The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: pheonix83 on April 23, 2018, 09:13:25 AM
-
Now im really confused, i was strongly leaning towards flat earth theory but after seeing this live stream of earth now i dont know what to believe. A lot of points made a lot of sence on flat earth theory but this has made me question everything.
It cant be CGI its a stream, can it?
here is the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM
-
A good exercise would be to start looking at everyday tech that relies on satellites and ask yourself how it would work on a flat Earth. Then ask yourself if all of the private companies that use space are in on the conspiracy. Make sure to include foreign entities. FEers are very good at making things about FEH SOUND good, but when you start really looking at things, it starts to fall apart.
-
Follow the live stream as the ISS passes over areas covered by the various weather satellites, and see if the cloud cover on the live feed matches the stills taken from the weather satellites.
I've done this numerous times, and haven't found anything that gives me cause for doubt.
-
In case of OP's particular stream, it's fake. Not in the usual "ooh, conspiracy" sense, but rather a simple matter-of-fact "this is not a live stream" sense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37778973
Now, it would be very unfair from me to try to leap from that to saying that all live feeds from space must therefore be fake. However, it's an excellent illustrative device. You can look at "live streams" all you want without finding much reason to doubt them. They might be pre-recorded, or they might be procedurally generated. Acknowledging that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference is an important first step.
It may also be worth noting that the supposedly real live stream is much simpler in content, and of much lower quality:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload
-
Here's the live stream you're looking for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM
Unfortunately for flattards and their sham theory, the ISS live feed perfectly correlates with its position on the satellite tracker, the landscape seen down below, as well as cloud formations as seen from above and from below (can someone post that metabunk link here?). So yes, it's not that hard to "tell the difference" and there is no way this live feed could be faked. But nice try Pete.
-
Here's the live stream you're looking for:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM
Yes, thank you, you have successfully identified the not-live-stream that's already linked in the OP, and which is accurately debunked in the BBC article. It is not the feed that you could on occasion correlate with a speck in the sky, which I also already provided.
Your brazen insistence really aids this illustration - you were so convinced and happy to defend anything that looks like a live stream that you accidentally defended the very one that's been debunked! This, precisely, is the problem with RE evangelists - they already "know" things, thus they don't feel the need to learn and evaluate.
So yes, it's not that hard to "tell the difference" and there is no way this live feed could be faked.
And yet you failed to tell the difference. Hmm...
I dunno, I can think of a few ways this could be faked. Perhaps I should stop thinking and just start blindly asserting that things are impossible. It seems to be going well for you.
-
This, precisely, is the problem with RE evangelists - they already "know" things, thus they don't feel the need to learn and evaluate.
Hmm. I don't think RE have a monopoly on that.
Have you seen Tom's posts? Particularly the condescending tone he uses when he clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about.
-
Yes, thank you, you have successfully identified the not-live-stream that's already linked in the OP, and which is accurately debunked in the BBC article. It is not the feed that you could on occasion correlate with a speck in the sky, which I also already provided.
Hmm, it seems that the BBC article is talking about the "live feed" that was posted on Facebook, not the one on Youtube. I didn't notice it was the same link that the OP posted, but I still don't see any indication of it not being actually live...
-
They might be pre-recorded, or they might be procedurally generated.
Pre-recorded wouldn't fit in with the real-time imagery from weather satellites, unless the operator possesses a crystal ball or time machine.
What do you mean by "procedurally generated"?
Acknowledging that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference is an important first step.
Do you have a good reason why I or anyone else should acknowledge this? Claiming that the stream "could be" something which it is not is not really a good reason....
-
i dont think its fake, when i was watching it at one point you see the astronaut remount the camera and in the processes he turns it onto himself for a moment then turns it back to remount the camera. if its fake then its a brilliant fake at that.
-
which is accurately debunked in the BBC article.
Sorry Pete, can you please explain; the OP vid links to YouTube whilst your BBC link talks about the non live stream being broadcast on Facebook, how are you sure it's the same vid?
-
In case of OP's particular stream, it's fake. Not in the usual "ooh, conspiracy" sense, but rather a simple matter-of-fact "this is not a live stream" sense.
This does not mean it's fake, it just mean whoever is calling it live is lying about it being live. There IS a real live stream here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload
[/quote]Now, it would be very unfair from me to try to leap from that to saying that all live feeds from space must therefore be fake. However, it's an excellent illustrative device. You can look at "live streams" all you want without finding much reason to doubt them. They might be pre-recorded, or they might be procedurally generated. Acknowledging that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference is an important first step. [/quote]
True, but, it can be easy to tell if something really is live or not. For instance: watch the (not actual) live stream for a long time and you'll never see the ISS go into the night. You'll see repeating video, etc. This shows it's not live. Other feeds, like the real live stream on Ustream, does not show any signs of it being pre-recorded or fake. The clouds in the video even match live photos and radar data. How can you know, if you do know, that the official NASA live stream is fake?
It may also be worth noting that the supposedly real live stream is much simpler in content, and of much lower quality:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload
It's not that low of quality. 720p is pretty good.
It's also much simpler because it isn't hand-held by an astronaut, it's mounted onto the ISS.
-
It's not that low of quality. 720p is pretty good.
The resolution of the broadcast is not the only descriptor of quality. The image is heavily compressed and not particularly sharp.
It's also much simpler because it isn't hand-held by an astronaut, it's mounted onto the ISS.
Of course, that would be the official reasoning. However, a stream so simple could be more easily faked. This is why the distinction between officially fake and officially real live streams is key.
How can you know, if you do know, that the official NASA live stream is fake?
I do not claim to know one way or the other. I'm merely suggesting that it's not the irrefutable proof that newcomer RE'ers are looking for.
-
a stream so simple could be more easily faked. This is why the distinction between officially fake and officially real live streams is key.
How would one make such a distinction?
How can you know, if you do know, that the official NASA live stream is fake?
I do not claim to know one way or the other. I'm merely suggesting that it's not the irrefutable proof that newcomer RE'ers are looking for.
So you're admitting at least the possibility that it is real?
-
So you're admitting at least the possibility that it is real?
Why does this question keep coming up? Yes. It is possible that the stream is real. It is possible that the Earth is round.
-
Why does this question keep coming up? Yes. It is possible that the stream is real. It is possible that the Earth is round.
Because it's quite rare to find a FEer not entrenched in their position, to the exclusion of all else.
-
Because it's quite rare to find a FEer not entrenched in their position, to the exclusion of all else.
I really don't think it is, knowing a fair number of FE'ers who remain very open-minded. We've already discussed this. If you go out of your way to find loons, you'll be surrounded by loons. If you approached the subject differently, your results would also change.
-
The resolution of the broadcast is not the only descriptor of quality. The image is heavily compressed and not particularly sharp.
But patterns in the clouds, continent and land patterns, etc, are still easily discernible, so the quality is still good enough to be usable.
Of course, that would be the official reasoning. However, a stream so simple could be more easily faked. This is why the distinction between officially fake and officially real live streams is key.
How would it be faked then? Why does the difference between the two streams mean anything? They're both still real video, one is just not live.
I do not claim to know one way or the other. I'm merely suggesting that it's not the irrefutable proof that newcomer RE'ers are looking for.
Well you still have yet to refute it.
-
Because it's quite rare to find a FEer not entrenched in their position, to the exclusion of all else.
I really don't think it is, knowing a fair number of FE'ers who remain very open-minded. We've already discussed this. If you go out of your way to find loons, you'll be surrounded by loons. If you approached the subject differently, your results would also change.
On here no-one is going out of their way to find loons. J-Man and Tom are quite active members and are both loons, in different ways.
One is clearly off his meds, the other is astonishingly entrenched in his position and there's a huge gap between what he thinks he understands and what he really understands.
-
J-Man and Tom
But that's the thing. Those who assert things about "most FE'ers" (and who don't immediately jump to the "just watch some youtube videos" defence) seem to only be able to produce 1 or 2 names to back their claims. I propose that your sample size is woefully inadequate.
-
J-Man and Tom
But that's the thing. Those who assert things about "most FE'ers" (and who don't immediately jump to the "just watch some youtube videos" defence) seem to only be able to produce 1 or 2 names to back their claims. I propose that your sample size is woefully inadequate.
That's fair, but I'm on a Flat Earth forum so I can only base it on the people I encounter here.
If this place isn't representative then where is?
There was Pickel who thought the holocaust was a fraud...
I have a bit more time for you and Dither (who I think is sadly deluded but at least he admits it's a faith and doesn't try and pretend he understands science like Tom does.)
-
There was Pickel who thought the holocaust was a fraud...
She was an obvious troll. We get our share of those.
That's fair, but I'm on a Flat Earth forum so I can only base it on the people I encounter here.
If this place isn't representative then where is?
I don't know. However, I don't think that describing a large group of people by the actions of an individual is ever a good idea. Of course, it's a tempting one, and I've fallen into the trap of stereotyping many times before. My suggestion would be to treat individuals as individuals.
-
That's fair, but I'm on a Flat Earth forum so I can only base it on the people I encounter here.
If this place isn't representative then where is?
I don't know. However, I don't think that describing a large group of people by the actions of an individual is ever a good idea. Of course, it's a tempting one, and I've fallen into the trap of stereotyping many times before. My suggestion would be to treat individuals as individuals.
True, but in personal experience at least, those more level headed have so far been the exception as opposed to the rule. P-Brane, Jeran, Tom Bishop, J-Man, Intikam, Shifter, jroa, Space Cowgirl, InFlatEarth, Treep, Dithers, dutchy, totallackey, Danang, realNarcberry, John Davis, th3rm0m3t3r0, Parallax. Of those 18, there's around 5 I would put in that category. I'm also relatively certain I've missed a few names that don't belong in that category.
That said, I still try my best to do as you say. But the rope I hand out is much shorter than it used to be.
-
Now im really confused, i was strongly leaning towards flat earth theory but after seeing this live stream of earth now i dont know what to believe. A lot of points made a lot of sence on flat earth theory but this has made me question everything.
It cant be CGI its a stream, can it?
here is the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM
I understand your concerns but it is obviously CGI. It's just another plot by nasa to convert us to Globeheads. Stay Strong Brother- Keith
-
... it is obviously CGI. It's just another plot by nasa to convert us to Globeheads.
Why is it "obvious"?
Given that it takes Hollywood studios months to generate the SFX to go into their blockbusters, dontcha find it a bit improbable that NASA and the other ISS agencies (you do know what the 'I' stands for, don't you?) would be able to churn this out every day, day after day....?
-
Now im really confused, i was strongly leaning towards flat earth theory but after seeing this live stream of earth now i dont know what to believe. A lot of points made a lot of sence on flat earth theory but this has made me question everything.
It cant be CGI its a stream, can it?
here is the video
I understand your concerns but it is obviously CGI. It's just another plot by nasa to convert us to Globeheads. Stay Strong Brother- Keith
Do you really think NASA gives a crap about FEers? I mean honestly, you're a tiny minority of the population and most people think you are idiots. They wouldn't go through the expense of faking a live feed. That would cut into their profits and expose them to getting caught as it would require an effects studio to pull it off.
-
Do you really think NASA gives a crap about FEers? I mean honestly, you're a tiny minority of the population and most people think you are idiots. They wouldn't go through the expense of faking a live feed. That would cut into their profits and expose them to getting caught as it would require an effects studio to pull it off.
This is similar to a point I made some time back when I found that NASA publish a website which tells you exactly when you can see the ISS from your location, wherever that is. Something easily verifiable, if you know what you’re doing and can be bothered.
If they are faking all this they do seem to be going out of their way to make it hard for themselves by doing things like that and providing live streams.
-
That's hilariously similar to the line of thought of RE'ers who come here and tell us how we should run the Society or promote FET - clearly we're doing it wrong, despite the fact that it works spectacularly and led to an exponential growth of the FE movement worldwide.
Clearly, they found a way to make what they do work well and be convincing to the uninquisitive. It doesn't matter much what you think would make more sense.
-
I think if you're going to look at these live streams and look for the ISS in the sky when they say it's going to be overhead then you're fairly inquisitive.
And shouting "FAKE!" at everything which doesn't fit your world view doesn't make you inquisitive, it's just denial.
And you really need to stop conflating a growth in interest in the society (which is mostly people pointing and laughing) with growth in the society itself.
-
I think if you're going to look at these live streams and look for the ISS in the sky when they say it's going to be overhead then you're fairly inquisitive.
It's the intellectual equivalent of believing in what Uri Geller is telling us because he totally showed us his abilities.
And shouting "FAKE!" at everything which doesn't fit your world view doesn't make you inquisitive, it's just denial.
It's a good thing I'm not doing that, then.
And you really need to stop conflating a growth in interest in the society (which is mostly people pointing and laughing) with growth in the society itself.
Perhaps you need to stop assuming that you have a better insight into the growth of the Flat Earth movement than members of the movement itself? Again, your thoughts and feelings are extremely insignificant in this case, since you're hardly in touch with many FE'ers.
-
I think if you're going to look at these live streams and look for the ISS in the sky when they say it's going to be overhead then you're fairly inquisitive.
It's the intellectual equivalent of believing in what Uri Geller is telling us because he totally showed us his abilities.
Not really. Geller does what he does, I have a problem with him because he pretends his tricks are him really doing stuff.
But the analogy in this case would be Geller volunteering to come to my house and bend a spoon of my choosing without him touching it.
If he can really do stuff "by the power of his mind" then he could do that, right?
But he can't. I know he can't, he knows he can't. So he's not going to do that.
Why would he go out of his way to make life difficult for himself? Stick to staged stunts on telly, fella.
If NASA are going to maintain a pretence of space travel then pretending to collaborate with a bunch of other countries to build the ISS, have numerous people pretend to live there for periods of time and making loads of videos of them doing so, creating a fake live stream, publishing a website which tells you exactly when you can see the ISS for yourself. It does all seem to be making it life difficult for themselves. It's not like people are crying out for these things. I'm actively interested in space travel and I don't sit watching the live stream or watch the videos from the ISS or go into my back garden to see it as it flies overhead. I'm sure some people do but why they would go to the hassle of creating all this "fake" content for a relatively small audience, content which can be scrutinised and, in the case of the times the ISS flies overhead personally verified...well, it does all seem like they're making lives far harder for themselves in keeping up the pretence.
And point taken about the growth of the FES but I honestly don't think I know anyone who genuinely believes it - I know some conspiracy theory nuts but even this is a step too far for them, probably a whole flight of steps. Quite simply because it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. The fact that pretty much the first question in your FAQ is "is this site a joke" indicates you realise that most people regard this with a certain amount of amusement.
[I did search for your "sinking ship" evidence on the other place, by the way, you can search posts unless you sign up]
-
It's the intellectual equivalent of believing in what Uri Geller is telling us because he totally showed us his abilities.
No, it isn't. Geller has never controlled an illusion viewable by the whole wide world, repeatedly, every 90 minutes, over a number of years. Not only does the ISS appear on schedule, bang on time, every time, but it also never fails to show up, and can sometimes e seen twice in one evening. It shows no deviation of course from that published in advance. It shows no behaviour that would suggest it to be an illusion, trick, or something other than an orbital craft orbiting at roughly 17k mph.
If it were an illusion, it would be an absolutely miraculous one.
And shouting "FAKE!" at everything which doesn't fit your world view doesn't make you inquisitive, it's just denial.
It's a good thing I'm not doing that, then.
.. you must admit, though, there are plenty of your fellow members and believers outwith this society who do.
And you really need to stop conflating a growth in interest in the society (which is mostly people pointing and laughing) with growth in the society itself.
Perhaps you need to stop assuming that you have a better insight into the growth of the Flat Earth movement than members of the movement itself? Again, your thoughts and feelings are extremely insignificant in this case, since you're hardly in touch with many FE'ers.
Do you have membership numbers, growth rates, or any other stats?
-
But the analogy in this case would be Geller volunteering to come to my house and bend a spoon of my choosing without him touching it.
That would be analogous to me taking an item of my choosing to NASA (I'll let you in on the fact that it would be a banana, for the sake of an old inside joke) and demanding that they put it in a polar orbit. I doubt they'd entertain me.
well, it does all seem like they're making lives far harder for themselves in keeping up the pretence.
I just don't care what it seems like to you. Just like I don't care much when RE'ers are trying to tell us how to run FES because it seems to them like we're doing it wrong.
The fact that pretty much the first question in your FAQ is "is this site a joke" indicates you realise that most people regard this with a certain amount of amusement.
That's irrelevant. We had to answer the question because (even with the FAQ) we receive hundreds of messages asking if we're trolling. That's kind of how the FAQ works. The fact that most people think the Earth is round, or that they won't consider any alternatives, has nothing to do with the fact that this majority is rapidly shrinking.
.. you must admit, though, there are plenty of your fellow members and believers outwith this society who do.
I won't entertain the idea of taking responsibility for the actions of others. You're welcome to take up your issues with the individuals concerned.
Do you have membership numbers, growth rates, or any other stats?
I will not disclose anything that's not already abundantly public. I value my trust relationship with other members of this group, and with other groups. All I can suggest is that you stop ignoring the publicly-available evidence - widespread media coverage of newcomers to the FE scene, or the Economist's analysis of the movement's growth in America (https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-21) would be a good start. I'm not exactly making a controversial statement here - it's just one you'd really rather not have to deal with.
Forbes also recently reported on a YouGov poll (https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-thirds-of-american-millennials-believe-the-earth-is-round/#624cceea7ec6) - make of that what you will. It also contradicts my understanding that Flat Earthers are not overwhelmingly religious.
-
You'd agree that the YouGov poll covered an exclusively American base, though, wouldn't you ... ?
-
You'd agree that the YouGov poll covered an exclusively American base, though, wouldn't you ... ?
Yes, by design. It was directly aimed at Americans.
-
But the analogy in this case would be Geller volunteering to come to my house and bend a spoon of my choosing without him touching it.
That would be analogous to me taking an item of my choosing to NASA (I'll let you in on the fact that it would be a banana, for the sake of an old inside joke) and demanding that they put it in a polar orbit. I doubt they'd entertain me.
Well no, because in your example you - the sceptic - are the one challenging NASA to do something. If you went up to Geller with a spoon he'd probably bend it for you using "the power of his mind" (read "slight of hand"). If you said he couldn't touch it though, then he wouldn't. Because he can't.
Your example would work better as an analogy if NASA came to you and said "hey, I hear you've always wanted to put a banana in polar orbit. We'll get right on that for you". It is NASA providing these live streams. NASA providing the website telling you where you can see the ISS (have you checked to see if you can? I haven't because I don't feel the need to, if you're a sceptic then this is easily testable). NASA keep putting people up there and shooting video of them in weightless conditions. They're not doing it in response to any great public clamour for this.
Why would they bother doing all that?
And I think you're massively over-stating the acceptance of flat earth believe, there's a lot of interest in it, I'm interested, but that's not the same thing.
From that Economist article
On November 9th, 500 “flat-Earthers” assembled in North Carolina for the first annual Flat Earth International Conference.
500 :D. And while we're here, a load of Americans believe in aliens visiting earth too. Americans are not renowned for critical thinking.
A high percentage of 6 year olds believing in Santa Claus is not an indication of the abilities of 6 year olds to think rationally or the validity of the theory that there's a fella coming down their chimneys to deliver presents every Christmas.
-
On November 9th, 500 “flat-Earthers” assembled in North Carolina for the first annual Flat Earth International Conference.
500 :D
How often do you attend conferences? 500 is just about the capacity of many events venues. This happens to correlate with the fact that the conference tickets sold out. More people couldn't attend, quite literally, because they weren't allowed to.
Once again, you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. You want to claim that the number is small, so you'll perceive it as small regardless of what it was.
-
A vast majority of Americans believe Presley did in fact die in 1977. A Gallup poll conducted in 1997 found only 4% of Americans thought Presley was alive, while 93% of those surveyed were certain he was dead. http://time.com/4897819/elvis-presley-alive-conspiracy-theories/ (http://time.com/4897819/elvis-presley-alive-conspiracy-theories/)
I know this is from 1997 but still 4% of the US population back then was significantly more than 500 people...for context
-
Once again, you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. You want to claim that the number is small, so you'll perceive it as small regardless of what it was.
That's sweet. Have you seen me say that on here about others and you're doing a slightly grown up "you know you are, you said you are?" :D
I'm well aware of cognitive dissonance. I actually do want the number to be small because I think it's sad if a lot of people are unable to think rationally or clearly, but if the number was large - statistically speaking - then I wouldn't deny that. I've seen no evidence of that in the UK although admittedly I tend not to go round asking people.
I can believe that belief in a flat earth is growing in America. There's a guy in the White House who wouldn't know the truth if it punched him in the face.
People believing crazy things and belief in that crazy thing increasing is not evidence that the thing isn't crazy. I don't think "the tide is turning" though or that it will ever become a mainstream belief because it is clearly wrong and doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
In the UK there was a load of stuff about the MMR vaccine being linked with Autism - the whole thing was based on some flawed research and whipped up by the media. Parents were literally refusing to allow their children to be vaccinated and the result is a big rise in the incidence of measles
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/19/who-warns-over-measles-immunisation-rates-as-cases-rise-400-across-europe
A lot of people believed a wrong thing, that didn't mean it was a valid thing to believe.
-
If you do the same as the Economist and do bit research on Google trends, it's really quite interesting. From 2004 to roughly 2014 the interest in "flat earth" was steadily decreasing. Since then it increased by a factor of about 10. The search interest in "flat earth society" followed the trend for "flat earth" in a 1:1 fashion until 2014. But interestingly the increase since then for "flat earth society" is much lower, about a factor 1.5.
This is for general web search. If you look for searches on YouTube, "flat earth" showed also there an increase in 2014, but since last summer the interest is steadily decreasing, down to 43% from the maximum last year. It's now back on the level as around 2015/16.
For me that shows, that there is indeed an increasing curiosity in the term "flat earth", but it is not really substantial. There is no real increase in engagement into the subject. To watch a video on YouTube cost you much more time than a quick google search looking for an explanation of this term. Also the curiosity leads not in the same way to a kind of institutional interest in something like a flat earth society.
It is also interesting to see, that this mainly a US phenomenon. E.g. the interest ratio between the USA and Russia is 100:3, to the most European countries it is below 100:10. Another thing is, what triggered the interest. And there it seems, that a huge part goes back to some celebrities whose names are the most related search expression to "flat earth".
Doesn't sound like a tide for me...
And I'm also happy to see that the big US universities outnumber the interest in "flat earth" by orders of magnitude... And even my own, comparable small University, generates at least a search interest that is in the same range as that for "flat earth". It's also nice to see, that we get every year more new physics, astronomy, geography, and so on students than people participating on flat earth meetings in the homeland of this "movement". By the way, the yearly meetings of the American Physical Society are joined by more than 10000 scientist every year. And the APS has also numbers regarding membership, it's almost 50000 people... That's a movement...
-
I've seen no evidence of that in the UK although admittedly I tend not to go round asking people.
That, once again, is because you actively don't want to find out. If you change your mind, you still have two days to register for the Birmingham FE convention :)
But hey, if you really don't want to acknowledge it, I won't waste my time trying to force you. I have better things to do - for example, working to further expand the movement!
I know this is from 1997 but still 4% of the US population back then was significantly more than 500 people...for context
And why would you compare a number of people who believe in something to a number of people who attended an expensive event where no more people could attend, as it sold out?
It is also interesting to see, that this mainly a US phenomenon. E.g. the interest ratio between the USA and Russia is 100:3
That's rather unremarkable, given that Russians would obviously be searching for "плоская земля". Suddenly, the ratio is 3:1. Other European countries are left as an exercise to the reader.
If, instead of using keywords you rely on Google's identification of topics, Indonesia appears to trounce other countries in FE popularity. The USA falls art 59% of that popularity, and Russia at 27%. This, of course, brings us even closer than the 3:1 found through keywords.
Overall, your statement was a rather poor attempt at cherry-picking data.
A lot of people believed a wrong thing, that didn't mean it was a valid thing to believe.
You're copping out. You started out by objecting to the suggestion that FET is growing. Now that you've been provided with evidence, you're shifting the focus to whether or not you think it's of any significance.
-
Interest in FEH is growing. That doesn't mean belief in FEH is growing. I've mentioned this site to several people and they had all heard that there are still misguided individuals that think the Earth is flat. Some even knew details of the hypothesis by googling it. Not a single one thought it was real. Many laughs were had. Further, while traffic to this site is up, other FEH sites I looked up were actually down. Is there some consolidation happening? The jury is still out, but to claim the "majority is rapidly shrinking" is a bit premature. I'd put money on the fact that this will eventually fade as all conspiracy theories do.
-
You're copping out. You started out by objecting to the suggestion that FET is growing. Now that you've been provided with evidence, you're shifting the focus to whether or not you think it's of any significance.
Interest in it is certainly growing, I never disputed that. I guess that means that the movement itself will grow because "x" percent of people who are interested might see some merit in what I will charitably call the "arguments" of the movement.
But I would suggest that "x" is very small. I said before that:
I think you're massively over-stating the acceptance of flat earth belief, there's a lot of interest in it, I'm interested, but that's not the same thing.
I pretty much stand by that. I'm not buying "exponential growth" or "the tide is turning".
If it is then we're that's a pretty damning indictment of our education system.
You have the Analytics stats for this site, I guess. And maybe that's going through the roof. But look who is actually posting, it's mostly round earthers.
-
Interest in FET is growing. That doesn't mean belief in FET is growing.
Indeed. The two happen to be occurring simultaneously, but no causal link is implied.
Further, while traffic to this site is up, other FET sites I looked up were actually down. Is there some consolidation happening?
It's more of a shift to other forms of communication than consolidation. Our growth on this website has been steady, but between social media, real-life meetups and small local groups forming, I would argue that the heart of the FE movement is as decentralised as ever.
Interest in it is certainly growing, I never disputed that. I guess that means that the movement itself will grow because "x" percent of people who are interested might see some merit
Indeed.
If it is then we're that's a pretty damning indictment of our education system.
You know, it's possible to have a conversation without you saying "I think erf round" every other sentence. It's okay, you're a RE'er, we haven't forgotten.
You have the Analytics stats for this site, I guess. And maybe that's going through the roof. But look who is actually posting, it's mostly round earthers.
It takes a very specific kind of individual to post on a forum that's so rife with hecklers (especially ones with so little good will), or even to publicly argue for an unpopular idea. A lot of our communication happens away from the eyes of the RE peanut gallery. It's not the way I like to do things, but who am I to tell others what to do?
-
I've seen no evidence of that in the UK although admittedly I tend not to go round asking people.
That, once again, is because you actively don't want to find out. If you change your mind, you still have two days to register for the Birmingham FE convention :)
By the way, if this wasn't in Birmingham I'd be quite tempted.
But Birmingham is a proper shit-hole, there would have to be a very good reason for me to go there and this doesn't qualify.
-
By the way, if this wasn't in Birmingham I'd be quite tempted.
But Birmingham is a proper shit-hole, there would have to be a very good reason for me to go there and this doesn't qualify.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. However, I would argue that if you're going to rely on petty excuses to avoid finding out why you're wrong, perhaps you shouldn't so vehemently argue that you're right.
-This doesn't happen in the UK
-Yes, it does, here's an upcoming event
-Oh, but that takes place in a baddie-no-no city, that doesn't count
-
Do you really think NASA gives a crap about FEers? I mean honestly, you're a tiny minority of the population and most people think you are idiots. They wouldn't go through the expense of faking a live feed. That would cut into their profits and expose them to getting caught as it would require an effects studio to pull it off.
Keep it in AR. Warned.
-
-This doesn't happen in the UK
-Yes, it does, here's an upcoming event
-Oh, but that takes place in a baddie-no-no city, that doesn't count
Straw man.
The "this" was never that no-one in the UK believes in a flat earth, it was that very few people do.
The fact that there is a convention in Birmingham for people who do believe that - or are flat-curious - is not an indication to the contrary.
You can get conventions and conferences for all kinds of niche views, that doesn't make them prevalent.
Quite tempted by the £20 web streaming option although quite honestly I suspect it would be like watching a compilation of flat earth YouTube videos.
-
According to google the average interest in "flat earth" around the world in the last 12 month was 46%, with a peak last November of 100%. The interest for the corresponding expressions in Russian, German and Spanish at the same time was 2%, 1% and 1%, respectively. The Russian expression is declining in the recent month after two huge peaks last year, the German one is more or less constant and the Spanish one slightly increasing.
And regarding Indonesia... There was zero interest before July 2016, than it jumped to 100% followed by a exponential decay down to 14% now. And regarding the US, it is interesting to see, that it's not the states where the brightest heads are living show the most interest in this...
-
So the topic of the thread was whether this live stream is fake, not the FET movement right?
Is there any hard evidence that the live stream is CGI and not actual footage? The argument of it be live is irrelevant and only further derails the thread.
-
In case of OP's particular stream, it's fake. Not in the usual "ooh, conspiracy" sense, but rather a simple matter-of-fact "this is not a live stream" sense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37778973
Now, it would be very unfair from me to try to leap from that to saying that all live feeds from space must therefore be fake. However, it's an excellent illustrative device. You can look at "live streams" all you want without finding much reason to doubt them. They might be pre-recorded, or they might be procedurally generated. Acknowledging that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference is an important first step.
It may also be worth noting that the supposedly real live stream is much simpler in content, and of much lower quality:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload
I think if you are going to call anything fake you must have sound corroborating evidence to support your claim. It strikes me that crying fake, is the default reaction for many flat earth believers if the point at issue conflicts with their beliefs. It’s a regular contradiction shown by many flat earthers who are quite willing to believe ideas that have no scientific basis or evidence if it bolsters their own beliefs, while at the same time cry fake to anything that is counter to what they believe.
The NASA live stream is just one of possibly hundreds of items that could be posted that you would automatically cry fake for without any evidence to support your claim. Example in case was the recent launch of the latest Mars mission.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/science/nasa-mars-insight-launch.html
I could possibly come up with one new reference every day that you would automatically call out fake to without having any solid evidence to back up your claim. It’s all very well having a different belief but for it to be taken seriously it really has to have more substance than just calling whatever the opposition does is fake.
-
I think if you are going to call anything fake you must have sound corroborating evidence to support your claim. It strikes me that crying fake, is the default reaction for many flat earth believers if the point at issue conflicts with their beliefs. It’s a regular contradiction shown by many flat earthers who are quite willing to believe ideas that have no scientific basis or evidence if it bolsters their own beliefs, while at the same time cry fake to anything that is counter to what they believe.
It's the FE Mentality, best summed up by a Wiki page which has now been removed - or rather the text has. But I don't know why as it perfectly sums up the reasoning.
Luckily, the page has been archived so you can still see what it said:
Place Of The Conspiracy (https://web.archive.org/web/20170826081921/https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET)
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
No basis for P2 is given, it's just stated as an axiom. Ergo, P1. Checkmate. Everything showing us wrong is fake. No evidence of that is needed because of P2 We win!
-
But I don't know why as it perfectly sums up the reasoning.
We did exactly what you and your kind requested of us - admitted that the reasoning was poor and not representative of FE thought, and removed it until it gets properly rewritten (which is gonna take forever, as you know)
Luckily, the page has been archived
It's no luck that the page has been archived - I went out of my way to ensure that as much of our content as possible is archived at all times, because transparency is one of the principles driving this site. You might notice that our Internet Archive coverage is much broader than that of similarly sized websites, and this is no coincidence.
Finally, by holding this content over our head, even though we made concessions, you reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest. I've once met a RE'er who mistook velocity for acceleration. He didn't realise his error at first, but later on admitted a mistake and we moved on. How would you feel if I tried to inform newcomers that "RE'ers can't even tell the difference between the two concepts"?
-
But I don't know why as it perfectly sums up the reasoning.
We did exactly what you and your kind requested of us - admitted that the reasoning was poor and not representative of FE thought, and removed it until it gets properly rewritten (which is gonna take forever, as you know)
Luckily, the page has been archived
It's no luck that the page has been archived - I went out of my way to ensure that as much of our content as possible is archived at all times, because transparency is one of the principles driving this site. You might notice that our Internet Archive coverage is much broader than that of similarly sized websites, and this is no coincidence.
Finally, by holding this content over our head, even though we made concessions, you reveal yourself to be intellectually dishonest. I've once met a RE'er who mistook velocity for acceleration. He didn't realise his error at first, but later on admitted a mistake and we moved on. How would you feel if I tried to inform newcomers that "RE'ers can't even tell the difference between the two concepts"?
If every RE member demonstrated that then you would have a point.
Why is the live stream fake? You never answered the question. Sounds just like your renounced "flat earth is an obvious truth" logic.
-
If every RE member demonstrated that then you would have a point.
Nope - this is analogous. You're holding something one person said nearly a decade ago over our heads.
Why is the live stream fake? You never answered the question.
I explained what's fake about it in my very first post here. If you're going to lie about what I did and didn't say, we're not going to have a conversation.
-
If every RE member demonstrated that then you would have a point.
Nope - this is analogous. You're holding something one person said nearly a decade ago over our heads.
Not exactly.
If every new RE member you encountered on this forum continued to not understand the mistakes made by a person years ago then you aren't really holding it over their heads, you're stating a fact.
Why is the live stream fake? You never answered the question.
I explained what's fake about it in my very first post here. If you're going to lie about what I did and didn't say, we're not going to have a conversation.
No, you didn't actually. Here's your claim again:
In case of OP's particular stream, it's fake. Not in the usual "ooh, conspiracy" sense, but rather a simple matter-of-fact "this is not a live stream" sense.
You pointed out how a live stream wasn't actually live. The word you're looking for is not "fake" but "misleading". The footage was very much real footage and it is being streamed live from YouTube, the content however was just being reused from a previous stream/recording. Thus it is "misleading" not "fake".
Unless you want to make a claim that the footage was fake/CGI (I assume that's what you mean by "ooh, conspiracy"). I'd love to hear you explain that.
-
If every new RE member you encountered on this forum continued to not understand the mistakes made by a person years ago then you aren't really holding it over their heads, you're stating a fact.
That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
No, you didn't actually. Here's your claim again:
In case of OP's particular stream, it's fake. Not in the usual "ooh, conspiracy" sense, but rather a simple matter-of-fact "this is not a live stream" sense.
Indeed, that is what I claimed, and I followed it up with evidence.
You pointed out how a live stream wasn't actually live. The word you're looking for is not "fake" but "misleading".
Not at all. Users were deceived into watching pre-recorded footage as live. That's a fabrication, and one with a financial motive. You're welcome to dislike my use of the word, but I was amply clear about what I meant.
The footage was very much real footage
How have you established that?
-
If every new RE member you encountered on this forum continued to not understand the mistakes made by a person years ago then you aren't really holding it over their heads, you're stating a fact.
That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
Agreed. This is distracting now.
You pointed out how a live stream wasn't actually live. The word you're looking for is not "fake" but "misleading".
Not at all. Users were deceived into watching pre-recorded footage as live. That's a fabrication, and one with a financial motive. You're welcome to dislike my use of the word, but I was amply clear about what I meant.
Yes mislead (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mislead), not faked. There was no imitation. It was pre-recorded footage (as you said) that was then streamed live.
Your use of the word makes it seem as if every aspect of the stream is made up. If someone takes content and passes it off as their own or something else entirely they are not faking the content itself, they are misleading those who are unaware.
The footage was very much real footage
How have you established that?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37778973
Nasa has confirmed to the BBC that this is not live video from the International Space Station and said it must be old spacewalk video footage.
It appears that at least part of the the video broadcast on Viral USA was filmed by astronaut Terry Virts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QWMMT1c8Y) during a spacewalk in February 2015.
While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts (https://wn.com/video_replay_gopro_spacewalk_eva_of_russian_astronauts_in_2013_(flat_earthers_look_away_)) in 2013.
-
mislead (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mislead)
If you're going to nitpick over words, can you please at least spell them correctly?
Look - I get it. You don't like that I used the word "fake", and I did use it somewhat facetiously. I also provided ample clarification of what was meant. If your only issue is that you'd rather use a different word, rest assured that I won't stop you from using it - but I'll also disregard your preference in my own writing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37778973
Nasa has confirmed to the BBC that this is not live video from the International Space Station and said it must be old spacewalk video footage.
It appears that at least part of the the video broadcast on Viral USA was filmed by astronaut Terry Virts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QWMMT1c8Y) during a spacewalk in February 2015.
While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts (https://wn.com/video_replay_gopro_spacewalk_eva_of_russian_astronauts_in_2013_(flat_earthers_look_away_)) in 2013.
"NASA said so" is a particularly low standard of evidence.
-
mislead (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mislead)
If you're going to nitpick over words, can you please at least spell them correctly?
The word is spelled correctly (did you click the link?). My error was in using the wrong tense, thus it was a grammatical error (http://examples.yourdictionary.com/bad-grammar-examples.html) not a spelling error.
If you're going to nitpick about someone nitpicking words then make sure you're right.
Look - I get it. You don't like that I used the word "fake", and I did use it somewhat facetiously. I also provided ample clarification of what was meant. If your only issue is that you'd rather use a different word, rest assured that I won't stop you from using it - but I'll also disregard your preference in my own writing.
No my issue is clarification because of your word choice. I gathered from follow up posts that you believe the footage to be CGI but I'd rather not assume and get a straight answer from you.
After all "ooh, conspiracy sense" is about as clear as mud and debating whether it was live or pre-recorded footage doesn't answer the question in the OP - "It cant be CGI its a stream, can it?"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37778973
Nasa has confirmed to the BBC that this is not live video from the International Space Station and said it must be old spacewalk video footage.
It appears that at least part of the the video broadcast on Viral USA was filmed by astronaut Terry Virts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QWMMT1c8Y) during a spacewalk in February 2015.
While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts (https://wn.com/video_replay_gopro_spacewalk_eva_of_russian_astronauts_in_2013_(flat_earthers_look_away_)) in 2013.
"NASA said so" is a particularly low standard of evidence.
Cool, what about the other two quotes?
-
"NASA said so" is a particularly low standard of evidence.
No worse than "Rowbotham said so" ...
-
]We did exactly what you and your kind requested of us - admitted that the reasoning was poor and not representative of FE thought, and removed it until it gets properly rewritten
The reasoning IS poor but it is fairly representative of FE thought - on here, anyway.
I certainly didn't request you to remove it, it was a perfectly honest page and explains the sort of reasoning I see on here.
Witness Tom's reaction to the boat and laser experiment. It shows him wrong, so it's fake. He spent 2 days trying to misunderstand it and raising one spurious objection after another. Then when he finally understood it he just declared it fake anyway. It contradicts what he believes so it has to be. No evidence needed.
There there's the multiple different experiments showing horizon dip at altitude. He explains them all away in different, spurious ways and it's notable that he has made no effort to do any experiments himself. Some empiricist he is.
The reaction to this "live stream" and the "Tesla in space" is similar. Has any flat earther done anything to determine whether these might be real? Because if they are then this would have to completely change your world view. Is it possible these things are faked? Technically I'd say it probably is these days. I mean, the launch clearly happened, there are too many witnesses for you to sensibly claim it didn't happen at all. But the technology probably exists to fake the footage. Do you have any evidence of that? If not then it's just denial and it's perfectly summed up by that Wiki page.
I'm not "holding it over your head" but I think it's fair game to bring it up when I see that sort of reasoning going on, and I see it a lot on here.
Maybe not every flat earther thinks this way but it's the sort of mindset I absolutely see regularly from the more prominent flat earthers on here.
The part about declaring the flat earth an obvious truth I'd concede I've not seen anyone on here say that. But the bit about denying any evidence which contradicts a flat earth is exactly what flat earthers on here do. So maybe a more accurate statement would be:
If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts a flat earth then the evidence is fabricated
The flat earth is true, in your minds, so anything which contradicts that must be false and you don't seem to feel the need to provide any evidence for that.
-
The word is spelled correctly (did you click the link?). My error was in using the wrong tense, thus it was a grammatical error (http://examples.yourdictionary.com/bad-grammar-examples.html) not a spelling error.
The tense was rather clear in the context. I strongly suspect that you simply failed to spell it correctly, and your spell-checker didn't catch it because it would be a valid spelling in other tenses. That said, if it wasn't a typo and you actually consciously used the wrong tense, that only makes your failure more pronounced - why would you want to highlight that?
I gathered from follow up posts that you believe the footage to be CGI
I don't think I've said that, and if I did, it most certainly was not my intention.
"NASA said so" is a particularly low standard of evidence.
No worse than "Rowbotham said so" ...
Which, as you may recall, I consider to be a crappy argument.
If someone repeatedly claim that the Earth is flat because Rowbotham said so, they would be arguing from authority.
What is it with you people and repeating things I already said, as if they were somehow novel additions to the discussion?
I certainly didn't request you to remove it, it was a perfectly honest page and explains the sort of reasoning I see on here.
The deletion happened when you brought this up with me (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9110.msg145106#msg145106), and the responses in the thread appear to reflect RE'ers' desire for action to be taken.
You were also disappointed when it was taking me a while to do anything about it:
It's pretty much summed up on this Wiki page (which even Pete admitted is strange and he would look into, it's still there though)
Please, at least try to remain internally consistent. A few of you convinced me to look into this, and I decided in your favour. You're welcome, by the way.
The reaction to this "live stream" and the "Tesla in space" is similar. Has any flat earther done anything to determine whether these might be real?
Yes, and the answer is: they might.
Because if they are then this would have to completely change your world view.
Not really - it would just lend more credence to some models.
Do you have any evidence of that? If not then it's just denial and it's perfectly summed up by that Wiki page.
There is no relation between the logic in the former Wiki page and your perceived lack of evidence of the Conspiracy.
I'm not "holding it over your head"
You are, and I would ask you to do the polite thing and stop. Trying to force arguments that someone has made previously and then withdrew is not a good thing. Again, if I did this, I'd be repeatedly asking you whether you think Texas and Japan are the same place (because someone made that mistake once). But that's not how things work. We move on from past failures, and focus on the present.
Maybe not every flat earther thinks this way but it's the sort of mindset I absolutely see regularly from the more prominent flat earthers on here.
The part about declaring the flat earth an obvious truth I'd concede I've not seen anyone on here say that.
Yes - you haven't seen one of the core assumptions of the "proof". That's why it's no longer there. In fact, I needed to search for references to that page prior to writing here, just to make sure I've got my facts straight. Turns out it's almost exclusively you who brings it up. Quelle surprise.
But the bit about denying any evidence which contradicts a flat earth is exactly what flat earthers on here do.
You're welcome to your own opinion, just don't try to argue it by dishonestly bringing up retracted claims out of context. Alternatively, don't be surprised if people choose not to engage you in discussion. Nobody likes a liar.
The reasoning IS poor but it is fairly representative of FE thought - on here, anyway.
I can't recall a single FE'er who spoke in favour of that page. Your argument is unsubstantiated, other than you repeatedly shouting that FE'ers totally think this way. If you want to just decide what our thinking is, what's the point in discussion? You already know the answers. Grab a beer and a mirror, and discuss with yourself.
-
The deletion happened when you brought this up with me (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9110.msg145106#msg145106), and the responses in the thread appear to reflect RE'ers' desire for action to be taken.
I brought it up in a conversation about the way you guys think. It's a generalisation, obviously, but I see it a lot on here.
The line of thinking is: "The earth is flat, ergo everything which shows it not to be must be fake". They don't seem to feel the need to provide any evidence for that.
You were the one who said that you thought that was a strange page and said you would investigate.
I did not ask you to, neither did I comment that I thought you should. Others did but I can't speak for them.
For me the Wiki page showed poor reasoning but it is the sort of reasoning I see from flat earthers on here.
I commented on the fact that you hadn't removed the page, I didn't say I was disappointed about that.
I didn't "convince" you to look into it, I didn't ask you to look into it.
You have a nerve implying I'm lying about things when you say stuff like that which is demonstrably not true.
That said, I will stop referencing that Wiki page as you have deleted it.
But when I see people using this sort of reasoning:
Starting with the premise of a flat earth and then declaring evidence which shows that wrong to be false with no basis
I am going to call them out on it.
It is not my opinion that some people on here do that. I'm not repeatedly shouting that they think that way with no basis. They absolutely do and in my previous post I gave some examples of that which I see you have not commented on. Whether any FE person spoke on favour of that page is irrelevant. The examples of that kind of thinking are there for all to see.
-
The tense was rather clear in the context.
No it wasn't. That's why you pointed it out as an error and I acknowledged it.
I strongly suspect that you simply failed to spell it correctly
and your spell-checker didn't catch it because it would be a valid spelling in other tenses.
Wow, it's like I don't even have to try!
That said, if it wasn't a typo and you actually consciously used the wrong tense, that only makes your failure more pronounced - why would you want to highlight that?
Because it's possible that it was auto corrected on my phone to use present tense and I never gave it a second pass? I'm not sure what you're looking for here but we're getting off topic.
I gathered from follow up posts that you believe the footage to be CGI
I don't think I've said that, and if I did, it most certainly was not my intention.
Yes which is why the rest of my sentence is important.
...but I'd rather not assume and get a straight answer from you.
Now for my unanswered question in my last post.
Cool, what about the other two quotes?
Please respond.
-
I strongly suspect that you simply failed to spell it correctly
and your spell-checker didn't catch it because it would be a valid spelling in other tenses.
Congratulations, you where truly able to prove you're point with that one. After all, a spelling mistake can't be a spelling mistake if it accidentally formed another existent word. That would be mad.
Wow, it's like I don't even have to try!
You'd certainly do better not to - you seem very intent on making yourself look bad, and that's... well... not a good thing.
Because it's possible that it was auto corrected on my phone to use present tense and I never gave it a second pass?
That is certainly possible, and is fairly close to my original prediction. I'm still not sure why you'd try to make yourself look less educated by asserting that it was a grammatical error, rather than a simple overlooking. We're all human, you know.
Cool, what about the other two quotes?
Please respond.
"Oh, you didn't like my first argument from authority? But what about the other two arguments from authority that I also made?" - Yes, congratulations. The same criticism applies.
That said, I will stop referencing that Wiki page as you have deleted it.
Thanks. It's a shame I didn't get a full admission and an apology out of you, but as long as you stop being dishonest about this, I'm sure we can put your little faux pas to one side.
-
After all, a spelling mistake can't be a spelling mistake if it accidentally formed another existent word. That would be mad.
Correct. That would just be incorrect usage of the word or incorrect verb tense (a grammatical error).
You'd certainly do better not to - you seem very intent on making yourself look bad, and that's... well... not a good thing.
No you're just stuck in the past on this one.
Remember this?
But that's not how things work. We move on from past failures, and focus on the present.
That is certainly possible, and is fairly close to my original prediction. I'm still not sure why you'd try to make yourself look less educated by asserting that it was a grammatical error, rather than a simple overlooking. We're all human, you know.
A grammatical error is a grammatical error regardless of how it happened. Instead making excuses I acknowledged the issue and moved on. However, you seem desperate to use this as a way to discredit me or something.
"Oh, you didn't like my first argument from authority? But what about the other two arguments from authority that I also made?" - Yes, congratulations. The same criticism applies.
You do realize this came from your source right?
You asked how I could verify the footage was real. I pointed to examples in your source where the original video was identified.
Are you saying that those aren't the original videos?
-
mislead (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mislead)
If you're going to nitpick over words, can you please at least spell them correctly?
Look - I get it. You don't like that I used the word "fake", and I did use it somewhat facetiously. I also provided ample clarification of what was meant. If your only issue is that you'd rather use a different word, rest assured that I won't stop you from using it - but I'll also disregard your preference in my own writing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37778973
Nasa has confirmed to the BBC that this is not live video from the International Space Station and said it must be old spacewalk video footage.
It appears that at least part of the the video broadcast on Viral USA was filmed by astronaut Terry Virts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QWMMT1c8Y) during a spacewalk in February 2015.
While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts (https://wn.com/video_replay_gopro_spacewalk_eva_of_russian_astronauts_in_2013_(flat_earthers_look_away_)) in 2013.
"NASA said so" is a particularly low standard of evidence.
I think thats a bit unnecessary pointing out his spelling mistakes, when your own mistakes of logic are far more serious. While Im not a great fan of the bible i really like the story of the plank and the grain of sawdust as it perfectly desccribey your own situation quite nicely.
-
You do realize this came from your source right?
I don't see how this is relevant. I'm not disagreeing with the article - these organisations most likely said what the BBC claims they said. That doesn't magically make it an insurmountable truth.
-
You do realize this came from your source right?
I don't see how this is relevant. I'm not disagreeing with the article - these organisations most likely said what the BBC claims they said. That doesn't magically make it an insurmountable truth.
So you when claim that the live stream is "fake" based on information from your source it is evidence. When I cite the same source using the same information as evidence for the validity of footage for said "fake" stream it is an appeal to authority.
Got it.
-
Got it.
No, you didn't get it at all. We know that not even NASA claims for this particular stream to be real. This doesn't magically make everything NASA says true, it just uncovers an inconsistency in the OP and your consequent attempts at devil's advocacy.
-
Got it.
No, you didn't get it at all. We know that not even NASA claims for this particular stream to be real. This doesn't magically make everything NASA says true, it just uncovers an inconsistency in the OP and your consequent attempts at devil's advocacy.
It's unfortunate that you saw the word NASA and decided ignore the rest of the quotes I posted, instead grouping them all under the "NASA is unreliable" umbrella. You should reread those quotes and tell me where the last two came from (hint: not NASA).
-
Got it.
No, you didn't get it at all. We know that not even NASA claims for this particular stream to be real. This doesn't magically make everything NASA says true, it just uncovers an inconsistency in the OP and your consequent attempts at devil's advocacy.
You want NASA live tv here it is;
https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive
Are you claiming all these, past and future broadcasts are all fake?
If so that’s one hell of a conspiracy!
For example, take the recent launch of the Mars mission.
According to you they would have to have ,faked the design and manufacture of the lander, faked the televised launch, and will have to fake all the data it will stream back to Earth when it eventually lands!
According to you NASA’s fake factory must be one of the world’s largest industries, given all their other space missions along with Hubble and other images!
-
You want NASA live tv here it is;
https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive
Yes, I already provided a link at the start of this thread. What is it with you people repeating my points and acting as if they were novel?
Are you claiming all these, past and future broadcasts are all fake?
No. I've made my position on this clear too many times, including smack dab on the front page of this website. Instead of putting words in my mouth, try and read some of our content.
-
You want NASA live tv here it is;
https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive
Yes, I already provided a link at the start of this thread. What is it with you people repeating my points and acting as if they were novel?
Are you claiming all these, past and future broadcasts are all fake?
No. I've made my position on this clear too many times, including smack dab on the front page of this website. Instead of putting words in my mouth, try and read some of our content.
My link had you looked was a different one! though in the context of the debate its a pretty minor point of no consequence given your acusation. The question at hand is regarding the reality of the output of NASA vs the validity of your claims that it is all faked, thats the real question, and one that you constantly evade by picking on irrelevent points such as spelling and links.
It would be helpful if you could provide some evidence that at least attemts to prove all the output from NASA is fake rather than us just relying on your say so. We know for a fact that all the launches did indeed take place as there is plenty of corrobarative evidence to support them, such as live broadcasts etc, unlike your evidence which so far is non-existent. There is also a financial paper trail from all the hundreds/ thousands of organisations and companies involved in the design and manufacture of all the hardware/software used.
By all means have a differing position in a debate, but at least make some effort to justify and robustly back up your claim rather than simply resorting to snippy comments relating to spelling or duplicated links.
This is a serious question you are raising that has massive implications. Saying all the NASA missions are fake and all the data they have published over the years relating to our solar system and the universe is a giant scam, is huge, consequently your evidence to back up your claims also needs to be huge. So far Ive seen no evidence from yourself or any other flat earther that meets that criteria. Much more is required from you other than just a hollow conspiracy, which after reading your, pretty thin to say the least, Wiki is all you currently have.
-
minor point of no consequence given your acusation
What accusation?
-
minor point of no consequence given your acusation
What accusation?
I think thats called evasion, and as far as this forum is concerned does it not constitute low content posting.
I think you know exactly what i was referring to, but you chose, rather than defend your position, to evade and avoid. That suggests to me that you have no answer to my question, is that the case?
-
I think you know exactly what i was referring to
No, I don't. That's why I asked you to clarify. I don't believe I've made any accusations in this thread.
minor point of no consequence given your acusation
Do not discuss moderation in the middle of a thread. If you believe that I've done something wrong, report the post to moderators - they'll look into it and set me straight if need be.
-
I think you know exactly what i was referring to
No, I don't. That's why I asked you to clarify. I don't believe I've made any accusations in this thread.
minor point of no consequence given your acusation
Do not discuss moderation in the middle of a thread. If you believe that I've done something wrong, report the post to moderators - they'll look into it and set me straight if need be.
Well lets start with an easy one to establish where you stand.
Though not a live stream, Hubble images are an output from NASA that are made freely avaiable to the public, in fact the RAW data is made avaiable so that those members of the public who wish to process their own images via, a RAW converter photoshop plugin, can do so. Is it your position that all the online images and data that have been produced by Hubble are fake, or do you belive them to be genuine?
-
Is it your position that all the online images and data that have been produced by Hubble are fake, or do you belive them to be genuine?
I do not hold a strong position either way.
-
Is it your position that all the online images and data that have been produced by Hubble are fake, or do you belive them to be genuine?
I do not hold a strong position either way.
What about the use of satellites for broadcasting, communication and navigation?
-
Is it your position that all the online images and data that have been produced by Hubble are fake, or do you belive them to be genuine?
I do not hold a strong position either way.
If I understand your weak position, as you stated your position is not strong, you neither belive them, the images and the data, to be real, nor fake. Sitting on a fence can sometimes be a dangerous place. I wonder why you are a flat earth spokesperson, as you said you wrote the homepage, so what do you believe? Flat or round?
It obviously follows that your position on space flight, must also be of the weak position, given Hubble is currently in orbit. What new knowledge , one way or the other, would force your hand and make you leap of your wobbly fence?
-
I wonder why you are a flat earth spokesperson, as you said you wrote the homepage, so what do you believe? Flat or round?
Must one be an extremist or a zealot to be able to represent or aid a cause? I firmly believe that this is not the case. Sorry if that doesn't match up with your preconceived notions, but I care extremely little about those.
It obviously follows
No, it does not. You'll understand the world that surrounds you much better if you stop making assumptions and calling them obvious.
given Hubble is currently in orbit.
This is not a given. Your argument is "I'm right, therefore I'm not wrong." How boring.
What new knowledge , one way or the other, would force your hand and make you leap of your wobbly fence?
This has already been discussed to death. If I knew the answer, I would have already pursued it without your unsolicited comments.
-
Must one be an extremist or a zealot to be able to represent or aid a cause? I firmly believe that this is not the case.
No you don't have to be a radical but there is no such thing as neutral position when you make a statement like this:
given Hubble is currently in orbit.
This is not a given. Your argument is "I'm right, therefore I'm not wrong." How boring.
Either it is an orbit or it is not in orbit. You are suggesting, contrary to the fact that it could be seen in orbit, that it is not in orbit. As Tom would say "your claim, back it up. "
-
I wonder why you are a flat earth spokesperson, as you said you wrote the homepage, so what do you believe? Flat or round?
Must one be an extremist or a zealot to be able to represent or aid a cause? I firmly believe that this is not the case. Sorry if that doesn't match up with your preconceived notions, but I care extremely little about those.
It obviously follows
No, it does not. You'll understand the world that surrounds you much better if you stop making assumptions and calling them obvious.
given Hubble is currently in orbit.
This is not a given. Your argument is "I'm right, therefore I'm not wrong." How boring.
What new knowledge , one way or the other, would force your hand and make you leap of your wobbly fence?
This has already been discussed to death. If I knew the answer, I would have already pursued it without your unsolicited comments.
Hows that? predictable or not. I press lightly the, im not quite sure what to think, or too embarrassed to say it, Mr. Svarrior, and rather than answer my question, he defensivly brands me a zealot! Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion. Nothing like a good old Ad hominem smokescreen to muddy the waters. Its quite clear flat earth people like Mr. Svarrior object strongly, or in his case, weakly, to being asked straight forward questions. Why is this? are they afraid of being honest of what they believe. I suppose its easier branding me rather than honestly answering the question. As for my questions being labelled unsolicited, I think it escaped his notice that this is a debating forum. To put the record straight asking questions is a required part of the debating process, as is giving answers. It strikes me you are not one bit interested in either, so why are you here?
-
he defensivly brands me a zealot!
I did no such thing. You asked me why I'm a FE spokesperson if I don't religiously believe a space conspiracy. I responded with a question: must I be a zealot to represent FET? Is it a prerequisite that I have no doubt whatsoever? The question had nothing to do with you, and everything to do with me. How you arrived at your conclusions is behind me.
I will ignore the rest of your post for now, as it appears you did not understand what was being said.
-
what if satellites are ground-based and just made like they were space-based with positional tracking and propaganda.
-
what if satellites are ground-based and just made like they were space-based with positional tracking and propaganda.
That's totally inconsistent with user experience and observation, so as a "what if", it fails.
-
inconsistent with what exactly? you can most definitely make positional tracking without shooting stuff into space, and by placing tracking points via wireless transmissions. why spend all that money when they will come crashing down after said number of years and then be deemed useless after the crash when you can build and maintain the ground units instead. we don't need to shoot stuff into space because we don't really do that anyway.
read my sig
-
inconsistent with what exactly? you can most definitely make positional tracking without shooting stuff into space, and by placing tracking points via wireless transmissions. why spend all that money when they will come crashing down after said number of years and then be deemed useless after the crash when you can build and maintain the ground units instead. we don't need to shoot stuff into space because we don't really do that anyway.
read my sig
How exactly does that work?
The position based stuff i mean?
I am about 500 miles from the nearest land, and dont have any signal from shore such as mobile phones etc, but i do I use GPS to find where i am, i can even scroll through the almanac and find the elevation and azimuth of the 10 or more satellites we are tracking.
So you tell me how the little box tells me where i am?
While you are at it, tell me how I am able to post this to the internet at the same time?
-
It's graphics, play a video game, you're not really controlling an Italian plumber you know.
I'm not definitively saying I'm right or anything, I said what if. remember that.
-
It's graphics, play a video game, you're not really controlling an Italian plumber you know.
I'm not definitively saying I'm right or anything, I said what if. remember that.
What if magic fairies make it happen?
It’s as logical a question as you posed, yet just as much fact based.
Most people who make statements can normaly back them up, rather than just say “What if?”
-
he defensivly brands me a zealot!
I did no such thing. You asked me why I'm a FE spokesperson if I don't religiously believe a space conspiracy. I responded with a question: must I be a zealot to represent FET? Is it a prerequisite that I have no doubt whatsoever? The question had nothing to do with you, and everything to do with me. How you arrived at your conclusions is behind me.
I will ignore the rest of your post for now, as it appears you did not understand what was being said.
I never used the word religiously, or any other extreme adjictive, i just asked you the simple question;
Do you think the stream of data and the published derived images produced by Hubble have been faked?
Pretty simple question for you to address, so what do you think? Fake or not?
-
what if satellites are ground-based and just made like they were space-based with positional tracking and propaganda.
Then I'd ask you what these dishes are pointing at.
http://sawyertravel.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/our-satellite-dish.html
And if you're going to say "how do you know they're pointing at anything?" I have 2 points:
1) Why would satellite providers send you a disk for free as Sky do if those dishes don't actually point at anything. What a ridiculous waste of money, why would they do that?
2) I have personal experience of my signal being blocked by a neighbour putting up scaffolding, I know how precisely these dishes must be pointed to receive a signal and how they stop working if they don't have clear line of sight to the satellite. Someone else in another thread suggested the signals could be something else in the sky but offered no explanation or suggestion as to what technology could make an object hover in a stationary position for years on end. What would power it? What would stop it moving?
-
inconsistent with what exactly?
I said that already. The assertion that satellites are actually ground-based is inconsistent with user experience and observation.
See the video below.
you can most definitely make positional tracking without shooting stuff into space, and by placing tracking points via wireless transmissions.
What do you mean by this? What "positional tracking" are you referring to? What "tracking points"?
why spend all that money when they will come crashing down after said number of years and then be deemed useless after the crash when you can build and maintain the ground units instead. we don't need to shoot stuff into space because we don't really do that anyway.
Why? Because the satellites do what the ground-based transmitters cannot. I'm old enough to remember the days of analogue TV broadcasting in the UK, and in order for TV to reach all parts of the country, a network of transmitters, hundreds of them, was required up and down the country. Users in remote areas, hilly areas, mountainous areas had no TV, because the landscape got in the way. Adjacent transmitters were forced to broadcast the same channel on different frequencies to avoid multipath reception difficulties for end users.
As a result of this, TV aerials in different parts of the country faced in different directions according to the best transmitter for their reception. This was easily seen as one travelled around the country.
This has all changed now. All satellite dishes point South, even those on the south coast of the UK. All satellite TV subscribers in the country are served by one satellite, which has the footprint to cover the whole country. There's no conflict between adjacent transmitters because the whole country is served by one. The terrestrial network still exists, side-by-side with the satellite system.
The existing transmitter network is not being used for satellite TV. If it were, the dishes would not all point South. There's not an additional transmitter network for this. If there were, it would have been noticed.
The assertion that satellites are ground-based is also inconsistent with the experience of those amateurs who observe and track satellites.
Example;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ
Look also at the work of, for instance, the Space Geodesy Facility; http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/ (http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/)