1

Science & Alternative Science / Who makes these images?

« on: December 14, 2022, 10:27:20 PM »

https://twitter.com/marsmissionimgs?s=21&t=LgeI5GohD13vGZcQBNUjoQ


This is a bot that automatically posts Mars rover images. They’re uploaded CONSTANTLY (10-15 minutes apart) all day every day.

Supposing they’re not actually photographs from Mars and faked here on earth, how would this be remotely possible?

Much of them depict landscape that doesn’t exist on earth, which could be explained as CG. But how are they making constant CG every few minutes all day every day? It takes weeks to produce a few frames of CG of this quality.

And why would they do it? The public isn’t even interested that much these days. Each one gets 0-2 likes. Why pay people to make fake Mars images every 10 minutes forever for no reason?

2

Science & Alternative Science / Apollo 17

« on: November 27, 2022, 09:05:53 AM »

Just incredible how many god damn photos there are from these missions readily available on the internet. All high resolution and beautiful. Even if you think it’s fake, you gotta give them some credit.
You just keep scrolling and scrolling and the pictures keep going.

The link: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html

3

Flat Earth Theory / Rockets work in a vacuum

« on: October 24, 2022, 03:28:29 PM »

I would like to make the case that rockets working in a vacuum is compatible with FE but a troubling part of some people’s FE belief.

It is conservation of momentum that propels a rocket and there’s no element of this that would require an atmosphere. If I fire a bullet out of a handgun, the force imparted on the bullet (small mass) to send it at muzzle velocity is also imparted onto my body (larger mass).

And you could argue: you’ve never been to space and can’t objectively prove a rocket works in space!
Which is, of course, a loaded argument and takes you nowhere. You can’t reasonably expect a random person to have gone to space.
The ONLY reason you would “assume” a rocket is nonfunctional in space is because it’s not pushing off air, and won’t move. However, you can prove this from home!

If I stand on a skateboard and throw a large 10 pound ball, I will move some distance. If I throw a smaller 10 pound ball with a smaller surface area, according to “rockets don’t work in vacuum theory” its lower air resistance would move me a smaller distance. But you can prove for yourself that the large 10 pound ball and the small 10 pound ball move you the same distance! This is conservation of momentum at work, and it DEMONSTRABLY does not require atmospheric conditions.

Proponents of the “rockets don’t work in a vacuum” theory like to describe the scenario of a rocket shooting off its propellant in space and “not moving” because there’s “nothing to push off”. This would violate the law of conservation of momentum, which as we established can be proven AT HOME to not require atmosphere. If you fire a 12 gauge shotgun, it is not the force of “air resistance” beating up your shoulder but the chemical force sending small pellets at muzzle velocity imparted into the shotgun sending it backwards!
The same would apply to a can full of air, or hypergolic fuels, or liquid fuel/oxygen fuel and there’s no reason to believe otherwise other than being intentionally obtuse.



If your basis in believing space is fake is because of X, once X is proven to be a null point, why continue using X as a point?

The whole “rockets don’t work in a vacuum” problem seems pretty clearly rooted in stubbornness. I’m not even saying “earth is globe because rockets work in a vacuum”. I am making the point that if you’re going to argue for the case of FE, rockets are not your winning case! I could write a book on how the earth could be flat, and still I know it’s not.


TL;DR Even FE must concede that rockets work in a vacuum, believing that they don’t is misunderstanding why.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / What are astronomers observing?

« on: April 13, 2022, 05:25:47 PM »

Why would I be an astronomer if it was apparent that (as some FE-ers will propose) the sky was a projection, rendering astronomy useless?

You can observe binary star systems, planets, gravitational lensing, nebulae, etc. These observations lend themselves to a now-obvious inference about our place in the universe.

I can predict the transit of celestial bodies using the well-established model that includes the earth being a planet among countless other planets.

You would simply need a mountain of evidence to “disprove” such observable, predictable things as binary star systems. Are astronomers just completely wrong? Can I apply the band-aid fix of “they could be wrong” and call it a day?


This may be one of the weakest parts of the wiki. The relatively short articles that make up The Cosmos section don’t constitute any argument against the gigantic volume of data and studies that countless people and organizations have created. The wiki relies too much on the basis that RE is a philosophical model rather than an observable one. Some cherrypicked and contextless quotes from random figures don’t change that.

5

Flat Earth Theory / ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 22, 2022, 12:10:44 AM »

I remember watching this years ago when I had DISH. Unedited feed from 22,000 miles up. When you watched the original broadcast it obviously wasn’t timelapsed. I mean, there it is. The image is right there. Scrub through the video and see the clouds moving, moon transit etc. Stationary over the US being in geostationary orbit for television.

Seems like as good of evidence as any.
Beautiful to look at.

I’m aware you can simply say “fake”, and of course I’m posting this to a flat earth forum so I know what to expect. Just wanted to bring this up as a rebuttal to those certain FE’ers that like to say “show one that’s not edited or CGI!”


Whether or not you can technically claim it is “fake”, the reasoning in the comments is infuriating. These include:
“Why can’t you see any satellites”? That’s like me asking you to see an ant from an airplane.
“Where is the moon?” It makes transit in the video and is clearly visible.
“Why aren’t the clouds moving?” They are moving, exactly as fast as you would expect them to. Scrub through the video.
“Why can’t I see any stars?” Exposure.
“Why isn’t it pear shaped?” Obviously misunderstanding why that was ever said in the first place.
“Why isn’t the earth rotating?” Geostationary orbit, the only way a television satellite could work.

There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water. Yes, I can just say it is fake because reasons, but the timelapse is exactly what you would expect to see. For this reason, I don’t know why this footage is insufficient.
I won’t argue against your ability to simply not believe in the timelapse, but the reasons for it being fake are either deliberate or ignorant misunderstandings.

6

Flat Earth Community / Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.

« on: March 07, 2022, 06:09:53 AM »

Most of us here have encountered it everywhere, where someone that’s technically a “globe earther” never really engaged in discourse about the shape of the earth or thought about it beyond surface level.

The average person that isn’t interested in science/space discussion likely has a simplified set of views about our world, such as “when you get high enough, gravity just turns off in space” or “spacesuits are made of cloth”. It’s (generally!) these people that become flat earthers, and start to learn more. It’s led to years of debate and discussion and scientific experiments, which I think is great.

Where flat earth discussion falls flat is the literalism behind it, and this honestly kills a lot of discussion as people outside the FE community are turned off by that sort of thing.

Starting with skepticism, years of debate and independent research/learning/logic etc. has led me to have a personal understanding of the natural world that wasn’t simply fed to me (that corroborates with the globally-accepted heliocentric model).

It’s a fantastic educational experience (thought experiment), and there’s lots of us that end up with reaffirmed knowledge of the globe earth after years of this. I just wish there wasn’t this sense of literalism tied to the discourse where you have people believing that world is LITERALLY flat, it seems like this has been a detriment to the community.