1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 09, 2023, 07:11:48 AM »

So much winning

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65852062

2

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 07, 2023, 01:00:51 PM »

"Proven beyond reasonable doubt" is a redundancy because proof being absolute means it's beyond reasonable doubt.

I know. But that isn't possible, which is why "beyond reasonable doubt" is added as a qualifier.
And as we've seen, that can lead to mistakes.

But scientific facts don't get decided in court

So? They are still based on evidence. And they can change or even be replaced completely as new evidence emerges. That has happened multiple times over history, I have given you examples.

"The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.". Are you f-ing serious? That's your claim, not mine.

Yes it is my claim. And I have provided a source which backs it up.
You seem to be claiming that scientific things have be proven absolutely. I have explained why that isn't true.
It cannot be true, otherwise scientific ideas would never change.

Quote me saying those exact words.

It has been your sentiment. You believe NASA "fake almost everything" - I think those were your exact words.
So you accept things can be faked, it doesn't matter whether that's with a magic trick or using special effects. The end result is the same - the thing you observe is not as it seems. The only difference is the method.

3

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 07, 2023, 11:02:15 AM »

Before you were saying different standards of proof; now it's different levels of proof?
What you're really saying is different standards of evidence, and different levels of evidence.
Proof is absolute by definition, that's why it's different than evidence.

I agree that proof is absolute, but people use the word in a fairly loose way - like the way people now use "literally" for emphasis when then don't mean something literally happened.
Or they qualify it like in the court setting where something has to be "proven beyond reasonable doubt".
There is acknowledgement there that this is not absolute proof, and as you've noted this can lead to miscarriages of justice. There was a good example in the press recently when a women who'd spent 20 years in prison in Australia for murdering her 4 children was released when it was found there could have been some genetic condition the kids all had. That created the reasonable doubt.
Which is the exact point. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is held up to be a high standard of "proof", but it can yield incorrect results. The type of absolute proof you are claiming only exists within the world of mathematics.

How did I know that you would come up with the argument that "well, I don't know that anything is real because illusions exist, so everything could be an illusion and everyone could be an illusionist playing a trick on me.".

That is literally your argument about NASA. "Everything they do is an illusion, it's all fake".
Your logical inconsistency is mind-boggling, dude.

4

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 07, 2023, 09:00:55 AM »

all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.

Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump?

No. It's evidence.
I mean, I saw Penn and Teller one time and Teller produced a load of coins out of thin air.
That's proof he can create them out of nothing, yes? That's what I saw him do.
Do you see the problem?

You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Aliens!

« on: June 06, 2023, 08:48:30 PM »

This kind of thinking is too reliant on the assumption that we know how everything works. What if they're from another dimension or time?

What does that even mean? This isn't Star Trek.

It's certainly plausible that there's life out there. Whether it's intelligent life...well, given the size of the universe it's possible.
I always raise an eyebrow at anyone who says there's definitely intelligent life out there or definitely isn't, the truth is we don't know. Any numbers we plug into the Drake equation are largely guesswork. But it seems most likely to me that even if there are "little green men" out there, they're too far away to visit us or we them. If Einstein was right about the speed of light being the universal speed limit.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Intuitive understanding of the world.

« on: June 06, 2023, 05:13:31 PM »

It’s a trap many beginner flat earthers make, trying to “break” the globe model. More knowledgeable ones know that breaking the globe model is a losing gambit and will end up like tfes (refining the FE model with phenomena such as EA rather than breaking the RE model)

It appears that you didn't bother to look at the content at all. The EA page and associated Moon Tilt pages do show that the RE model is broken.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Why does that diagram show the light bending downwards when the theory of EA says

The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA) states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls, pushes, or deflects light upwards

(my emphasis)

7

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 06, 2023, 05:01:30 PM »

Yeah, they would say that - but sadly for them it's not true.

OK. Now all you've got to do is understand that your statement is simply your opinion and one which you have based on evaluating the evidence available to you.

I don't care how much evidence you think you have because evidence ≠ proof.

Correct. And again, now all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.
Outside of that all we have is evidence, and that's all we can base our opinions on.

I don't care what "one could argue" either, I only care about facts.

Cool. Me too. But establishing what the facts are is the tricky bit. I've given examples of things which people regard as "facts" which are actually incorrect.
But it is a fact that the claimed distances between on earth places cannot be mapped on a flat plane.
That can be proven because now we are back in the world of mathematics, in this case Euclidian geometry.
What is your response to that?

To respond to another of your posts:

The only reason it's mainstream nowawdays is because they know they have no proof for the big theories such as the globe, relativity, evolution, virology, etc. Because they're simply not true.

No scientific theory should be said to be proven in the strictest sense.
They aren't "true" in the strictest sense either, they are simply the best models which fit the current evidence.

The biggest misconception in mainstream science is that facts are evidence-dependent and that they can change at any moment as soon as the next batch of contradictory evidence is accepted by the consensus.

Facts themselves don't change, but what is regarded as factual can of course change. Things which were thought to be true, and therefore declared incorrectly as facts, can be found to be untrue. The ancients believed there were 4 elements, for example. Even when they realised the earth was a globe they believed it was at the centre of the universe and everything went around us. That was taught as a "fact" for centuries before it was found to be incorrect.
Over time models have got better as observations have. Better models make better predictions, that's the test.

In other words, they (the mainstream morons) want you to believe that there's no such thing as truth, or that truth is based on consensus.

Facts are not dependant on evidence, as I've said the truth is independent of belief. But determining what is true is the difficult part.

Hence, why we got so many so-called scientists who believe in absurdities such as the globe. Meanwhile, the real scientists who know we don't live on an absurdity get marginalized and ridiculed.

This is quite a common conspiracy theory tactic. Declare all the experts who are telling you that you're wrong as not real experts. But the ones who are saying what you want to believe - they're the real ones. If you do that you can convince yourself that anything is true.

8

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 05, 2023, 01:24:21 PM »

A true, objective statement would be: "You can't square a circle". Or, "The Earth is not a globe.". Why? Because it can be proven.

Those are both statements which have an absolute truth value. But there is a difference.
The first of those statements is couched in the language of mathematics where things are clearly defined. So yes, that statement is true because the definitions of "square" and "circle" are contradictory.
The second of those statements cannot be proven. Many would say that the fact that the earth is a globe has been proven and yet here we are in the 21st century with some people claiming the reverse.

That's the point. For you globe believers to realize there's no proof for your beliefs and that's why they are and will remain beliefs.

For the second time in this thread you are on the verge of an epiphany. All you need to do now is understand that if the statement
"The earth is a globe" cannot be proven to the standard you require, and can only be based on evidence. Then clearly the same can be said of "The earth is not a globe".
One could argue that the known distances between places proves that the earth has to be a globe, because there's only one shape those places can be mapped on, given the known distances, which works. And it ain't flat. But of course FE denies that, usually by disputing that the distances are known. And this is the problem. Any position can be rejected or defended depending on which evidence you decide to accept or reject.

Starting with your belief in curvature that isn't there.

I'm not clear what this means. No-one sensible claims that curvature can be discerned from "normal" altitudes, and I include commercial airplane travel in that.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: June 05, 2023, 09:48:07 AM »

The only person here trying to claim that there is no LGBT agenda here is AllAroundTheWorld, who believes that the teaching of sex techniques is new to to the school system

It is new. Was Abraham Lincoln taught about any sexual techniques?

but these explicit lessons on anal stimulation is coincidental and has nothing to do with the recent rash of LGBT inclusion and mandates.

Holy straw man, Batman!
Of course it's not coincidental. As homosexuality has become accepted lessons have become more inclusive.
And there is definitely a debate to be had about whether kids should be taught any sexual techniques in school.
As Roundy says, there is an LBGTQ agenda to be more accepted in society. Your real issue is you don't believe they should be accepted in society, you've already said you think gay children should be ashamed of who they are.
So you conflate acceptance/inclusion with promotion/indoctrination.

10

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 05, 2023, 09:18:58 AM »

LOL. If truth exists independently of beliefs, how is there not a difference between believing and knowing other than subjective certainty? See?

No, I don't see.
Of course truth exists independently of belief. I mean, let's take the shape of the Earth. The Earth is a physical object, yes? It has a shape. That shape doesn't depend on your belief about it, or mine, or anyone else's.

If the earth is flat then it is flat whatever you or I believe. If it's a globe then it's a globe whatever you or I believe.
It can't be flat for you because you believe it to be and a globe for me because I believe it to be.
If you believe it's flat and I believe it's a globe then there are only two possibilities:

1) One of us is wrong
2) Both or us are wrong (it could be a cube).

We cannot both be correct because we believe contradictory things. The truth of the matter is absolute and it is independent of our beliefs about it.

The only semantic difference between these three sentences:
"I think the earth is a globe"
"I believe the earth is a globe"
"I know the earth is a globe"

Is the level of certainty you're expressing. A lot of people "know" that Aled Jones sang Walking In The Air in The Snowman (he didn't) or that Vikings had horns on their helmets (they didn't). Saying you "know" something doesn't make you correct, you're just saying you're certain about something. You can be certain and wrong at the same time.

There is a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief, but evidence based belief is the reason that innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit, all the time. That's what you're supporting.

It's not merely that I'm supporting it. It's the only game in town.
The only way to come to a belief about pretty much anything is by assessing the evidence. What else is there?
You simultaneously demand proof - I see you're doing it in another thread here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=20002.msg280628#msg280628
While in this thread you're accepting that that proof cannot exist.

Of course I'm incredulous of anything NASA produces. That's actually a compliment. Thank you.

It's neither a compliment nor an insult. If you blindly believe everything you're told by an authority then that's foolish.
But if you blindly disbelieve everything you're told by an authority then that's equally foolish.

11

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat Earth alternative to a globe

« on: June 05, 2023, 07:59:22 AM »

I don't know how you found this, but I actually love it. It's a lot closer to reality than the AE map, that's for sure.

The Santiago to Sydney flight path would be a bit of a problem on that map.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: June 03, 2023, 01:38:29 PM »

The question in the OP was whether a LGBT agenda was being promoted, not whether you agree with it. The teaching of homosexual sex techniques is a new phenomenon the American school system, and is further evidence with all of the other items of a LGBT agenda. Whether you agree with anal stimulation techniques being taught in school is irrelevant to that.

The teaching of any sex techniques is relatively new in the American school system.
It’s certainly debatable what should be taught in this area, but unless homosexual techniques are being taught as preferable to heterosexual ones then how is it an agenda? Because you don’t personally agree with homosexuality?

13

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 03, 2023, 08:18:11 AM »

Son, if all you have is the credibility argument, all that does is support my point. Credibility is just another word for believing. It literally comes from the latin CREDO (creed). Believing belongs to religion, not science. Thank you for supporting my point.

You are so close to an epiphany.
All you need to do now is understand that pretty much everything you are stating is also merely a belief based on what you find credible.
There is no difference between “believing” something and “knowing” it, other than your own perceived certainty. Truth exists independently of your beliefs.

Believing doesn’t “belong” to science or religion. Cogito ergo sum, basically. You know you exist, everything else you think you know is simply based on evidence and what you find credible. There is, of course, a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief. I have outlined the evidence for believing NASA’s claims, you have ignored it all and presented nothing but an argument from incredulity.

14

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 10:18:10 PM »

No, I'm back to explaining how science is not about credibility.

What do you mean "explaining"? You asked above if I thought science was about credibility and I said no.

Can you prove that unicorns or leprechauns exist? No? Maybe they're not real, then. Isn't that my whole point?

If that is your whole point then it's a pretty silly one. You can't prove anything to the standard you demand - we've established that it's not possible for NASA or anyone else to prove that the picture was taken from a million miles away. So, like a lot of things, we can only base our opinion on how credible the claim is.
Unicorns and leprechauns are, famously, mythical. Pretty much no-one claims they exist. If anyone did then they'd better have some very compelling evidence.

Not to mention that in order to talk about the possibility of signals sent from 1 million miles away, you need to prove that it's even possible for a signal-emitting device (or anything at all) to get there in the first place.

Again, like many things, that can't be proven to the standard you demand. But the fact that rockets exist is relevant to how credible this is. If the technology which is said to get things in to orbit didn't even exist then a claim about satellites existing would be akin to a claim about unicorns.
But rockets do exist. GPS Satellites exist, the ISS exists and can be observed. Those things are in low earth orbit, but TV satellites aren't, they're 23,000 miles above the equator. So why is it such a leap to think that things can't orbit further out?

Well, that proves the current accepted model of the universe, then.

Why are you straw-manning me? I didn't say it proved anything.
But you keep obsessing over NASA as if they have some monopoly on space. They do not.
The first module of the ISS was launched from Kazakhstan.

Your issue with NASA is that they "fake almost everything" and your basis for that is apparently in part some video which you claim had some CGI glitch (I have suggested an alternative explanation) and which you now can't find. Compelling stuff.

You paint yourself as this "independent thinker" but all you present is arguments from incredulity.

15

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 01:16:11 PM »

And then there are a few people who are a little more observant, often insufferably pedantic, who do spot things others don't. Does it surprise you that they'd be "on the Internet"?

No, that doesn't surprise me.
But the key question is whether they really are spotting things that are indicators of fakery or a conspiracy.
Or are they people who already have a certain agenda seeing things because they want to, or doing things like misidentifying video compression artefacts as "CGI glitches".
Do they have any actual expertise in the field they're discussing?
Most of the moon landing hoax "evidence" I've seen is based on ignorance, it's not well researched evidence which is about to crack the whole case wide open.

16

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 10:56:55 AM »

Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive.  In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.

This argument always comes across as so desperate. "If they were dishonest, they'd be more perfect about it; therefore, they must be honest." There isn't even an attempt at a logical sequence here.

I dunno. I mean, the narrative from some is that people like NASA are simultaneously competent enough to fake things to a level which has fooled the world, but are also incompetent enough to make mistakes which "people on the internet" spot. But I guess one could make the argument that most people don't really scrutinise NASA's output.

That said, the people that do...are they really experts in video/image analysis? In previous conversations we've established that I'm certainly not, but I know as much as many of the things claimed to be "CGI glitches" are video compression artefacts, or they're people with a certain agenda just seeing what they want to see. I did create a thread on here some time back where 3 VFX artists analysed some of the Apollo footage and concluded that it couldn't have been faked given the technology at the time. In the ensuing thread there was very little attempt to respond to what the experts said. I seem to remember Thork going off on a tangent.

17

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 10:23:22 AM »

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is?

No. Science is about making and testing hypotheses which explain how the world and universe work.
The hypotheses are never said to be 100% proven, but with testing you can build confidence in them being correct.
And they should always be open to improvement or replaced entirely if a better model comes along.

But this claim, like many claims, can't be directly tested. You've already agreed there is no way to prove that the image in the OP came from a satellite a million miles away.
So we're back to how credible you find the claim, and that relates to your model of reality. Is there anything that makes you think it's not possible to send signals from a million miles away? On page 1 of this thread I did some analysis of the image in the OP in terms of the scale of the moon relative to the earth and it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect to see from the distance claimed. So while I can't prove that this image is as claimed, I've no particular reason to believe it isn't. Your only response to my analysis was to claim that anyone who believed the data come from a million miles away was gullible. You didn't elaborate.

Earlier in this thread you said:
"If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid"
But now you're agreeing that can't be done.

And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all.

In your opinion. But you've provided very little evidence to back that up. You said they "fake almost everything" but provide no evidence.
You talk about the "CGI glitching". Can you show that example? Are you an expert in image or video analysis? Do you understand about artefacts from video compression?
What investigation have you done on the ISS? That's something you can directly observe so that's a good starting point.
Have you witnessed any rocket launches?
When it comes to the moon landings I've mentioned Jodrell Bank in the UK who were tracking the craft, and the team in Australia who were relaying signals.
Most moan hoax "evidence" I've seen is based on an ignorance of what actually happened or of basic physics, or simple incredulity.

And, again, you don't just have to take NASA's word for it. Multiple countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises have launched things too.

18

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 05:22:43 PM »

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

19

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 04:20:16 PM »

When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude.

Of course it does. Again, it's about our model of reality.
If we accept satellites exist and are beaming data from space to our satellite dishes - I've outlined some evidence for that - then why couldn't data be sent from a million miles away? Because it's a big number?
If we accept the ISS exists and is orbiting the earth - I've outlined the evidence for that - then why can't a satellite orbit at a greater distance? Again, is it just because it's a big number?

What is the difference in principle between the ISS, GPS satellites, TV Satellites and the DSCOVR one which the OP references? The principles which get them into orbit are the same.

I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly.

I do. My model of reality tells me that humans can't fly.
It also tells me that humans can send objects into orbits around the earth. Multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on it, the ISS can be directly observed, I have personally seen a Shuttle launch.

if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different.

Well, sure. IF NASA are doing the trickery. I've explained why I don't believe they are. There is good evidence for satellites existing. Evidence you can check yourself.
Have you? Or are you just declaring everything mainstream fake because it's mainstream?

20

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 02:32:21 PM »

My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion.

You could apply that to anything which you can't directly verify, which is quite a lot of things.
BUT, it doesn't have to be a blind faith.

We all have a model of reality in our heads. How credible we find things is dependent on whether they conform to that model.
If, for example, you told me you could fly, then I wouldn't believe you. Because, famously, humans can't fly. You'd have to provide some pretty good evidence before I'd believe you. Even if you showed me video of you doing it I'd suspect some trickery.
If you told me that you could do a backflip then I might raise an eyebrow but if you showed me a video of you doing it (pre-supposing that I know it's you) then I'd believe you. I know it's something humans have the ability to do although most can't.
If you told me you could walk then I wouldn't particularly ask you to evidence that. Most people can.

When it comes to space flight. Well, I know that rockets exist. I've personally seen a Shuttle launch when I happened to be in Florida at the right time. The ISS is said to be orbiting the earth. You can look up where and when you can see it and you can observe it directly. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. By triangulation you can calculate the height and speed of it and cross-check that against NASA's claims. Radio hams have been able to contact the astronauts.

Satellite TV demonstrably works. The claim is that it works by dishes pointing at geostationary satellites above the equator. I've observed dishes in countries a lot closer to the equator angled up at a much steeper angle than ones in the UK, which makes sense in that context. And when my neighbour did some building work which blocked the dish I lost my TV signal. And GPS also demonstrably works, and does so in the middle of the ocean.

And of course it's not just NASA sending up satellites and astronauts. Many countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises are now getting in on the act. So we don't just have to take NASA's word for it. I've mentioned above ways anyone can verify their claims about the ISS. When it comes to the moon missions, you had teams in Australia relaying signals for them, you had Jodrell Bank in the UK tracking the Apollo craft - and an unmanned Russian one which was trying to steal a march on them. You don't just need to take NASA's word for it.

NASA and others have provided plenty of evidence of what they're doing, some of that evidence you can verify yourself. Have you? Independent thought isn't just claiming every mainstream narrative is false because it's mainstream.