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 ... 349  Next >
41
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 10:15:24 PM »
No I don't. I provided examples.
This is incorrect. You provided examples of two things - obstruction and limitations of camera sensors - and assert without evidence that these cases are the same as what's being discussed. In doing so, you engage in circular logic.

I can help you stop making that error, but you gotta stop "nuh uh"-ing and start engaging with the science. You know how well it goes for you when you double-down on these fuck-ups. Wanna try something else for a change?

He just stated that as a fact, he provided no evidence. Why aren't you picking him up on that?
Well, he's not exactly trying to engage in rational or empirical thought. You claim you do. It's triage. If I wasted my time on every guy that Just Do Be Saying Shit on an online forum, I'd run out of time and resources pretty quickly. :)

I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time. Meanwhile, fixing the flaws in your logic is something you're remarkably good at avoiding - to the point where you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end. What gives?

I need to provide evidence that zooming out of a scene would make things smaller?  ???
I'm trying to be polite, or at least not immediately viscerally aggressive. Would you care to reciprocate by responding only to things I said, and not things you made up to make yourself feel better?

It isn't that remarkable. I don't live near the coast.
That's a decent excuse for not doing it immediately, in which case you have a perfectly good reason not to respond to these threads for a while. But you do respond, incessantly. In doing so, you forfeit your excuse.

That said, even with the cost of living crisis, I do find it remarkable that you haven't been able to justify the £50 expense in the literal years you've been whinging about not understanding this simple experiment, and that you haven't otherwise found yourself near a lake or sea in all that time. You must be a very busy guy, as evidenced by your posting habits here.

42
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 05:19:30 PM »
All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored
You assert this with no evidence, and then insist that I accept that as a premise for further arguments. I do not.

When you're asked to prove your point, just stating it again with conviction doesn't quite cut it. Not to non-Anglos, at least.

A zoomed out view of those pictures wouldn't demonstrate anything, they'd just be smaller versions of the images I used.
Once again, you assert this without evidence. You can't just say "I'm correct, and since I'm correct, verifying my claims would just result in what I expect, so I would be correct". That's not how you do science, let alone Zeteticism.

(which I didn't take so can't show anyway)
Yes. Isn't it remarkable that every time people suggest that you perform a very simple experiment which would help clear your confusion, you refuse to do so and just post pictures you found on the Internet, usually ones that don't even pertain to the subject at hand?

43
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 04:22:38 PM »
I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom.
No, you didn't, and I already told you why. Since you chose not to read my message, I'm not reading yours beyond this point either.

44
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 02:06:54 PM »
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"
You did. You also completely failed to address it, since that would require you to compare 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene. This is not a novel conversation - these exact failures were pointed out to you before when you used the exact same image. The exact same URL, even! You either have it saved somewhere, or you literally grabbed it from the previous discussions, which you could have just read instead.

At some point, you really ought to start adapting to new information, instead of just repeating the same failed arguments.

I don't think you can really tell how big the waves are in that picture by the way
Sure you can. The base of the wave is roughly around here:


45
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 09:42:15 AM »
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. :)

47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 26, 2023, 04:00:24 PM »
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation.
Would be cool if it did, though.

48
Technology & Information / Re: Why does that child have my computer?
« on: August 14, 2023, 05:47:14 AM »
If your kid has Discord they need police intervention?
I mean, considering most Discord servers... probably, yea?

49
How so?
You assume our universe is Euclidean. If it is, both RE and FE are fundamental impossibilities.

50
Maps are flat, if the earth is flat too then the only issue is scale.
Incorrect.

51
That "system" is the scientific method, that is a set of practices created so as to allow reproducible trustworthy results, to the extent that such is possible (and the success of the scientific method indicates that extent is pretty large).
Please do not waste people's time like this. If you still haven't figured out why the scientific method is considered inadequate around here (you don't need to agree, but a surface-level understanding is a strict prerequisite), then you should be lurking, not posting.

Emphatically, you will not derail upper fora threads by asking people to downgrade back to the old guard system. There are plenty of forums (and boards within this forum) where you can circlejerk about how good you think it is. The middle of an FET thread is not the right place for it.

52
This is surely what good zetetics might do, right?
Emphatically: no. Every time you attempt the "if you're a ReAl ZeTeTiC, then surely you'd do exactly what I want you to do" gambit, you simply reveal that you have no idea what Zeteticism is or how to apply it.

Stick to making your own arguments, rather than strawmanning people by trying to force debating terms onto them.

53
There's nothing inherent to FET that would prevent you from being able to use a compass, and we know empirically that they function as they're supposed to. Rest easy friend!
I'd take that a step further. It's not just that FET doesn't prevent it; a compass works because FET holds true.

54
So then we should be able to see any edits on the ICBM page that Action is referencing and the user who made that edit.
Well, assuming the page in question is also semi-protected (most aren't), yes. There's nothing stopping someone from registering multiple accounts, so tracking down a person could be difficult, but showing that the edits exist at all would be a good start.

The only real reason the Flat Earth page is protected is to stop stupid schoolkids from blanking the entire page and replacing it with "NOOOOOOOO". It's just enough of a barrier to entry to stop the lowest-effort trolls, but not a measure to seriously protect the integrity of the page.

55
Because I just tried and couldn't edit the Flat Earth entry.
I can, and I'm hardly special. The page is only semi-protected.

56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration
« on: July 12, 2023, 12:06:38 AM »
Consider reading https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Do not open FET threads if you're unwilling to learn the basics first.

Locked.

57
Perhaps you would care to provide evidence that my assertion is false here
Thank you for confirming that this was just disingenuous trolling. I'll clean it up now, and you won't be doing it again.

Since the core questions of this thread have been answered and you are now just using it to advertise your trolling attempts, I'll be locking this too.

58
I was just expressing my previous experience in getting banned for what I thought was a completely reasonable post that was within the posted rules.
Indeed. So, knowing that this particular situation is so egregious that even you have no doubt you'd get banned, it should be easy to navigate.

You tell me, is asking the FEers why there are no FE supporters within the thousands of professional scientists in the related fields, an allowed question?
Dunno, it smacks of disingenuous trolling. After all, you're asking why something that's false is true - I think it would take some effort to convince anyone to participate.

That said, we don't strictly disallow questions - that would go against the free speech ethos of this website. It's only when you abuse our hospitality that we intervene.

59
You're asking where to post something that you immediately opened with "I know I'll get banned for this".

If you, personally, are entirely convinced that the post is not a good fit for the forum, perhaps consider posting something that would be a good fit instead?

60
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: June 29, 2023, 12:49:38 PM »
I've been thinking of ways to prove to a Zetetic that nuclear bombs do exist.
Why? That's a problem statement that's not even coherent to begin with.

You don't know what Zeteticism is, do you?

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 349  Next >