[Dual1ty]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-66613688

First footage released.

It's definitely on the Moon - you just have to believe like any good religious follower believes.

Never question anything, just believe.

[Dual1ty]

They already gave the new religion consumers "Moon footage" in the 60s and now it's apparently a great achievement for India to do it in 2023. lmao

[AATW]

It's definitely on the Moon - you just have to believe like any good religious follower believes.

Never question anything, just believe.

You're not questioning anything. You just blindly disbelieve anything which doesn't confirm what you want to believe.
Every mission like this and pictures and video from them are opportunities for you to examine your beliefs, but you don't.
You just blindly dismiss it, because it proves your worldview to be wrong.
That isn't questioning.

[Dual1ty]

It's definitely on the Moon - you just have to believe like any good religious follower believes.

Never question anything, just believe.

You're not questioning anything. You just blindly disbelieve anything which doesn't confirm what you want to believe.
Every mission like this and pictures and video from them are opportunities for you to examine your beliefs, but you don't.
You just blindly dismiss it, because it proves your worldview to be wrong.
That isn't questioning.

Textbook projection from the believer.

Maybe you will learn some day.

[AATW]

.Maybe you will learn some day.

Maybe. Or maybe you’ll come to understand that you’re a believer too. Just because you believe different things, that doesn’t make you special.

But if you want to educate us then maybe you could present all the very compelling evidence you’ve collected from your years of “doing your own research”. You won’t of course, because it doesn’t exist.

You sneer at people blindly believing things but ignoring that disbelieving things is still a belief - it’s a belief that something isn’t true. And it’s something you do just as unthinkingly and just as blindly as the people you sneer at.

But ok, prove me wrong. What thinking have you done to determine that this mission is fake and that video is fake. Or is it just another argument from incredulity?

[Dual1ty]

.Maybe you will learn some day.

Maybe. Or maybe you’ll come to understand that you’re a believer too. Just because you believe different things, that doesn’t make you special.

But if you want to educate us then maybe you could present all the very compelling evidence you’ve collected from your years of “doing your own research”. You won’t of course, because it doesn’t exist.

You sneer at people blindly believing things but ignoring that disbelieving things is still a belief - it’s a belief that something isn’t true. And it’s something you do just as unthinkingly and just as blindly as the people you sneer at.

But ok, prove me wrong. What thinking have you done to determine that this mission is fake and that video is fake. Or is it just another argument from incredulity?

No, I believed the same things that you do. Nowadays I simply don't believe things - I just go by facts, not belief. That's why I'm no longer a heliocentrist believer. It's not even something cool to be because most heliocentrist believers don't even know why they believe the things they do, they just go with the crowd. It's only a minority that like you go out of their way to insist that not believing in heliocentrism is a bad thing and give palpably bad arguments for this.

I couldn't care less if some authority wants to claim "we went to the Moon". This claim only exists as a confirmation bias (well, to feed it) for people like you who are ardent believers and they want to hear about Jesus walking on water (the modern version) or derivatives of it.

You want to believe that some low-quality footage of a patch of ground is the Moon, go ahead. You want to believe that the Moon is a landable space rock that only a few can get to, go ahead. That you accuse someone who doesn't or is skeptical of "argument from incredulity" only makes you look dumb.

[AATW]

No, I believed the same things that you do. Nowadays I simply don't believe things - I just go by facts, not belief.

But how do you establish what is a fact?
I'd state with confidence that the earth is a globe, you would state the opposite equally confidently.
We both believe our positions to be factual, we cannot both be correct because we have contradictory positions.
So who is right? How do we know?

It's not even something cool to be because most heliocentrist believers don't even know why they believe the things they do, they just go with the crowd.

This is correct. Most people don't see any particular reason to question it because it doesn't make any difference to their lives. Their GPS works, their satellite TV works, if these things are really working in some different way than claimed then it doesn't actually matter. But as I noted in another thread I would say that a lot of people who believe in a FE are just following a crowd too, albeit a different one. They're not doing experiments or gathering data, they just distrust the mainstream just as unthinkingly as others trust it.

It's only a minority that like you go out of their way to insist that not believing in heliocentrism is a bad thing and give palpably bad arguments for this.

I don't know if you mean bad arguments for heliocentrism or bad arguments for why not believing in it is had.
If the former then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.
If the latter then I have general concerns about the post truth world we live in. It is increasingly difficult to know what's true. Conspiracy theories proliferate on every subject. I find it worrying because on some topics like health it can cause people real harm.

You want to believe that some low-quality footage of a patch of ground is the Moon, go ahead. You want to believe that the Moon is a landable space rock that only a few can get to, go ahead. That you accuse someone who doesn't or is skeptical of "argument from incredulity" only makes you look dumb.

But all you've presented is incredulity. You've not given any counter evidence to these claims.
You haven't analysed the video footage - it contradicts what you believe so in your mind it's fake, no further response is required.
You're not questioning things. Maybe you did once. Maybe you did do your own research and experiments. They caused you to come to the incorrect conclusions in my view, but I note you're not publishing any of this research for review. You paint yourself as the one who is thinking and questioning, I don't see any evidence of that.

[Dual1ty]

It's no wonder that you think you live in a "post-truth world" where "it is increasingly difficult to know what's true" when you are unable to discern between real and fake.

That's your problem, though.

Other than that, you have nothing - just attempting to flip the burden of proof as usual.

"Prove that unicorns are fake because most people believe in them and they can ride them in their dreams" is basically your argument. Not that most people believe in unicorns, but they do believe they live on a ball without proof, among many other things which are just as fantastical as unicorns.

It is a waste of time for me to give you a clue because you already took all the clues out of your head yourself, and now you are clueless.

I literally don't care if you believe that piece of junk is on the Moon or that some Freemasons have been there. Your life, your choices.

[AATW]

It's no wonder that you think you live in a "post-truth world" where "it is increasingly difficult to know what's true" when you are unable to discern between real and fake.

What makes you so confident that you can discern the difference? You make a lot of claims on here, you don't back them up with any evidence.
When other people provide evidence for their claims you simply call it fake without providing any evidence for that assertion.

That's your problem, though.

The fact that it's increasingly hard to discern what's true is a problem for everyone. With CGI and deepfakes, the Internet providing claims and counter claims. How do we know what is true any more?

Other than that, you have nothing - just attempting to flip the burden of proof as usual.

We've had this conversation. You have agreed that it's impossible to prove that images and video from space missions come from the sources claimed.
It's not flipping the burden of proof to ask what evidence you have for fakery though.
You bemoan people unquestioningly believing things, why is it ok to unquestioningly disbelieve them?

"Prove that unicorns are fake because most people believe in them and they can ride them in their dreams" is basically your argument.

Well, provide some evidence that these space missions are fake. Because the evidence for space missions being real is strong.
Rockets demonstrably exist - I saw a Shuttle launch back in the day.
There are multiple technologies which rely on satellites existing which demonstrably work.
There's the ISS which can be seen from the ground - with decent optics you can make out its shape.
Hundreds of people have been to space, some of whom were space tourists.
There's thousands of pictures and of hours footage from all these space missions - and even if we concede that the technology exists now to fake these things, much of this footage is from the 60s when that technology didn't exist. And that's not just my opinion, I posted a thread a couple of years back where 3 VFX artists looked at some of the footage from Apollo:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17989.0

So that's all the evidence for. And your evidence against is "it's all fake because trust me bro". Not exactly compelling.

It is a waste of time for me to give you a clue because you already took all the clues out of your head yourself, and now you are clueless.

Ah, the old "girlfriend who lives in Canada" schtick. You definitely have all this evidence from your own experiments but you can't show it because reasons.

[Dual1ty]

What own experiments? Haven't you realized already that you're talking about SANTA CLAUS?? There's no experiment to prove or disprove Santa Claus because he doesn't exist.

You're just spewing the same garbage that you did before in other threads. Fallacy after fallacy. Talking about "rockets exist", "satellites work", "ISS can be seen" and comparing it to so-called space travel and Freemasons on the Moon.

Like, seriously?

You want to believe in Santa Claus? BY ALL MEANS DO. I don't understand what your aim is being here and telling me that I need to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist when I say he's just make-believe.

There's no way you are not a troll.

[Dual1ty]

"Real cartoon". 





Dubay on point with this one.

Of course, this is so ridiculous that a child could debunk it lol.

[Dual1ty]

Also, never would've guessed:

[honk]

The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window. The Freemasonry connection is almost certainly a red herring, though.

[Dual1ty]

The Freemasonry connection is almost certainly a red herring, though.

NO, IT'S NOT.

[AATW]

The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window.

What does that tell you?
The earth could be flat, a cube or a sphere of sufficient size and you’d observe pretty much the same thing. Although ships and other distant objects sinking below the horizon is a bit of a clue…

[DuncanDoenitz]

The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window.

And the oldest and best proof of Jimmy Saville's benevolence is to watch his TV shows. 

The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd. 

[Dual1ty]

The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd.

It can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view, though.

[AATW]

The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd.

It can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view, though.

OK. Where's the rest?


Of these two stills from a timelapse video of a boat coming over the horizon

[Pete Svarrior]

OK. Where's the rest?

How do you see a message from someone telling you to compare 2 different optical zoom levels of the same scene and think "Oooh, I know, I'll post *one* image of a scene and claim to have performed the test!!!" And why do you so consistently choose a photograph with a very visible tall wave in it? This is "hurdur erth can't be flat/round because mountains exist checkmate 😎" level of posting.

We've ruled out you being a complete idiot, and you want to not be treated like an obvious troll. So, what is it? Alcohol? Drugs? Illness? What causes you to have these extreme lapses?

You're right, though. The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there. A cynic would suggest that's why you so repeatedly and consistently refuse to engage with it properly.

[AATW]

How do you see a message from someone telling you to compare 2 different optical zoom levels of the same scene and think "Oooh, I know, I'll post *one* image of a scene and claim to have performed the test!!!"

I responded to a post which, it seemed to me, was the old "boats don't really go over the horizon, you can restore them with optical zoom" bunk.

Now obviously you can "restore" objects which are not visible to the naked eye, if they're in full view in the first place.
So if something is this side of the horizon then sure, restore away. But my restore above is in quotation marks because you can only do that if the object is not occluded in the first place. If the object IS occluded by the horizon then you can zoom till your heart's content, you'll only see the part of it which is visible.
I have shown Dual1ty plenty of examples of this, the two pictures above, the Turning Torso video are some of them. And here he is claiming that Erf Flat because you can use a telescope/camera to bring boats gone over the curve back into view. You can't. Not if they've actually gone over the curve.
Just pretending that boats don't sink beneath the horizon is moronic and demonstrably false. That's what I was responding to.
Claiming they've actually gone behind waves is a reasonable explanation, but that's not what he's said here.

I don't think you can really tell how big the waves are in that picture by the way, but I'd concede it's not a flat calm. The Turning Torso video is better evidence for this effect

We've ruled out you being a complete idiot

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

You're right, though. The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there.

Oh yes? Do carry on. How so? That's not what I would expect to observe on a flat earth. So long as I'm above the viewer height of the waves I'd expect to see pretty much all of distant objects so long as visibility will allow. What would stop me? Refraction is obviously a factor but that typically means you can see more of an object than one would expect, not less.