1

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

« on: June 05, 2023, 11:39:01 PM »

For example, I have yet to see any FE explanations of why everyone in the world sees the same side of the moon that makes any sense to me.

Really? Have you tried the radical approach of asking? This is a pretty basic question, and one that even someone of your sophistication should be able to grasp.

I've seen the explanations in previous threads and in the wiki.  My statement stands.  Bendy light just won't cut it until someone comes up with a usable formula.

Try understanding the difference between evidence and proof before you dip your toes in that, though.

Well, in science, evidence is data collected but proof isn't really a thing.  It's more or less the result when you have a sufficient weight of evidence to be pretty sure that you've come to the correct conclusion.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

So, what's your distinction between the two?

2

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

« on: June 05, 2023, 10:28:41 PM »

So in other words, no proof that it's a globe? I thought so.

Well, none that you would accept.

I already looked at all of that evidence. None of it means what you think it means (what you want to believe it means).

I don't know about that.  A lot of the evidence makes a lot more sense in an RE context than in an FE context.  For example, I have yet to see any FE explanations of why everyone in the world sees the same side of the moon that makes any sense to me.

3

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

« on: June 05, 2023, 09:49:49 PM »

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.

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence that the earth is a globe that doesn't come from NASA or any government agency.  It's just a matter of whether or not you choose to accept any of that evidence.

4

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

« on: June 04, 2023, 06:04:16 PM »

Yes, it is a mainstream phenomena. There is a mainstream phenomena which has built up and has resulted in 20% of Gen Z claiming to be LGBTQ.

Hmm.. Gen Z makes up about 20% of the population.  So 20% of 20%, or about 4%, of the population claims to be LGBTQ.  I'm not sure about you, but 4% doesn't sound mainstream to me.

5

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

« on: June 03, 2023, 03:22:01 AM »

To remind you: your argument is that if NASA were faking it, they necessarily must successfully do so without making mistakes. Whether or not they're trying to avoid mistakes is entirely immaterial.

No, my argument is that if NASA were faking it then they would have to do a very good job of catching and fixing their mistakes before they make into their public archive lest they get caught and shut down.

Markjo, how things "seem" to you is really close to the bottom of just about everyone's priority list.

If that's how you feel, then feel free to not waste your time and just don't engage.

6

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

« on: June 02, 2023, 09:07:39 PM »

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.

Markjo, you forget that most people in this world are shockingly incompetent. If mediocrity works for their goals, why do you assume they'd strive for perfection?

Because even "shockingly incompetent" people often go to great lengths try to avoid getting caught, especially when getting caught can have some pretty significant ramifications.  Are you suggesting that doesn't care about getting caught?   It seems that NASA must not only be "shockingly incompetent" about letting obvious mistakes get into their archives, but also shockingly apathetic about getting caught.

7

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

« on: June 02, 2023, 12:12:19 AM »

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

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.

8

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: May 21, 2023, 10:36:16 PM »

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 20, 2023, 03:48:04 PM »

Plus he has little chance of winning.

That's what we thought in 2016.  If there is one thing that we've learned from history is that we never learn from history.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 18, 2023, 10:37:45 PM »

I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.

We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.

We can even map them.

We can?  Please explain how these aether currents can be detected, identified and mapped.  As I understand it, the classical view of aether is that it is static medium (i.e., an absolute frame of reference that would totally destroy relativity), hence the MM experiments that were looking for the aether drift as the earth moved through it.

11

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: May 17, 2023, 10:33:59 PM »

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 17, 2023, 09:03:13 PM »

No, I didn't say that it "ought to have been higher", just that it seems unreasonably low TO ME.

Often times in cases like this, the monetary judgement is almost completely irrelevant.  That a jury found Trump liable for wrongdoing is the significant part.

13

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: May 15, 2023, 11:13:34 PM »

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 15, 2023, 01:11:37 AM »

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. The term sentence is only more often used in reference criminal matters.

Tom, you really should read up on the many differences between criminal law and civil law.  Trump was involved in a civil trial.  Citing criminal law doesn't do anything to strengthen your case.

Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

15

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: May 12, 2023, 11:43:09 PM »

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 09, 2023, 11:25:11 PM »

This is a win for Trump. This secondary verdict will be appealed and squashed then that will be it for this case.

I'm not sure how being found guilty on 8 of 10 charges could be considered a win, but whatever.

Here is a link to the text of the verdict:
https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1#

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 08, 2023, 10:51:53 PM »

Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:

Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball?  From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.

I also said to put aside the mechanism.  I just asked whether a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing upwards has better direct evidence.  Sure, from the ball's frame of reference the earth rushing upwards makes sense.  However, from your frame of reference (the same one as the earth), the ball falling to the ground is what you would observe.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 08, 2023, 01:30:10 AM »

Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball?  From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 07, 2023, 02:20:12 PM »

Given Trump's record of not being able to filter what comes out of his mouth, I'd think that defamation would be pretty much a slam dunk.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth

« on: May 07, 2023, 04:25:30 AM »

Yes, I think that you're finally getting it.  The EP says that you can't tell the difference between a flat earth accelerating upwards and curved space-time causing the round earth to push upwards on your feet.  Maybe the rocket scenario is an absurd philosophical question, but it just goes to show that any such test to tell the difference between acceleration and gravitation would be inconclusive, therefore you can't use the EP as evidence to support or disprove an upwardly accelerating flat earth or curved space-time on a round earth.