The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: secretagent10 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?
-
If only there were some kind of image generating machine that could generate novel images constantly and output them on demand. Imagine if that were a thing, haha, that'd be pretty crazy.
-
Except these images are real.
-
somewhere in saudi arabia
get the camel
-
somewhere in saudi arabia
get the camel
If only there were some kind of image generating machine that could generate novel images constantly and output them on demand
Which one?
J-Man, I’m not sure where the Saudi Arabia claim is coming from.
Rushy, Martian imagery predates AI images as we know it. In fact, it’s only in the last couple years or so that AI art became more than just mush. Also, there are fairly obvious tells even from the best AI image generation tools. They don’t hold up to close detail, they smudge, they turn text to gibberish, etc. The rover images are consistent between every picture and show the exact same tiny details of the rover, with all its symbols and text. AI does not do this.
-
somewhere in saudi arabia
get the camel
If only there were some kind of image generating machine that could generate novel images constantly and output them on demand
Which one?
J-Man, I’m not sure where the Saudi Arabia claim is coming from.
Rushy, Martian imagery predates AI images as we know it. In fact, it’s only in the last couple years or so that AI art became more than just mush. Also, there are fairly obvious tells even from the best AI image generation tools. They don’t hold up to close detail, they smudge, they turn text to gibberish, etc. The rover images are consistent between every picture and show the exact same tiny details of the rover, with all its symbols and text. AI does not do this.
Just the last couple of years that publicly available systems reached a level that private systems were at a decade ago*
-
It's a good thing we're talking about sharp, well-defined pictures with huge amounts of text text in them. Otherwise, secretagent69's comment might come across as irrelevant and desperate.
https://twitter.com/MarsMissionImgs/status/1608963315811905537
It's also a good thing it didn't accidentally find an ancient Sith lightsaber on Korriban. That really wouldn't fit the narrative.
https://twitter.com/MarsMissionImgs/status/1608980805199753216
-
It's also a good thing it didn't accidentally find an ancient Sith lightsaber on Korriban. That really wouldn't fit the narrative.
https://twitter.com/MarsMissionImgs/status/1608980805199753216
Meh. Lightsaber, sample tube. Same difference.
https://www.space.com/nasa-mars-perseverance-rover-sample-tubes-lightsabers
-
Meh. Lightsaber, sample tube. Same difference.
https://www.space.com/nasa-mars-perseverance-rover-sample-tubes-lightsabers
But of course. As is typical of RE'ers, an ad-hoc explanation must be presented.
-
It's also a good thing it didn't accidentally find an ancient Sith lightsaber on Korriban. That really wouldn't fit the narrative.
https://twitter.com/MarsMissionImgs/status/1608980805199753216
Meh. Lightsaber, sample tube. Same difference.
https://www.space.com/nasa-mars-perseverance-rover-sample-tubes-lightsabers
Looks like the NASA editing department forgot again to remove shiny objects from their filming studio landscapes, which are of course dead giveaways and evidence for a space travel conspiracy / Mars rover conspiracy.
-
Meh. Lightsaber, sample tube. Same difference.
https://www.space.com/nasa-mars-perseverance-rover-sample-tubes-lightsabers
But of course. As is typical of RE'ers, an ad-hoc explanation must be presented.
And, as typical of FE'ers, that explanation (no matter how reasonable) must be hand waved away.
-
And, as typical of FE'ers, that explanation (no matter how reasonable) must be hand waved away.
Hand-waved? Not at all. It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.
-
And, as typical of FE'ers, that explanation (no matter how reasonable) must be hand waved away.
Hand-waved? Not at all. It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.
Or, maybe what's strange is that it's just an odd coincidence that the sample tubes bear a passing resemblance to a light saber.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/a-martian-roundtrip-nasas-perseverance-rover-sample-tubes
-
Or, maybe what's strange is that it's just an odd coincidence that the sample tubes bear a passing resemblance to a light saber.
Ah, yes, now that there's a webpage on the Internet saying the same thing you've claimed, all doubt is out the window.
-
And, as typical of FE'ers, that explanation (no matter how reasonable) must be hand waved away.
Hand-waved? Not at all. It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.
As mentioned, it may not be that these magical lightsabers "showed up" in these photos...it may be that these objects were accidentally laying around the studio set when NASA were faking these Mars photos and so these objects ended up in the pictures; NASA editing department likely missed this and forgot to remove the objects from the studio set.
-
Or, maybe what's strange is that it's just an odd coincidence that the sample tubes bear a passing resemblance to a light saber.
Ah, yes, now that there's a webpage on the Internet saying the same thing you've claimed, all doubt is out the window.
Strange how that works, isn't it?
-
Strange how that works, isn't it?
This is your second reminder that you've stumbled outside of AR and need to behave accordingly. There won't be a third.
-
And, as typical of FE'ers, that explanation (no matter how reasonable) must be hand waved away.
Hand-waved? Not at all. It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.
Why are you so sad that NASA is protecting people from a Sith invasion?
-
It's a good thing we're talking about sharp, well-defined pictures with huge amounts of text text in them. Otherwise, secretagent69's comment might come across as irrelevant and desperate.
https://twitter.com/roversbot/status/1618126534564364288?s=46&t=_XvkxRgVIpbV7llA4zt7Sg
https://twitter.com/roversbot/status/1618051036203163648?s=46&t=_XvkxRgVIpbV7llA4zt7Sg
Yep. Sure is a good thing!
Reminder that these are constantly posted minutes apart 24/7.
If we’re suggesting it’s secret gubment AI, well we run into both the problem of the data set that would need to exist for this, as well as the logistics of such a thing being kept secret.
Not to mention - Rushy, if they had incredibly perfect AI that had been developed in secret for years, I assure you they wouldn’t use it for something as harmless as some rover pictures.
-
Why are you so sad that NASA is protecting people from a Sith invasion?
They’re choosing to believe that the sample return tube is this sudden unexpected thing that had to be quickly explained. The rover was known to be designed to do this for years.
Early publications regarding Perseverance explain in high detail the sample tubes.
Published on December 22, 2020:
“Made chiefly of titanium, each sample tube weighs less than 2 ounces (57 grams). A white exterior coating guards against heating by the Sun potentially changing the chemical composition of the samples after Perseverance deposits the tubes on the surface of Mars. Laser-etched serial numbers on the exterior will help the team identify the tubes and their content.”
Ah, yes, now that there's a webpage on the Internet saying the same thing you've claimed, all doubt is out the window.
The contention in this particular instance is not on the tubes themselves but the claim that they are “ad-hoc”.
But of course. As is typical of RE'ers, an ad-hoc explanation must be presented.
Suggesting that it’s just a sudden ad-hoc explanation suggests that the tubes are an expected artifact of the images to be explained, when this isn’t the case. It was already known what they look like since 2020.
-
Yep. Sure is a good thing!
Thank you for posting more *checks notes* blurry pictures with virtually no text on them. Sigh.
Reminder that these are constantly posted minutes apart 24/7.
Yep - a perfect pace for stable diffusion.
If we’re suggesting it’s secret gubment AI
We're not. If you're incapable of discussing the subject like an adult, do not post in the upper fora. Final warning, for realises this time.
well we run into both the problem of the data set that would need to exist for this
Yes, that major problem, which is so difficult to solve that even you could start generating these at low cost in a matter of hours.
Not to mention - Rushy, if they had incredibly perfect AI that had been developed in secret for years, I assure you they wouldn’t use it for something as harmless as some rover pictures.
You're really not familiar with the modern uses of these, and you really want the world to know that you didn't bother to find out. Poor effort.
-
Yep. Sure is a good thing!
Fascinating that large fonts and single words qualify as "large amounts of text" in the mind of an RE'er.
Not to mention - Rushy, if they had incredibly perfect AI that had been developed in secret for years, I assure you they wouldn’t use it for something as harmless as some rover pictures.
Yes, I'm sure the only use for an advanced image generation machine is space pictures. There's nothing else they're using it for. Just space pictures specifically for you to ogle.
-
It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.
What makes you think it's a lightsaber? I'm not claiming it's not, but I'd be interested to know why you are convinced it is.
-
It was known for a long time exactly what the sample tubes look like, what they’re made of and what they do. It was already known that they would be deposited on the surface of Mars.
Claiming that “they retconned the story after weird lightsabers showed up!” isn’t a coherent argument.
…because it wasn’t retconned. I knew of the sample tubes and that they would be deposited long before I saw photos of it - because it was public knowledge. Now, whether you think it’s fake isn’t the premise of this sub-argument, but claiming that it was a retcon isn’t in line with the facts.
Even assuming FE is correct and they faked the mission data, the rover is fake and space is fake, at least be honest that the sample tubes were already part of their story. Photos showing what the sample tubes look like predate the Perseverance mission photos.
-
It was known for a long time exactly what the sample tubes look like, what they’re made of and what they do. It was already known that they would be deposited on the surface of Mars.
Claiming that “they retconned the story after weird lightsabers showed up!” isn’t a coherent argument.
Remember where you are...
The FE mentality around space exploration seems to be if it's possible it could have been faked then that's good enough. I see very little effort to provide evidence that anything is being faked. Some "reasonable doubt" is good enough. Arguments about the moon landings being faked are a combination of argument from incredulity and ignorance. I created a thread some time ago, a video where 3 VFX artists - people whose literal job it is to do this sort of stuff - looked at some Apollo footage and couldn't see how faking those shots would have been possible with the technology at the time.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17989.0
The main replies aren't actually a response to the video, they're just the usual "but what about the Van Allen Belts" or vague claims that the astronauts are acting a bit funny and so on.
FE's general response to space exploration is to claim it's all fake, provide no good evidence for that and then try not to think about it. That's how it comes across anyway.
Pete seems to have more interesting ideas about how it could be possible within FET but he's not gone into enough detail to have a sensible conversation about it.
-
Claiming that “they retconned the story after weird lightsabers showed up!” isn’t a coherent argument.
…because it wasn’t retconned. I knew of the sample tubes and that they would be deposited long before I saw photos of it - because it was public knowledge. Now, whether you think it’s fake isn’t the premise of this sub-argument, but claiming that it was a retcon isn’t in line with the facts.
Even assuming FE is correct and they faked the mission data, the rover is fake and space is fake, at least be honest that the sample tubes were already part of their story. Photos showing what the sample tubes look like predate the Perseverance mission photos.
This is a spectacular leap of logic. I'm actually impressed. You've compared two dates: the date on which (allegedly - but let's accept it for the sake of the argument) the lightsaber's existence was explained, and the date on which photographs of the lightsaber on Mars became publicly available. You then concluded that, since the explanation was available before the photos became public, it is impossible for it to have been a retcon. This logic is painfully flawed, and I encourage you, the reader, to pause for a few seconds and think about the flaws you can find in it. I'll focus on my favourite one in the next paragraph.
Now, I don't mean to poke further at your lack of technical prowess - you already explained that you're not familiar with these things, but we can still engage the subject logically. Whenever a process is designed (it doesn't have to be software), it's usually tested. This happens, ideally, long before the process is rolled out into widespread use. The sole purpose of that approach is to address issues before they become significant. In short: it's not only possible, but in fact very likely, that someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them. This doesn't even require a widespread conspiracy - it merely requires the assumption that the people we're dealing it don't frequently forget how to breathe.
-
it's not only possible, but in fact very likely, that someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them.
Which leads one to wonder why they would invent a retrospective explanation for them rather than simply editing them out of the picture.
I mean, it's all fake, right? Why leave stuff like that in there?
-
I mean, it's all fake, right? Why leave stuff like that in there?
They’re simultaneously all-powerful enough to keep up an international plot to fool the whole world that space is real, but too incompetent to edit out lightsabers and not make the lunar landers out of duct tape and tinfoil.
-
In short: it's not only possible, but in fact very likely, that someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them. This doesn't even require a widespread conspiracy - it merely requires the assumption that the people we're dealing it don't frequently forget how to breathe.
It’s likely? We seem to have (from what I can glean) two classes we’re talking about here: the gullible college kids joining NASA to work on a fake space program, and the ACTUAL CGI artists in charge of producing fake imagery. The line between these two groups lies at an unclear point.
Are the engineers that designed the sample tubes lying through their teeth? Their involvement isn’t secret, it’s well documented and you can find and contact them. Perhaps they’re part of the group being fooled, which would suggest they pass on their actual designs to CGI artists unknowingly.
I should be clear - I find the mechanics of such a conspiracy actually really interesting and cause for good discussion. I find it too weak to be a literal worldview, but the idea is fun to think about.
-
Which leads one to wonder why they would invent a retrospective explanation for them rather than simply editing them out of the picture.
Does it lead one to wonder, or is it trivial? I propose the latter, and encourage you to play around with something like DALL-E 2 or Midjourney to better understand the subject yourself. Both offer a reasonable free trial, enough to become familiar with what it can and can't do.
But, to answer your question: "just edit it out" is poor advice here, considering secretagent69's counterpoint - these images are generated en masse, rapidly, and "just editing it out" would either involve manual effort or another layer of software.
Manual effort won't work. Even if you outsource to India, you'd be looking at quite a lot of resource. A more sensible option would be painstakingly going through the dataset they used to train the model, identify the subset of Star Wars screenshots that contained a prequel lightsaber, and remove or alter those. Alternatively, you could try your best to engineer your prompts to reduce the frequency in which they occur. However, those options are still very large endeavours.
A second layer of software is still a bit crap. CV is hard. We are once again looking at tremendous effort, but this time we've added the requirement for highly specialist knowledge and experienced. Outsourcing to India won't work here, unless you want to end up with truly unpredictable results.
So, this leaves us with the obvious solution to the issue presented - retcon the lightsaber into your world. Come up with a reason for why they're just scattered on the ground and state it with authority. Job's a good'un.
I mean, it's all fake, right? Why leave stuff like that in there?
I mean, gun crime is bad, right? Why let Americans keep their guns?
I mean, climate change is bad, right? Why didn't we just fix it back in the 1980s?
I mean, world hunger is bad, right? Why leave bad things in the world when we can just lmao-fix-it?
The world as you imagine it would be oh-so-simple. Part of me is a little envious.
It’s likely?
Absolutely, as explained above. It's the most obvious solution to the problem you've presented. Even your alternative - that NASA just happened to craft ornate Sith lightsabers instead of something simple and practical - has its issues.
We seem to have (from what I can glean) two classes we’re talking about here: the gullible college kids joining NASA to work on a fake space program, and the ACTUAL CGI artists in charge of producing fake imagery. The line between these two groups lies at an unclear point.
I have no clue where you got any of this nonsense from, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The question posited by this thread is: how are these images created? Of course, neither of us can know for sure, but, as it stands, a perfectly plausible hypothesis has been presented.
-
But, to answer your question: "just edit it out" is poor advice here, considering secretagent69's counterpoint - these images are generated en masse, rapidly, and "just editing it out" would either involve manual effort or another layer of software.
You literally just said that it's likely that
"someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them"
So when that happened you're suggesting that they decided to create a whole back story for them rather than changing the images, either by manual work or by tweaking the AI algorithm. The former I'd agree would be a fair amount of work. The latter doesn't sound beyond the wit of man. You seem to be suggesting they used Star Wars images with lightsabers in to train the AI. I mean, they could just...not do that? Why use images from Star Wars anyway? As I've seen other conspiracy theorists point out, Martian terrain doesn't look that different to certain terrains on earth so just use them.
I'll leave out your box set of false equivalence logical fallacies - in each of them you talk about a complicated issue to solve. I'd suggest this is not that difficult to solve. Just don't use images with sodding light-sabers in when you're training AI to generate images of terrain which is supposed to be real and not part of the Star Wars cinematic universe.
Look. We're both speculating here. None of us knows for sure. But the issue with all these things is the claim is that NASA are simultaneously competent enough to generate data from space exploration missions which fools "the world", and they're incompetent enough to make mistakes which random people on the internet can spot. I mean, the moon landings are a good example of that - Jodrell Bank claim to have tracked the Apollo craft, and a Russian unmanned one which was aiming to land before Apollo 11 and steal a march on the Americans. The Australians were relaying signals for the Americans. And none of the major superpowers called the Americans out on the fakery. So NASA were competent enough to fake things well enough to fool all those people (unless some of them were "in on it", I guess). But they were stupid enough to label one of the rocks "C" (as is one of the "Apollo was fake" claims). I mean, really?
-
You literally just said that it's likely that
"someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them"
Correct. That would happen long after they've created the issue, and long before someone like you would get to see it. Your point?
So when that happened you're suggesting that they decided to create a whole back story for them rather than changing the images, either by manual work or by tweaking the AI algorithm.
Well, that is evidently what happened. You can agree or disagree with their decisions, but I doubt they'll pay much attention to your opinion as expressed on the Flat Earth Society web forum. But yes, after they found out that their model produces images with lightsabers, their options were to either invest years into redevelopment over something hardly anyone will care about, or to just run with it. They chose option 2, because they're not complete mouthbreathers.
The latter doesn't sound beyond the wit of man.
Right. Except no one cares what it "sounds" like to you. I already suggested that you should familiarise yourself with how these models work, but I guess that's too much to ask, so I'll throw you a bone: the tasks you're asking for here is for someone to manually sift through the very large training dataset and selectively remove or edit pictures, and then to retrain the model from scratch, test that that didn't break anything, and then proceed as normal. Under optimistic assumptions, you're asking for months, if not years, of delay. Of course, for all you know, the new model will then start spitting out pictures with Buzz Aldrin's left arm all over the place, but I guess if that happens we'll just redo everything from scratch again.
Meanwhile, in the opposite corner of the ring we've got putting out a couple of low-effort articles and videos that you'll happily eat right up and callling it a day.
You seem to be suggesting they used Star Wars images with lightsabers in to train the AI. I mean, they could just...not do that?
Yes, they could have simply not made an error. Astutely observed.
Why use images from Star Wars anyway? As I've seen other conspiracy theorists point out, Martian terrain doesn't look that different to certain terrains on earth so just use them.
Again, a basic familiarity with the subject would have helped you here. You need a very large dataset covering all aspects of the images you want to generate, and it needs to be appropriately annotated. Star Wars is convenient for both of these.
I'll leave out your box set of false equivalence logical fallacies - in each of them you talk about a complicated issue to solve. I'd suggest this is not that difficult to solve. Just don't use images with sodding light-sabers in when you're training AI to generate images of terrain which is supposed to be real and not part of the Star Wars cinematic universe.
Christ, give me patience.
Your brilliant observation boils down to "If they hadn't made a mistake, they wouldn't have a problem to solve". The issue here isn't that you're incorrect - it's that you're stating something that is completely useless. It's the logical equivalent of saying that the solution to climate change is simple - lmao, like, my dude, why emit greenhouse gases when you could just... not do that? Uhhhhhm why have a gun problem if you could just... not give people guns????? Errrrrmmmm, why have hungry people when you could have just set up society differently in the first place?
Exercise a little bit of humility. Just because you didn't understand a word of what I said does not mean the logic was fallacious.
But the issue with all these things is the claim is that NASA are simultaneously competent enough to generate data from space exploration missions which fools "the world", and they're incompetent enough to make mistakes which random people on the internet can spot.
Ah, yes, "the claim". That claim that people have made. People who aren't you. Yes. The Claim™. Mmm, quite.
How about we discuss something you didn't make up on the spot? Here, let me get you started: They're competent enough to fool people who aren't particularly bright, or who don't pay particularly much attention. That's generally how conspiracies go, which is also why most of them ultimately fail. People aren't competent, they aren't perfect, and they get found out. You're really not covering any new ground here, you're just echoing the fact that you don't personally find a NASA conspiracy to be likely.
I mean, the moon landings are a good example of that
I don't give a crap about the Moon landings. We're talking about the potential source of the images presented in the OP.
But they were stupid enough to label one of the rocks "C" (as is one of the "Apollo was fake" claims). I mean, really?
As before, I am especially disinterested in claims that nobody here has made, and which you didn't even bother to coherently described. "Wow, someone somewhere said something about a letter. I mean, rEaLlY?" Stop tilting at windmills.
-
Well, that is evidently what happened.
No, that's simply your claim. A claim you have provided no evidence for.
As I said, neither of us know for sure what happened, but your hypothesis is implausible.
The idea they would use images from Star Wars with lightsabers in to train an AI model which is supposed to generate Martian landscapes is ludicrous.
Your brilliant observation boils down to "If they hadn't made a mistake, they wouldn't have a problem to solve". The issue here isn't that you're incorrect - it's that you're stating something that is completely useless.
The issue is the mistake you're claiming they made is implausible. Now, that's subjective of course but your claim that they definitely did that is based on no more evidence than my thought that your claim is ridiculous.
How about we discuss something you didn't make up on the spot? Here, let me get you started: They're competent enough to fool people who aren't particularly bright, or who don't pay particularly much attention. That's generally how conspiracies go, which is also why most of them ultimately fail.
Isn't it strange that the people who spot these "errors" are random internet people who don't have experience in the relevant fields. As I've noted, I posted a thread where 3 VFX artists - people whose literal job is to do this stuff - looked at footage from Apollo and concluded there would have been no way of faking that given the technology at the time. The responses were stuff like "BuT lOoK hOw UnCoMfOrTaBlE tHe AsTrOnAuTs LoOk In ThE nEwS cOnFeReNcE".
You're right in that most people aren't competent. But the people spotting these "mistakes" aren't "competent", they just have a certain mindset and with a large slice of confirmation bias draw conclusions they have no real evidence for.
you're just echoing the fact that you don't personally find a NASA conspiracy to be likely.
And you're just echoing the fact that you personally think that's what happened. I guess we can go round saying "did" / "did not" if you want but it's a bit of a waste of both our times.
I mean, you're obviously not your average internet idiot, but you're talking about this with a confidence you can't possibly have. You could say I'm doing the same but I am at least acknowledge it.
-
The issue is the mistake you're claiming they made is implausible.
I can't help you with that. If you'd like to become familiar with the subject, I've outlined the first steps for you. Until then, your problem is that I'm stating things which are obvious, and which require an elementary understanding of the domain you chose to debate. Understanding which you don't have, and which you chose not to pursue even once the need became apparent.
The responses were stuff like "BuT lOoK hOw UnCoMfOrTaBlE tHe AsTrOnAuTs LoOk In ThE nEwS cOnFeReNcE".
I tried asking nicely. Now I'm asking forcefully: stop trying to derail this thread with random strawman attacks.
And you're just echoing the fact that you personally think that's what happened.
Nope. I presented a theory and explained why it's the most plausible one available to us. I went into detail and responded to every question with... well, not patience, but I prioritised facts over expressions of frustration. You need to understand and address my points if you wish to proceed - not just "nuh uh!!!" back at me and quickly change the subject. And in order to address them, you'll have to do you a learnin'.
-
And, as typical of FE'ers, that explanation (no matter how reasonable) must be hand waved away.
Hand-waved? Not at all. It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.
Handwaved, retconned, ad-hoc explanation on the BBC, 8 days prior to the social media post:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64065004
-
Duncan, out of curiosity, have you bothered reading the rest of the thread, or did you rush to your reply as soon as you read my post from a month ago, with no knowledge of the current state of the discussion?
-
My first comment, Pete, but I've been following with mild interest since the start. I gotta say SA10's original question has merit but, from a FE perspective, I don't think it needs much answering; obviously the billions going into NASA, AI, CGI, blah, blah, and its not much of a leap to write it down to "the conspiracy".
My interest was piqued further by the light-saber sub-thread, and your apparent dismissal of the explanations as a too-convenient retcon. Well excuse me, but of course its convenient; its true. I remembered reading about the pre-positioning of the sample tubes before Christmas, but it took me till last night for me to be bothered to track down the BBC's report.
So, whad'ya think? Pre-emptive press-release from NASA in case anyone accidentally leaves any light-sabers around the film set?
-
My first comment, Pete, but I've been following with mild interest since the start. I gotta say SA10's original question has merit but, from a FE perspective, I don't think it needs much answering; obviously the billions going into NASA, AI, CGI, blah, blah, and its not much of a leap to write it down to "the conspiracy".
My interest was piqued further by the light-saber sub-thread, and your apparent dismissal of the explanations as a too-convenient retcon. Well excuse me, but of course its convenient; its true. I remembered reading about the pre-positioning of the sample tubes before Christmas, but it took me till last night for me to be bothered to track down the BBC's report.
So, whad'ya think? Pre-emptive press-release from NASA in case anyone accidentally leaves any light-sabers around the film set?
Lemme guess...
You are under the impression the MORE ANGLES from which photos are taken miraculously adds MORE legitimacy to the sample tube claim, rather than presenting perhaps a photo that is dated differently than that already presented?
You love to sacrifice everything you have to the liars controlling the world governments.
At least you share that with pete. Try to keep remaining on common ground with him, instead of perpetuating the ruse.
Neither will remain in place for long, anyway.
-
I remembered reading about the pre-positioning of the sample tubes before Christmas, but it took me till last night for me to be bothered to track down the BBC's report.
I see the Socratic method has failed me. Let's try a more direct approach: Please read the thread up until its current state before posting in it. Do not respond to month-old messages unless you're certain the points you want to make haven't already been raised.
Right before you jumped in, we were discussing the fact that information of this "lightsaber", photos and all, was available years before the photos were published. You would have known this if you had simply bothered to follow the discussion.
in case anyone accidentally leaves any light-sabers around the film set?
"Film set"? Okay, you have no idea what's being discussed here at all, do you?