Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 308  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof positive the earth is flat
« on: May 16, 2021, 10:03:37 AM »
I’m not clear why the video in the OP claims this is an issue.
Yeah, other niggles aside, we agree on that much. It sounds to me like the author had fixated on something he found intuitive, but he didn't really explain his reasoning, and I'm not seeing the connection.

The video linked in the OP is a re-upload of someone whose YT account has since been closed. They claim there was a response video to "the globe zealots who think they see meteors going up", but only provide a link to the now-deleted account. If anyone has a copy or recalls what the argument was, that could be interesting.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof positive the earth is flat
« on: May 16, 2021, 08:36:48 AM »
Can we take a couple of steps back and at least agree on the definition of "up"?

The footage presented here clearly does not show meteors moving "up" in the RET sense of the term, i.e. away from the Earth, perpendicular to its surface at that point. In fact, the two RET commenters so far seem to think that the top of the camera frame is what defines "up", even when this is seemingly parallel to the Earth's surface (even when the OP's video specifically asks not to make that mistake). With such a loose and ultimately pointless definition, anything can be made to move "up".

More importantly, I am unconvinced that the absence of meteors moving up (that is, directly away from the Earth) is a problem for RET at all. Almost any such meteor would have had to pass through the Earth or originate there, so it's only normal that these wouldn't be common.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: May 14, 2021, 11:15:05 AM »
Please read the FAQ and the pages linked within prior to posting.

Steve, this applies doubly to you, since you're not exactly new here.


The impossible cold moonlight has been thoroughly debunked already several times. Here is a good experiment:
If you can't even understand the question that's been asked, please do the intellectually honest thing and choose not to respond.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth
« on: May 13, 2021, 11:08:27 AM »
Can I see New Zealand from the east coast of Australia by using a telescope?
I dunno, can you?


Short answer: Nothing changed on our end, so you're the only person who can tell us what has changed, and why.

A longer answer is possible if you provide us with any details whatsoever of what's happening. What browser(s) are you using, and on what OS? Show us some screenshots of what's going on.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motives behind The Conspiracy
« on: May 08, 2021, 10:48:32 AM »
Your assumption that anyone is "hiding the shape of the Earth", and the further assumption that they therefore "stand to gain something from hiding the shape of the Earth" contradicts the introduction of the Conspiracy rather early on.

Since your question does not relate to the Flat Earth Theory, but rather to some hypothetical conspiracy in which someone "have stood to gain from hiding the true nature of the Earth's shape", this thread is not relevant to the FET board.


Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 06, 2021, 04:38:31 PM »
Biden's letter contains information that is clear, correct, and relevant, but inappropriate to include in that context.
Whether you consider "wow look at how cool I am!" to be clear, correct, or relevant is very subjective.

Trump's signature, however, doesn't communicate any information, and so feels manipulative, like a psychological trick to try and make people associate their check with Trump without actually making a logical case for why Trump deserves credit for the check.
Right, so we're discussing your feelings. Fair enough. Can you explain why it "feels" that way?

To put it another way, both presidents took advantage of sending out these checks for their own political gain, but Biden was upfront about it while Trump did it in an underhanded way.
Really? What's more "upfront" about writing a letter and grandstanding about how it's totally cool that you didn't try to put your signature on the cheques for political gain, versus trying to put your signature on the cheques for political gain? If anything, the former adds a step to the process, making it less straight-forward.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: May 05, 2021, 08:26:55 PM »
I think there's an appreciable difference between the president including a self-congratulatory letter with the check and insisting that his own signature be on the check itself. The letter is ethically dubious, but putting Trump's signature directly onto the checks as if he was personally paying for the bailouts was fundamentally dishonest.
Could you elaborate on that? I fail to see the difference - both carry the exact same implication, and were done with the same intention. The main difference, it seems, is that orange man bad. Other than that, we only have the small difference of Trump trying to get his name on the cheques, and Biden trying to publicly announce how much he doesn't want his name on the cheques because he's so much better and purer than Trump.

I can remember two.
I can't help you with that. Your inexplicable memory lapses (which just gosh darn happen to make you forget things you were wrong about and should have learned from) are truly mysterious, but I lack the expertise to help you with those. Folk wisdom suggests it could be magnesium or B-12 deficiency, but you shouldn't rely on just folk wisdom when your health is concerned.

The one about Americans has a somewhat of a click-baity headline but basically it puts FE belief about 2%.
This is desperately incorrect, and you know it!!!1!

I'd still regard that as alarmingly high, but it's nowhere near the 5-10% I've seen you claim.
Indeed. And even if we pretend that you didn't just fudge one statistic you dislike, we can still point out that you completely ignored the other one, which flatly states >7%, and falls square in the middle of my estimate. :)

As always, you cherry-pick poorly analysed data, and only present what you think makes you look good. You're not even good enough to get that going, but the intention here is more worrisome than the outcome.

Even the most generous estimate I could find, that study in Brazil, put it at 7%. And that was a survey of 2000 adults. I'd suggest that in a country of 200 million that's not a statistically significant sample.
And what would you base this suggestion, which completely defies how statistical research is done, on? Once again - it is convenience. You don't like the results, so you're ready to throw out all research methods out the window in favour of... YouTube videos. Are you perhaps beginning to see the irony of this situation? You are everything you accuse the FE'ers of being.

I'm interested what you think your previous research revealed about him - obviously that pre-dated the Omegle video so it can't have been to do with that.
Of course - the Omegle case is more readily available because you presented it to us, and thus are unlikely to deny it happened (you'll only pretend that you didn't understand what was happening, but you won't suddenly "not remember" his video, at least for another few days). When SciManDan approached me for an interview on his podcast, I spoke to other FE content creators and activists about their experiences with him, and the many attempted "interviews", the troll mobs he sends after people, the hilarious failures at doxxing by said mobs, and his tendency to outright ban people when an argument isn't going his way (or when any of the above is highlighted) - you know, the kind of nasty stuff that put him on everyone's naughty list. I was warned by people I trust to disengage, and I have done so.

I was immediately suspicious because, when I pointed out that he appears to be a "debunker" channel (in the nicest possible way) and (more to the point) that we're not interested in inviting people to harass us, he told me that I shouldn't worry about that, because this podcast is totally different from all of his other content. Extreme red flag, and I'm grateful for it.

Not his finest work, I'd agree, although "abusing a child porn site" is a ridiculous mischaracterisation of him and Omegle and you know it.
Which part?
  • Omegle is predominantly a porn site running under the guise of "anonymous discussion", and a significant portion of the users are underage.
    • If you don't believe me and the Beeb (reminder for the mysteriously forgetful here), go ahead and check it for yourself. I mean, I strongly suggest you don't, shit's kinda gross, but if you really want to, you can verify it.
    • If I were you, I'd simply look at the mainstream media reports on the site and assume that they're not a complete lie. Too many witnesses, too much evidence.
  • He is abusing the site - he is not using it for its intended purposes.
  • He is doing so for personal profit - his videos are monetised, he's unable to bait any more FE'ers into interacting with him because the word of his misdeeds has spread far and wide, but the channel needs to keep ticking on. After all, how else is he gonna make rent?
Which part is a ridiculous mischaracterisation?

Dude, that isn't going to happen.
And yet it continues to happen, no matter how long you cry about it.

Again, take a step back and observe your desperation: you keep proposing that we should abandon statistics and data science in favour of:
  • a poll on an IT forum
  • some guy browsing child porn sites, finding some of his fans (quelle surprise), but not finding any FE'ers who'd reveal themselves to him
  • you personally not having met many people whom you go out of your way to call inferior to yourself (egads, I wonder why they might not be willing to talk to you...)
  • urbandictionary
You wouldn't need to do that were it not for the continued growth of FET.

And as I alluded to above, it's not exactly a "delusion" of superiority. RET is a demonstrably better model which can explain and predict things better than FE. [...]
Oh, no no no, you're not getting away with this. You don't get to call us bad people who deserve to be harassed only to then go "hnyeh all I meant was I don't think your theories are very good teehee". Either back up your belief that we are "baddies" who "cannot go unchallenged", and that the people who seek to harass, dox and marginalise us are "the good guys" from your perspective, or admit that placing yourself in a position of moral superiority was a dumb move that needs serious reconsideration.

This kind of stuff, by the way, is why I call you lot reprehensible, and ultimately one of the factors that fuels some of the nastier parts of the FE movement. Arrogant RE'ers who aren't nearly as smart as they think they are, but who think they can lord over others because they watched a YouTube video once. Despicable stuff, and it's gonna shoot us both in the foot.

I think you know that FE has had it's day. You've had a good run but you admitted the interview requests have dried up a bit.
We have had this discussion at least seven times now, so I'll give you the briefest of reminders: interview requests follow media hype when Elon make funny tweet. They're a bad thing, and while we made the best out of a bad thing with successful interviews, it is good that they've dried up. I much prefer talking to normal people and the occasional academic than brain-dead bloggers who pretend to be journalists. The actual growth of FE adherents also does not follow the media hype - unsurprisingly, dumb schoolkids visiting us to say "hehehe erth rund" are not our target audience.

I am not denying that interest in FE has grown.
We have made considerable progress. Now we just need you to concede on all the other things you're demonstrably wrong about, and your extremely twisted sense of moral righteousness.

But don't confuse interest and curiosity with acceptance.
Keep in mind that it's you and the other RE twerps in here who keep mixing up those metrics. You don't need to warn me about the risk of confusing them, but rather you need to think real hard about your own warning.

FE won't gain serious traction until you have a model which [I personally view as] consistent and [which I personally think] does a better job of explaining observations than RE.
Keep thinking that if you'd like. Just don't come crying to me when you realise your side had lost, purely due to ignoring the early warnings.

I don't understand your question
Yes, that much is evident. If you don't understand the discussion that's taking place, nor the context behind it, might I suggest taking the time to do so before posting?

The remainder of your post is precisely what I asked you not to waste our time with. Hopefully you knew in advance it would be ignored.

Google Trends is a good way of gauging interest in a subject.
Substantiate this statement, ideally keeping in mind that it's been made and refuted multiple times before, and the real correlation with Google Trends has already been documented. (i.e. please provide a new argument which sufficiently overturns the understood cause, and don't waste our time with the ones already dealt with)

Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please
« on: April 30, 2021, 04:39:36 PM »
also, you say water doesn't curve but ever heard of a meniscus, or a drop of water running down a window????
Are you proposing that, in a Round Earth scenario, the curvature of the water is caused by surface tension? I presume we can all agree that this isn't how any of this works.

basically, that's like saying it's hot outside so the air is spicy
Basically, it's not.

I wonder - is the "13" in your username your age, per chance?

Flat Earth Community / Re: On the Notion of Flat Earth Belief Growth
« on: April 30, 2021, 04:06:03 PM »
What studies?
I am not wasting my time going through old posts and digging them up. You've seen each and every one of them and made your "well i personally haven't met many so this is fake!" non-reply in each of them.

You have posted links previously to one off studies which show an admittedly troubling %age of people in certain areas that believe in a Flat Earth. But your claim has been that FE is enjoying "exponential growth". What metric are you basing that on?
Growth is a function of size over time. The size has been well-documented at different points in time, and I politely caution you not to turn an upper fora thread into a discussion of whether time moves forward or backward.

You surely need to have some data over time to demonstrate that.
Which has been presented to you time and time again. Eventually, one has to accept that you're obviously not interested in the facts, merely in repeatedly stating that you disagree with them.

But while Flat Earth had found prominence, that isn't the same as it achieving anything like widespread acceptance.
Desperately shifting the goalposts from "FE isn't growing" to "b-b-but 10% is not widespread acceptance!". Is that the best you can do?

And what "preponderance" of evidence? Again, lots of evidence that FE is far more known about than it was a decade ago, little evidence that it is anywhere near a mainstream belief.
Yes - if you choose to change the claim you're discussing, you're likely to arrive at different conclusions. I hope you understand nobody will really entertain that.

I disagree he is a "A professional prankster".
I'm sure you do. Do you base this on any knowledge of him, or is this another personal call based on 0% evidence and 100% gut feeling?

On what basis are you calling him reprehensible?
It was you who provided us with evidence of him abusing a child porn site for personal profit. If that's not reprehensible where you're living, then I'm starting to understand why people in this country keep voting Tory.

You understand from his point of view you are the "baddies" - you are the ones spreading FE balderdash, he is simply making sure it doesn't go unchallenged. My motivation for joining this site was similar. When I stumbled upon this place I read some of Tom's posts for a while and in the end I couldn't help myself, I felt I needed to respond. I couldn't let it go unchallenged. Scimandan and others like him are doing the same on YouTube. From their point of view, and mine, they are the good guys.
Yes - therein lies the tragic failure of RET, and what will bring its ultimate demise in a few decades. A complete lack of interest in facts, and a whole lot of delusions of superiority. Spreading uninformed opinions because it's the right thing to do is the antithesis of open inquiry, and a huge disservice to the science you claim to uphold.

Meanwhile, in the real world, people explore, inquire, and debate. This is not a "good guys vs. bad guys" thing. Falling victim to a prankster/scammer doesn't make you a good person - it makes you gullible.

I mean, look at the definition on Urban Dictionary
Oh, this is getting better and better. We're moving from a scammer videoing himself on a porn site to Urban Dictionary. With such strong counter-evidence from you, I'm sure pollsters and universities worldwide will be posting their retractions any moment now. What's next, AATW? Did someone on Neopets name their pet "erthrund420"?

More importantly, if your measure of how "good guy" or "bad guy" someone is is how badly they're described by meme pages on the Internet, I have some bad news for you and your "debunker" friends.

Did you?
Yes. And you've responded to each of them without fail, so there is very little room for doubt as to whether you had actually seen them.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: April 24, 2021, 06:21:59 PM »
However, I would argue that is the only logical reason for rejecting the idea that gravity is a "force".  If gravity is a force, then the motion of falling objects can be contributed to gravity and there is no reason to come up with UA as an alternative theory to explain why things fall.
That flips the discussion on its head. I'm sure you'll find some people who reach this conclusion, but generalising a bit I don't think FE'ers as a whole deny that the RE gravitational model can work. The question is more whether it's what actually occurs in reality.

RE is an OK-ish simulation of reality. Things falling can be attributed to gravitation as proposed by RE'ers, especially if we restrict ourselves to everyday observations normal people can make.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: April 24, 2021, 03:17:02 PM »
FE wants to say, “In GR gravity isn’t a force, therefore in GR gravity doesn’t cause motion.”
Could you perhaps show an example of FE'ers wanting to say that? Keep in mind that your current conversation is a bunch of RE'ers unable to agree on the fundamentals of the model they claim to support - FE'ers have long abandoned this mess.

Flat Earth Investigations / MOVED: what is your weight?
« on: April 24, 2021, 09:52:30 AM »

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Can't sort by online.
« on: April 19, 2021, 07:07:04 AM »
This should now be sorted out. The problem actually only affected non-moderators (the code handling the sorting is different for us for reasons™), but I gave it a quick check on an alt. If others are still experiencing the issue, please let us know.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 308  Next >