21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 07, 2019, 07:18:30 PM »

And now fast rotation guy could be a vomit comet. The problem with that is that the scene is still too big for a vomit comet. The rotation guy has stretched out his arms before and after the rotation, giving a rough estimate of the length of his route being at least two wingspans. Which is most likely larger than the space in a vomit comet. Indeed, when we pan to the other guy who rolls forward, it affirms the assumption that it's a ring the rotation guy was spinning next to, and we've already established that as too big to fit in a vomit comet, even if you don't think it's a ring, the arc is still too big for a vomit comet and then panning to the other guy shows we're not seeing an arc placed sideways in a vomit comet, it's clearly an internal circumference of what would be the vomit comet's fuselage.

This is just a mass of evidence-free assertions and assumptions.

Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?

It's way too grainy to make out any bubbles.  Plus, the film is clearly slowed-down so the real-time needed to film it would be significantly less than the time it takes to playback.  Also, notice how the guys run around the circle in Stack's video.  How is that possible?  Where is the normal force coming from that keeps the astronauts feet attached to the surface?  In zero-g, intertia would cause them to move in straight lines opposite the line of force caused by his feet pushing down.  This proves the video is fake.

ADDENDUM:  The claim that it couldn't be faked using wires because they would have gotten tangled is sensible, but using multiple exposures and/or rotoscoping they could have achieved the effect shooting each astronaut one at a time.  If it was choreographed carefully enough the portions where the astronauts appear to come into contact could be made to look natural.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 07, 2019, 06:43:00 PM »

I'm guessing there's a typo and you meant 6:14, but why do you think the cut is deceptive in any way? It's obvious they just zoomed in on the water. Like, do you have any evidence the cut signifies a different rotating formation of water? The backgrounds match up pre cut and psot cut, the speeds match up, and since we know it went through all the time pre cut without splitting into two blobs of water,that that time was not long enough to do so pre cut. So if the speeds match up, then post cut is focused on the same splitting blob of water. If you're going to bring up cranking and frame rates, then provide some evidence for it, speculation means nothing. And besides, even if you still are convinced of whatever effect the cut has, 32 seconds is still longer than the max parabolic flight time.

I already provided evidence that the parabolic flights can create 40 seconds of zero-g time.

Also, animation? Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?

Watch Fantasia.   

Do you have any evidence for that, not just speculation?

The question is whether or not it is possible to fake the Skylab effects.  The speed could have been faked using camera-effects, thus I fulfilled my burden of showing that it was possible to fake that aspect.

Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
https://www.usms.org/fitness-and-training/articles-and-videos/articles/exhalingthe-hidden-secret-to-swimming-farther-and-faster

We found that zero-g planes can achieve free fall for 40 seconds.

Indeed, in light of stack's video of the skylab ring sequence of 47 seconds, that level of exertion underwater for 47 seconds would be nearly impossible without surfacing.

Clearly slowed frame rate.  Look at all the interlaced frames.  It looks more natural at double-speed

Do you have any evidence that vomit comet flights, like the ones today even exceed 30 seconds? Also, lol, the F-94? You do realize that thing is a two seater, right? In fact, here's a picture! Please explain to us how you can film anything in that or how conventional vomit comet planes can fly like a fighter jet.

The evidence was already presented.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/

The length of zero-g times is dependent upon the maximum altitude.  If the vomit comet's max altitude is greater than the typical 34,000 feet the amount of time in zero-g would be greater than the typical 25 seconds.

It's grainy yes, but do you have any evidence for these allegations? Can you show us any hand drawn animations that can pass of as real?

There's no allegation, it was only mentioned as a possibility.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 07, 2019, 06:31:50 PM »

For your $5000, Zero G Corporation gives you 22 seconds of weightlessness each of the 15 parabolic maneuvers. (Pricey).
It would be kinda tough to fit skylab into an F-94 fighter. The largest US plane in 1973 was the C5 Super Galaxy Transport. Skylab at it's largest diameter of 22' I'm not sure would fit into it. But if you could, then you'd have to get the C5 to perform parabolas like a fighter jet to get to that extended 30-40 seconds.

Here's a 47 second clip from skylab:

That 47 second clip is obviously slowed down, look at all the interlaced frames.  As far as fitting Skylab into the jet, that wouldn't be necessary it would only be necessary to create a set for the specific room that was used in the shot.  There are also methods to make a room look larger than it actually is (forced perspective and traveling mattes come to mind.)  The commercial Vomit Comets  As for the Zero G Corporation, civilian planes are only permitted to fly so high, military planes would be allowed to reach a higher peak height than the commercial planes, the only trade off being much higher g-forces after the zero-g period, but the astronauts would be trained to handle that. 

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 06, 2019, 05:30:18 PM »

From the same paper:

"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"

The 25 seconds of free fall refers to a "typical" flight.  Elsewhere it is claimed that the maximum (as opposed to the typical) amount of free fall time is 40 seconds:  "During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds.  Later on:  "Between 1955 and 1958, a refined approach in the F-94 fighter allowed a variety of medical experiments to be performed during 30 to 40 seconds of freefall."  The 40 seconds of "increased force" during the typical parabolic flight has nothing to do with the maximum claimed 40 seconds (or 30-40 seconds) of free-fall, they just happen to be the same.

Cool, so your point is?: 

- Skylab bouncing around guys was just parabolic vomit comet stuff - No Skylab 'cut' under 25 seconds is worthy. There is one. (The 40 seconds of 'freefall' is the entire parabola, not the entirety of 0g.)

Dealt with above.  You also have to account for the possibility that the film was overcranked (slowed down.)  For instance if the 32 seconds of uninterrupted floating water sequence was shot at a higher frame-rate than it was played back at, if it were slowed down by 25 percent that would mean that the sequence actually took up 24 seconds of real time.

- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff

I don't think that was used in this particular case but it is possible that NASA used hand-drawn animation in the pre CGI era.  The video quality is usually so grainy (deliberately so) that if the effect was well animated enough it wouldn't be easy to see that the texture of the animated feature looked "off."

- Anything ISS is in-pertinent

This is a Skylab thread.  The ISS monstrosities are dealt with in other threads.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 06, 2019, 02:54:24 AM »

22 seconds seems to be the max with the Vomit Comet when it comes to 0g. The 30 seconds include includes the 4 seconds from g to 0 and 4 seconds back again.

This article claims "Although space flight is the only way to provide long periods of true freefall, a much cheaper and more accessible method is available in an aircraft flying a parabolic trajectory. During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/

The mustache guy stuff is from the CGI era so it isn't at all pertinent to this discussion.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 06, 2019, 02:52:28 AM »

Quotation from the first post: "@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment."

Or the cameraman is able to slow down the frame rate such that it appears that he is rotating faster than he actually is. 

Another quote from the first post:  "@1:18-1:43 The three men execute intersecting 3d pathways that would make wire harnesses tangled, the video segment is too long to be explained by parabolic flight as it exceeds 20 seconds in duration and the SkyLab is too large of an internal volume to fit inside the largest aircraft available at that time."

Parabolic flights can create a zero-g environment for up to 40 seconds. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/ 

The notion that the entire volume of Skylab would need to be fitted into the parabolic aircraft in order to shoot the scene in question is obviously ridiculous.  The circle that the "astronauts" are seen floating around in looks no larger than about 10-15 feet in diameter.  It could also be a swimming pool, since the original claim that it could not have been shot in a swimming pool was refuted above.  It looks to me like this scene was shot under water while the scene discussed above looks more like a vomit-comet scene (it isn't "either-or".  Both could have been used, each for different effects).  Either way, this stuff could easily have been faked.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 06, 2019, 02:07:26 AM »

Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.

. 
How deceptive of you.  There's a cut at 5:14 minutes in to the video so it isn't 46 seconds of continuous footage as you try to imply but about 32-33 seconds.  Google says the parabolic flights provide about 30 seconds of weightlessness.  Also, the footage appears to be slightly slowed down.  Furthermore ,hand-drawn cel animation definitely existed in 1974, and the footage is grainy enough that it could plausibly be the work of a skilled animator (but I lean towards parabolic flight).

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sinking Ship Phenomenon

« on: January 30, 2019, 01:39:39 AM »

I can say that all of the "Debunking Flat Earth theories" have been debunked, except for one, the sinking ship phenomenon. When a ship goes far, it appears as if it is sinking, the farther it gets. First the body slowly disappears, and then the rest of the ship, from the bottom-up. Can anybody prove this wrong, the ensure that the earth really is flat? Thanks.

As the distance between visible objects and the observer's eye increases, the rays of light received by the eye that are reflected by the object at every point along its length continually decrease in angle.  Once the angles of the rays emerging from the object at any given length along that object drops below the angles of light reflected from the edge of the horizon or become small enough that the rays of light intersect the horizon's light (the horizon theoretically must be at eye level on an indefinitely extended plane, disregarding atmospheric effects) the object in question will be blocked by the horizon up to that height.  Eventually, if an object is far enough from the observer it will be totally obscured by the horizon.

29

Flat Earth Media / Re: Himawari 8 Satellite Analysis

« on: January 25, 2019, 02:23:40 AM »

An interesting analysis of the Hamarawi 8 satellite. Documents are found on NOAA's FTP that the underlying model is the Blue Marble dataset.

The Himawari 8 is the weather satellite which is supposedly far enough from the earth to take continuous photos of the whole half of the earth it is over

This video is a repost of a paul on the plane video. Couple of things to note that others pointed out. PotP is essentially referencing the wrong ftp archive, NOAA. Which is the thrust of the entire argument. NOAA is just a downstream archive. He should have been looking at the Himawari 8 JMA ftp (Japan Meteorological Agency). That's where the actual source data is, not NOAA. I would say, good video, well presented. Just too many assumptions and not examining the right evidence.

The other thing to note, not relevant, just interesting, Paul on The Plane really has no love for the Society(s). All his videos have this in the description, front and center:

"I AM *NOT* A MEMBER OF THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY. THEY ARE A CONTROLLED OPPOSITION GROUP WHO PROPAGATE LIES ABOUT TRUE FLAT EARTH THEORIES AND OVERALL TRUTH MOVEMENT."

What's that all about? Does it all come down to the UA versus nonUA thing?

People in the comments section are upset because they think the data being referenced is for the satellite called "GOES".  This is incorrect. The confusion comes from the fact that the video references the website ftp://ftp.nnvl.noaa.gov/GOES/HIMAWARI/ which, yes, is a NOAA website but the content of that particular page is about the HImawari.

30

Flat Earth Media / Re: Himawari 8 Satellite Analysis

« on: January 25, 2019, 02:01:02 AM »

But the Himawari is JAPANESE not NASA so it can't be fake.  /sarc 

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Nice photos of California mountains disprove the flat earth notion

« on: January 22, 2019, 10:17:13 PM »

Perspective causes a sinking effect for objects that are beyond the horizon line for an optical horizon. The base of that mountain is clearly beyond the horizon so there should be a sinking effect.  The Bislin calculator and other such calculators don't take this fact into account so any predictions made using them are worthless.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: January 21, 2019, 07:10:06 PM »

The thing about sinks and toilets as per the Simpsons episode is a myth because the effect is so slight. But these guys show that if you do things in a controlled enough way you can see an effect, as we can with tornadoes and hurricanes rotating in opposite direction in the different hemispheres.

The counter argument from FE basically amounts to “nuh uh” which I’d suggest isn’t really an argument at all.

In order for it to be solid evidence of the Coriolis effect the experiment would have to be replicated numerous times in various locations with various different kinds of containers.  There are also unaccounted variables that are not accounted for as mentioned by several of the commentators on Youtube.  The evidence you presented has practically zero statistical power.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: January 21, 2019, 05:29:18 PM »

What evidence? Zero evidence has been provided. We've been talking about this for over ten years. You guys consistently struggle to provide evidence on this matter.

Lots of evidence has been provided. You either struggle to understand it or dismiss it as fake. You do this about all evidence which shows you to be wrong.

A single video demonstrating an uncontrolled, non-replicated "experiment" is lots of evidence?

34

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 19, 2019, 03:06:57 AM »

At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.

It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain. 

Has it been established though?  That prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain was well within the mainstream of medical practice back then? So far presented here have been a half a dozen or so Dr's and a few 'studies'. I'm not sure that qualifies as making an argument that it was the norm or mainstream even back then.

It was at least within the range of practices that would be considered acceptable by 19th century standards given the evidence we have seen (studies in professional journals and other doctors who attested to the efficacy of phosphorus as a treatment for chronic pain .)

Evidence? Studies? All Tom has presented us is a list of patients treated with phosphorus. And as I, and several others (Bad Puppy and AATW) have pointed out, a tabulated list is in no way equal to a controlled study. I have yet to see anyone in this thread present a study (a real study by its definition, not whatever Tom Bishop thinks a study is given his stubborn insistence to call the tabulated list he found a "study"). So unless you have some studies testing the effectiveness of phosphorus, there is no evidence. How do other doctors' claims to phosphorus in a few medical texts prove it's mainstream? Is that how you support claims of something mainstream? You just take a thin slice out of the voluminous literature of the medical field and say "It is thus mainstream!"?

This isn't a debate over the efficacy of phosphorus as a medicine.  That real doctors have been documented as having used phosphorus (and that there was reason to believe that it would work given the contemporaneous case studies Tom has provided) in that capacity is enough proof that Rowbotham's enthusiasm for phosphorus as a treatment for certain diseases does not prove ipso facto that he was not a real doctor (or a quack) as so many, eager to assassinate the character of a man whose ideas upset them, have asserted.  Case closed. 

35

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 19, 2019, 02:16:59 AM »

At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.

It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain. 

Has it been established though?  That prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain was well within the mainstream of medical practice back then? So far presented here have been a half a dozen or so Dr's and a few 'studies'. I'm not sure that qualifies as making an argument that it was the norm or mainstream even back then.

It was at least within the range of practices that would be considered acceptable by 19th century standards given the evidence we have seen (studies in professional journals and other doctors who attested to the efficacy of phosphorus as a treatment for chronic pain .)

Even if we concede that Rowbotham was a competent doctor (at the time he was working, we wouldn’t necessarily use his methods now), I’m not sure how that adds any credibility to his scientific ideas. There’s no evidence as far as I know that he worked professionally as a scientist and his ideas are clearly motivated by a misguided attempt to use the Bible as a science book. His ideas have been shown wrong and he has been largely forgotten by history.
I’m not clear how his competency as a doctor is relevant.

The notion that Rowbotham wasn't a real doctor is the line of attack used in this thread (and elsewhere) to erroneously attack his Zetetic method.  I agree that it is an ad hominem argument that has no bearing on the claims made in his studies on the shape of the Earth.

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 18, 2019, 09:49:42 PM »

Yes, like using leeches to drain bad blood. There's a reason for why certain medical practices aren't used anymore. 1) They weren't effective or effective enough. 2) They were dangerous. 3) They just didnt work at all.

Being mainstream does not mean it is correct. That's the argument FEers use against REers all the time.

The notion that phosphorus had medicinal properties was considered correct by many accredited doctors of the 19th century therefore the idea that Rowbotham's claim to be a doctor must have been fraudulent because he prescribed phosphorus has been refuted.  That is the only evidence for Rowbotham being a fraud that has been given so far thus we can say that, since that evidence has been refuted, there is no evidence that Rowbotham was a fraud.

37

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham

« on: January 18, 2019, 09:04:03 PM »

At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.

It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain.  Perhaps a 21st century doctor who prescribed phosphorus would be considered a "quack" (not that modern allopathic medicine, which is to a large extent an arm of the pharmaceutical industry, is beyond question), but Rowbotham was not a 21st century doctor.  There are many remedies that were common in the 19th century that would be considered absurd today.  Maybe you should pick another fight because Tom has clearly bested you in this debate.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 17, 2019, 02:28:47 AM »

I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom.  Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?

Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.

What's that supposed to mean?  It's up to the student to be proactive and ask questions.  Are you suggesting that they actively discourage questioning in astronomy classes?  Did you take an astronomy course and had your questions denied?  Or did you just not like the answers because they went against your beliefs?


And again, your view on Jupiter.....flat or not?  Simple question.  I'll start.  I think it's round.

If astronomers and astronomy teachers have answers to the arguments posed by Hickson, where are they?  Most teachers just teach from the book, they probably wouldn't even have answers to questions that don't fit into that paradigm.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 17, 2019, 02:27:07 AM »

What book? There are litereally hundreds and hundreds of books, websites, videos, photographs about the existence of Jupiter and its moons. How many books are there saying that Jupiter does not exist? Or that it does exist but does not have moons?

You've either just outed yourself as a dishonest person arguing in bad faith (nobody has questioned the existence of Jovian satellites or of Jupiter) or have terrible reading comprehension. 

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 17, 2019, 12:36:01 AM »

"How are these observations explained on a flat earth? What drives the orbit of the moons if not gravity? What casts the shadow on the planet if not the moons coming between Jupiter and the sun?"

Unknown.  Possibly electromagnetic fields.  Not germane to shape of Earth.