1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 07, 2023, 01:07:56 AM »

So, thanks for joining the club! Welcome!

FE Wins!

I believe you misunderstood.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 06, 2023, 05:07:18 PM »

Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
That's the point.

Is high-altitude footage of the earth “looking flat” good enough conditions, though?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: February 26, 2023, 06:42:21 AM »

Indeed. You won't be able to defend RET by blundering middle-school-level knowledge. If you could catch up and get back on track, we can abandon this "sharp horizon" nonsense and maybe start discussing something relevant.

Well, it is essentially sharp. You’re disagreeing on what you’re calling sharp. RE (and, I supposed, FE) doesn’t suggest a mathematically perfect divide between ocean and sky for various reasons. I would look at that picture and call it sharp horizon and agree it is “sharp” by the same reasoning that a knife is sharp. Yes, it is sharp - but if I look at it under a microscope I could call it a dull edge.
Just feels like straying from the premise.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Why are different stars visible in the northern and southern hemispheres?

« on: February 15, 2023, 07:25:29 AM »

A bipolar FE model or EA are generally used to explain this.

5

Technology & Information / Re: Cybertruck

« on: February 11, 2023, 07:48:54 PM »

To put it bluntly, the cybertruck is a truck for people who don't need and/or use one, which makes it perfect for the modern truck market.

This may be the best summary of the cybertruck I’ve ever read.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Flat Earth Scientific Proof

« on: February 06, 2023, 12:40:26 AM »

Experiments with plumbing (verticalization) and level (horizontalization) have proved that gravity does not exist, because the physical behavior of water is to seek its original form, that is, flatness.

There’s nothing of substance here. There is no “original form” of water and it’s certainly not “flatness”. It’s odd wording. Literally everything, including water, just moves in the direction of the sum of its forces. It’s not “seeking” anything.
There ARE interesting arguments for a flat earth, but “water seeks its level” is one of the strangest and weakest ones.

RE does not claim that you would see local curvature of water.
So, the statement “there’s no local curvature of water!”… does nothing. Because nobody said there should be.

Again, there ARE some interesting arguments for FE worth debating, but this looks like another grifter.

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Arctic Flights

« on: February 02, 2023, 04:42:05 PM »

Navigation and meteorology training will touch on variables due to the nature of the globe, certainly this occurred during my ATC training, which would be at a similar level to commercial pilot training. I don't think earth shape would be of any particular relevance to aircraft handling training.

There are times when pilots choose between line-of-sight radio frequencies (signal blocked by curvature) or low-frequency transmission that “rides” the curvature.

8

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: January 28, 2023, 05:51:16 AM »

In short: it's not only possible, but in fact very likely, that someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them. This doesn't even require a widespread conspiracy - it merely requires the assumption that the people we're dealing it don't frequently forget how to breathe.

It’s likely? We seem to have (from what I can glean) two classes we’re talking about here: the gullible college kids joining NASA to work on a fake space program, and the ACTUAL CGI artists in charge of producing fake imagery. The line between these two groups lies at an unclear point.

Are the engineers that designed the sample tubes lying through their teeth? Their involvement isn’t secret, it’s well documented and you can find and contact them. Perhaps they’re part of the group being fooled, which would suggest they pass on their actual designs to CGI artists unknowingly.

I should be clear - I find the mechanics of such a conspiracy actually really interesting and cause for good discussion. I find it too weak to be a literal worldview, but the idea is fun to think about.

9

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: January 28, 2023, 05:44:21 AM »

I mean, it's all fake, right? Why leave stuff like that in there?

They’re simultaneously all-powerful enough to keep up an international plot to fool the whole world that space is real, but too incompetent to edit out lightsabers and not make the lunar landers out of duct tape and tinfoil.

10

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: January 27, 2023, 06:20:16 AM »

It was known for a long time exactly what the sample tubes look like, what they’re made of and what they do. It was already known that they would be deposited on the surface of Mars.

Claiming that “they retconned the story after weird lightsabers showed up!” isn’t a coherent argument.

…because it wasn’t retconned. I knew of the sample tubes and that they would be deposited long before I saw photos of it - because it was public knowledge. Now, whether you think it’s fake isn’t the premise of this sub-argument, but claiming that it was a retcon isn’t in line with the facts.

Even assuming FE is correct and they faked the mission data, the rover is fake and space is fake, at least be honest that the sample tubes were already part of their story. Photos showing what the sample tubes look like predate the Perseverance mission photos.

11

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: January 25, 2023, 06:22:08 AM »

Why are you so sad that NASA is protecting people from a Sith invasion?

They’re choosing to believe that the sample return tube is this sudden unexpected thing that had to be quickly explained. The rover was known to be designed to do this for years.

Early publications regarding Perseverance explain in high detail the sample tubes.

Published on December 22, 2020:

“Made chiefly of titanium, each sample tube weighs less than 2 ounces (57 grams). A white exterior coating guards against heating by the Sun potentially changing the chemical composition of the samples after Perseverance deposits the tubes on the surface of Mars. Laser-etched serial numbers on the exterior will help the team identify the tubes and their content.”

Ah, yes, now that there's a webpage on the Internet saying the same thing you've claimed, all doubt is out the window.

The contention in this particular instance is not on the tubes themselves but the claim that they are “ad-hoc”.

But of course. As is typical of RE'ers, an ad-hoc explanation must be presented.

Suggesting that it’s just a sudden ad-hoc explanation suggests that the tubes are an expected artifact of the images to be explained, when this isn’t the case. It was already known what they look like since 2020.

12

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: January 25, 2023, 06:13:11 AM »

It's a good thing we're talking about sharp, well-defined pictures with huge amounts of text text in them. Otherwise, secretagent69's comment might come across as irrelevant and desperate.

https://twitter.com/roversbot/status/1618126534564364288?s=46&t=_XvkxRgVIpbV7llA4zt7Sg

https://twitter.com/roversbot/status/1618051036203163648?s=46&t=_XvkxRgVIpbV7llA4zt7Sg

Yep. Sure is a good thing!
Reminder that these are constantly posted minutes apart 24/7.
If we’re suggesting it’s secret gubment AI, well we run into both the problem of the data set that would need to exist for this, as well as the logistics of such a thing being kept secret.

Not to mention - Rushy, if they had incredibly perfect AI that had been developed in secret for years, I assure you they wouldn’t use it for something as harmless as some rover pictures.

13

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: December 22, 2022, 03:18:49 AM »

somewhere in saudi arabia

get the camel

If only there were some kind of image generating machine that could generate novel images constantly and output them on demand

Which one?

J-Man, I’m not sure where the Saudi Arabia claim is coming from.

Rushy, Martian imagery predates AI images as we know it. In fact, it’s only in the last couple years or so that AI art became more than just mush. Also, there are fairly obvious tells even from the best AI image generation tools. They don’t hold up to close detail, they smudge, they turn text to gibberish, etc. The rover images are consistent between every picture and show the exact same tiny details of the rover, with all its symbols and text. AI does not do this.

14

Science & Alternative Science / Who makes these images?

« on: December 14, 2022, 10:27:20 PM »

https://twitter.com/marsmissionimgs?s=21&t=LgeI5GohD13vGZcQBNUjoQ


This is a bot that automatically posts Mars rover images. They’re uploaded CONSTANTLY (10-15 minutes apart) all day every day.

Supposing they’re not actually photographs from Mars and faked here on earth, how would this be remotely possible?

Much of them depict landscape that doesn’t exist on earth, which could be explained as CG. But how are they making constant CG every few minutes all day every day? It takes weeks to produce a few frames of CG of this quality.

And why would they do it? The public isn’t even interested that much these days. Each one gets 0-2 likes. Why pay people to make fake Mars images every 10 minutes forever for no reason?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work

« on: December 14, 2022, 10:10:25 PM »

If I had to guess, maybe I’d start with the wiki “explanation” of planetary bodies (balls bouncing on a basketball court are round but the basketball court isn’t) which seems to concede that planetary bodies are in fact spherical as they appear?

Which I guess allows meteorites to also exist? That’s my assumption based on the wiki but if some actual FE'er wants to explain go ahead.

16

Technology & Information / Re: T-minus 10 hours - Artemis Mission to Moon

« on: November 30, 2022, 05:19:43 AM »

This is artwork. Rockets fly several thousand miles then drop in the ocean outta sight.

I will need proof that all rockets drop into the ocean, this is an extraordinary claim.

Who would win: tens of thousands of engineers that get paid to get rockets in space, or a guy on the internet that says “I think it’s fake”?

17

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17

« on: November 28, 2022, 12:52:03 AM »

Hilarious conversation. We know it never happened.

-Cites nothing. As is common.

18

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17

« on: November 27, 2022, 06:26:12 PM »

Used to love all that stuff. I was a big fan of the Shuttle programme, dad and me were a lucky enough to see one launch on a trip to Florida. Very lucky actually, it was due to go up before we even arrived in the States but was postponed for some reason.

One of my biggest regrets is never seeing a shuttle launch. Still the most beautiful spaceship I’ve ever seen. I plan on visiting Atlantis at the KSC soon.

19

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17

« on: November 27, 2022, 06:23:09 PM »

Against this backdrop, someone on another thread (who's name I can't even be arsed to look up again) is suggesting that space is boring.  Unbelievable.  Makes you wonder where we will be in another 50 years.

I believe it was this:

Space, as we are told, is a vast expanse of boring nothingness. But once you stop believing in it your mind opens up to all sorts of wonders that get ignited by pictures like this.

The stuff we get to see is breathtakingly beautiful- and that’s just what we’ve already found. I don’t know how people don’t see how amazing it all is.
Direct imaging of Pluto, the vibrant colors that Saturn’s rings cast across Saturn, photos of Enceladus and Europa, the Apollo footage, the shuttle launches, Jupiter’s colorful clouds, Titan where you could literally fly by flapping your arms, the thousands of clear images of the deserts of Mars, I could go on forever. How could anyone think it’s “boring”?
That’s why I posted this, the Apollo 17 image archive is absolutely enormous and each image is a treat.

I genuinely believe most people that don’t believe in the moon landing simply aren’t aware of the massive volume of photos, videos, engineering works, etc.

Saying space is boring because most of it is empty is like saying Earth is boring because most of it is rock.

20

Science & Alternative Science / Apollo 17

« on: November 27, 2022, 09:05:53 AM »

Just incredible how many god damn photos there are from these missions readily available on the internet. All high resolution and beautiful. Even if you think it’s fake, you gotta give them some credit.
You just keep scrolling and scrolling and the pictures keep going.

The link: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html