[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[StinkyOne]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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?

[AATW]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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

[juner]

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.

[AATW]

-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.

[hexagon]

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...   

[jcks]

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.

[isaacN]

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.

[AATW]

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

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!

[Pete Svarrior]

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"?

[jcks]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[jcks]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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?

[jcks]

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, 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 during a spacewalk in February 2015.

While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts in 2013.

[Pete Svarrior]

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 during a spacewalk in February 2015.

While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts in 2013.

"NASA said so" is a particularly low standard of evidence.

[jcks]

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 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 during a spacewalk in February 2015.

While the footage on the Unilad Facebook page appears to come from a spacewalk by Russian cosmonauts in 2013.

"NASA said so" is a particularly low standard of evidence.

Cool, what about the other two quotes?