41

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

« on: March 30, 2022, 08:12:02 PM »

UAll I'm suggesting is that you take your concerns to ITSO & the UN and let the 149 member states know that you think satellites and space-travel are faked by NASA.

Exactly. This would be the greatest discovery of the century, why not publish a paper about why it’s all faked and inform the UN?

I’m still calling into question the FE reasoning for why the footage “looks fake”, when all the concerns are based off a misinterpretation, and therefore not a good case against space travel.

42

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

« on: March 24, 2022, 10:51:42 PM »

So anything "connected with government in some manner" can't be peer reviewed? Does this apply to all governments? How do you define "connected with government", specifically?

Airbags have government involvement, immediately remove them from your car!

43

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

« on: March 24, 2022, 03:36:15 PM »

It really does feel like that sort of logic, making it your literal belief, is jumping the gun and being too eager to believe something.

I could write a very convincing book on how space travel is fake and how the earth is flat. Do I LITERALLY believe that space travel is fake and the earth is flat? No. I can talk about HOW things can be faked without just saying “well it’s fake because it’s the truth!”

44

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

« on: March 24, 2022, 03:26:45 PM »

There is no such thing as "space travel," except the space defined as within the limits of the atmoplane, and some guy named Jules Verne back in the 1800's, with his huge fan base carrying on the tradition.

What, exactly, is the “problem” with the idea of space travel? Nothing about it defies any observable, understandable physics. It strikes a nerve with some people as this impossible “sci-fi” thing but it’s become a fairly mundane part of life.

45

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

« on: March 24, 2022, 12:44:45 PM »

His mistake is believing that nonsense to begin with.

Why not actually debate? I could just say “your mistake is believing in FE nonsense” but I’m not going to because we were having a discussion.

Are you supposing that the entire science of orbital mechanics and transfers is fabricated?

All the evidence (here on earth) for space travel that could POSSIBLY exist DOES exist. Photos, jobs, entire sciences, launches, tracking. But because you can’t go to Mars and look at the rover itself, the whole thing must not be real?

46

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

« on: March 23, 2022, 06:32:10 PM »

There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.

How is it then that you get the strongest signal when your directional antenna is pointed at that spot?

It’s always something something “triangulation” with them.

47

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

« on: March 23, 2022, 03:24:40 PM »

What's your hot take, that they employ someone to fake pictures from it. Why would they do that?

Exactly. I don’t see how putting a camera on a satellite to add a satellite channel, as a television provider, is less plausible than having a constant feed be faked (while making sure it’s consistent with the world at all times!)
One is a one-time relatively cheap addition to a launch, one is a constant human labor cost.

(Also sort of bummed out by the lack of FE engagement lately except for Tom and Pete. Maybe everyone found out it’s not flat.)

48

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

« on: March 23, 2022, 12:56:33 AM »

NASA faking the data is sort of the underlying premise of this concept and website.

NASA? Tom, this is about EchoStar and Dish Network. Why would I, as a private company, waste money on a fake satellite launch as well as perfectly craft a fake daily nonstop feed from the satellite’s fake perspective for no reason? I would much rather just put a camera on a useful piece of equipment launched into orbit.

It is the neutral, unbiased, independent research of this stuff that only solidified my knowledge (not belief) that the earth is a globe.

49

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

« on: March 22, 2022, 11:55:00 PM »

Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.

What do you mean by "legitimate" here?  Do you contend that the space telescopes I provided a link to (via the wikipedia) do not exist?  or that the scientists publishing papers on them over the last 50 years or so made up their data?  or what?

I don’t believe there’s much in this world that would cause the editors of the literal FE wiki to edit it to say “we have been disproven” (as hilarious as that would be)

50

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

« on: March 22, 2022, 11:40:10 PM »

Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.

Tom, my original post was a little bit more than saying “here’s some footage, accept it”. It was a bit of a meta argument.

I’m completely admitting that you can just say it’s fake and I can’t do much about it. I’m asserting that the REASONING used by FE’ers in the comments are based on false interpretations/misunderstandings.

If these are the things that made them FE’ers, they got to their position for the wrong reasons. All that FET really has is desperate skepticism that you “technically” can’t disprove as long as you push the bar for evidence back enough.

51

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.

52

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

« on: March 20, 2022, 03:22:51 AM »

You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.

Ah, but whether you regard results as "unsatisfactory" seems to be entirely based on whether they fit your worldview or not.
I read an article about this, I've posted it here before, I won't do so again now. But basically the trick you pull is that you operate in the sceptical context but you do so selectively depending on whether the thing you're scrutinising confirms your worldview or not. I don't know whether you're doing it knowingly for the lolz, or unwittingly and therefore fooling yourself. If you operate in that sceptical context then it's easy to dismiss anything.

For example, let's say you think kangaroos are fake.
So I tell you of a time I saw one at a zoo. You say I'm lying or mistaken.
So I bring someone who works at the zoo tending the kangaroos, you say that he's a shill and lying too.
So I tell you I know a world expert in kangaroos, you say he doesn't know what he's talking about.
So I show you a picture or video of a kangaroo, you say it's CGI.
So I take you to the zoo, we go and see the kangaroos, you see one hopping around...and then say it's an animatronic.

You then claim on forum.kangaroosarefake.org, for which you edit the Wiki, that
"You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end."

This is how I feel. There could be some philosophical/entertainment value in debating whether kangaroos exist, but there’s a certain willfully forced “skepticism” that would push me to believe kangaroos are not real. This sort of thinking is harmless in the case of things like FE but manifests negatively in some cases (COVID conspiracies).

Simply put, it is much more comforting to believe that you just have the grand answer that nobody else does, that everybody else is a sheep, instead of accepting that there is no big evil conspiracy. The world is far more boring than that.

53

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

« on: March 19, 2022, 05:03:31 AM »

What should FE discussion have, if not "literalism" ?

Lyricism? Poeticism?

Why should FE-ers not be taken literally?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. It’s not that FE-ers themselves should not be taken literally, but that the idea of literally believing the earth is flat seems sort of like missing the point.

Most random people will not have a great 100% sound explanation for why they think the earth is a globe, and I could technically disprove them and make them a flat-earther with some effort. This makes new skeptics feel like there must be some sort of problem with the globe model - after all, shouldn’t it be obvious?

Some initiative and learning is great, and like I said, myself and many others have gone down this path to prove for ourselves the earth is in fact a globe. It just seems there’s far too many eager to jump to the conclusion that the earth is literally flat when they carry only low-level FE arguments under their belt from some YouTube videos.

Knowing the other side is great, just like knowing your own stance. While I know the earth is a globe, I could write a very convincing book on why the earth could be flat.

FE discussion is, as it is, generally benign and informative. More laypeople should be talking about general science and why we know things.

54

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

« on: March 15, 2022, 08:31:43 AM »

As a thought experiment it is quite interesting, I have more issues with it as a literal belief as that involves a myriad of conspiracy theories and dismissal of pretty much all scientific knowledge.
Which is not in itself harmful - I mean, it doesn't really matter what shape the earth is. But when that sort of thinking extends to Covid, Global Warming etc  - that's where the dangers lie.

I agree. It seems that literal belief in FE is ironically a symptom of not becoming learned in the topic.

Many FE arguments are born from a sort of misunderstanding about observable phenomena, such as denial of the conservation of momentum/rockets in a vacuum. It becomes a mix of Olympic mental gymnastics and a simple lack of intuitive understanding of physics.

So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary. That doesn’t mean FE isn’t a great exercise in what “knowing” is and how to find the answers yourself!

55

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

« on: March 15, 2022, 08:21:38 AM »

Where did you get the idea that you *have to* believe one way or another? That directly contradicts everything we've been saying about our purpose here.

Reworded the original post to convey what I meant. I understand that nobody’s saying you “have to” believe anything.

56

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.