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
-
You have this pattern of deciding that a response is good, and recycling it ad infinitum even if you keep getting absolutely curbstomped over it.
Or, an alternative view is that I don't accept I've been curbstomped over it.
You have a pattern of thinking you're very right about something and getting cross if anyone suggests you're not.
Obviously I accept that there are different levels of proof - when Trump was pwned recently it was on the "preponderance of evidence", because it was a Civil trial. In a criminal trial you need to prove things "beyond reasonable doubt". Then there's mathematical proof which is absolute. But it's this last form that Duality appears to be talking about.
He keeps saying "evidence isn't proof". He's right, but the first two kinds of proof are evidence based. Which leads me to conclude he's talking about absolute proof, which isn't possible in the way he imagines.
Before you were saying different standards of proof; now it's different levels of proof?
What you're really saying is different standards of evidence, and different levels of evidence.
Proof is absolute by definition, that's why it's different than evidence.
Example: There's a bunch of evidence that Sasquatch exists, but there's no proof that Sasquatch exists until someone puts a Sasquatch on the table. Now, obviously I understand the skeptic point of view that: "well, it could be a hyper-realistic doll that looks like a Sasquatch, or something else that we already know about.". That's why we have scientific techniques to determine if it's really a Sasquatch or not.
all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.
Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump?
No. It's evidence.
I mean, I saw Penn and Teller one time and Teller produced a load of coins out of thin air.
That's proof he can create them out of nothing, yes? That's what I saw him do.
Do you see the problem?
You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
How did I know that you would come up with the argument that "well, I don't know that anything is real because illusions exist, so everything could be an illusion and everyone could be an illusionist playing a trick on me.". The answer is, try banging your head against the wall and tell me if the wall (and your head) is an illusion or not.
Pathetic argument that only 20 year-olds brainwashed by solipsism are making. Not ad-hominem, just saying that I only ever hear this argument from 20 year-old snowflakes, and you definitely fit that profile.
-
Before you were saying different standards of proof; now it's different levels of proof?
What you're really saying is different standards of evidence, and different levels of evidence.
Proof is absolute by definition, that's why it's different than evidence.
I agree that proof is absolute, but people use the word in a fairly loose way - like the way people now use "literally" for emphasis when then don't mean something literally happened.
Or they qualify it like in the court setting where something has to be "proven beyond reasonable doubt".
There is acknowledgement there that this is not absolute proof, and as you've noted this can lead to miscarriages of justice. There was a good example in the press recently when a women who'd spent 20 years in prison in Australia for murdering her 4 children was released when it was found there could have been some genetic condition the kids all had. That created the reasonable doubt.
Which is the exact point. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is held up to be a high standard of "proof", but it can yield incorrect results. The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.
How did I know that you would come up with the argument that "well, I don't know that anything is real because illusions exist, so everything could be an illusion and everyone could be an illusionist playing a trick on me.".
That is literally your argument about NASA. "Everything they do is an illusion, it's all fake".
Your logical inconsistency is mind-boggling, dude.
-
Before you were saying different standards of proof; now it's different levels of proof?
What you're really saying is different standards of evidence, and different levels of evidence.
Proof is absolute by definition, that's why it's different than evidence.
I agree that proof is absolute, but people use the word in a fairly loose way - like the way people now use "literally" for emphasis when then don't mean something literally happened.
Or they qualify it like in the court setting where something has to be "proven beyond reasonable doubt".
There is acknowledgement there that this is not absolute proof, and as you've noted this can lead to miscarriages of justice. There was a good example in the press recently when a women who'd spent 20 years in prison in Australia for murdering her 4 children was released when it was found there could have been some genetic condition the kids all had. That created the reasonable doubt.
Which is the exact point. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is held up to be a high standard of "proof", but it can yield incorrect results. The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.
"Proven beyond reasonable doubt" is a redundancy because proof being absolute means it's beyond reasonable doubt.
The courts rely on evidence, they convict people all the time based on evidence. But scientific facts don't get decided in court, that's one more thing you don't understand.
"The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.". Are you f-ing serious? That's your claim, not mine. If you keep lying like that, I'm going to add you to my ignore list.
How did I know that you would come up with the argument that "well, I don't know that anything is real because illusions exist, so everything could be an illusion and everyone could be an illusionist playing a trick on me.".
That is literally your argument about NASA. "Everything they do is an illusion, it's all fake".
Your logical inconsistency is mind-boggling, dude.
Quote me saying those exact words. Another lie. You've been strawmanning with the NASA crap from the beginning, talking about the ISS and things I never mentioned.
CGI is not an illusion, it's CGI. That's not an argument. You're deplorably using the argument that you used in your previous comment where you try to convince people that someone jumping in front of you is not proof that they can jump and flipping it on me disbelieving the CGI that NASA produces - it's not going to work.
The only one being logically inconsistent is you. And it's very obvious that you need to be logically inconsistent because you have nothing but your beliefs and narratives that have nothing to do with scientific fact.
-
"Proven beyond reasonable doubt" is a redundancy because proof being absolute means it's beyond reasonable doubt.
I know. But that isn't possible, which is why "beyond reasonable doubt" is added as a qualifier.
And as we've seen, that can lead to mistakes.
But scientific facts don't get decided in court
So? They are still based on evidence. And they can change or even be replaced completely as new evidence emerges. That has happened multiple times over history, I have given you examples.
"The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.". Are you f-ing serious? That's your claim, not mine.
Yes it is my claim. And I have provided a source which backs it up.
You seem to be claiming that scientific things have be proven absolutely. I have explained why that isn't true.
It cannot be true, otherwise scientific ideas would never change.
Quote me saying those exact words.
It has been your sentiment. You believe NASA "fake almost everything" - I think those were your exact words.
So you accept things can be faked, it doesn't matter whether that's with a magic trick or using special effects. The end result is the same - the thing you observe is not as it seems. The only difference is the method.