Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Realestfake

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
You do know they WANT you think they worship Satan, right? Some of you have some research to do.

It’s because it’s an emotional argument that must be disguised as a logical one.
There is no reason why kids can see a Disney princess kiss a Disney prince AOK, but a similar scene replaced with a Disney Prince kissing another Disney prince becomes bad.

As a skeptic, can you provide an example of an event - or an official narrative regarding an event - that you are skeptical about?

The media minimizes the popularity of FE beliefs, with the narrative being that they are a loud minority.

I'm not at all convinced that the notion is "incredibly popular", or even popular at all. It sounds to me like you're mistaking seeing lots of posts on social media expressing that viewpoint for the viewpoint being common.

Please remember that SoMe is extremely unrepresentative of the population, with some voices being artificially amplified or suppressed. This isn't even necessarily intentional - it's just that emotive posting attracts responses, and the recommendation algorithms like engagement.

This is a good point.

There is an incredibly popular notion these days that government is (for many “reasons”) “pushing” some sort of LGBT related agenda in everyone’s face.
It’s a VERY old and extremely common series of events:
-Group A is marginalized by Group B
-Subset of Group B seeks to reduce marginalization of Group A
-Years pass
-Group A now apparently runs everything and there is an active agenda to shove Group A propaganda “down your throat”.

Common example: some hate crime occurs against (trans people, Jews, etc) and the majority of comments will be entertaining the idea that the hate crime was actually faked by le gubment to “make people think trans people experience hate crimes”(?)

Here’s what a lot of people don’t want to realize: LGBT acceptance is NOT the status quo. Conservative outlets will vigorously work to make it seem like LGBT acceptance is this huge powerful evil force reaching into every aspect of society when it’s simply not.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: May 12, 2023, 03:07:26 PM »
Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? ;D Here's a quote that I found on the internet:

Sadly, or sillily, internet skeptics are really just bulwarks for established orthodoxies. They learn Logical Fallacy 101 but never really doubt their own doubts - which is the essence of skeptictism. They have an arrogance and smugness that an actual skeptic couldn't possibly have because it is inconsistent with the very notion of doubt.

What? Thanks for the quote(?), but I’m talking about the real world.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: May 11, 2023, 08:53:54 PM »
You would love to think I just eat up whatever narrative. I’m here because I’m a skeptic in the first place. I found out the earth is a globe myself without believing what any external source said. I carefully and honestly considered all possibilities and eventually realized the earth is a globe.

There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?
« on: May 09, 2023, 03:07:52 AM »
You are asked to get proof you went to the moon.
You go to the moon, take pictures, take rocks back home, get video, measurements, perform experiments. You thoroughly explain how it‘s done and televise it globally.

You are again asked for proof, despite having exhausted all means of providing proof. The onus is no longer on the party that claims to have gone to the moon.

If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid.

What, exactly, is the problem with data coming from a million miles away? I find it perfectly understandable. Maybe instead of looking for an easily digestible single fact, consider the gestalt of spaceflight and its history. For most people, the sheer breadth and depth of the industry and its achievements is more than enough proof. For some people it’s not enough, sure. I’m sure the people actually doing shady business are happy that people are wasting their time looking into space being fake.

In this thread:

People misconstruing booking trips to the North Pole (a semi-dangerous trip made significantly easier by booking with a guide) with “being restricted like North Korea”. There is just no argument there.


Do any of you notice anything strange?

The whole thing is just a white smudge that a 5 year old could make in Photoshop. In other words, nothing to see there.

Is there supposed to be something strange here? I’m not sure how a specific random image is relevant. You picked an image (out of thousands of similar images) where the ice (a fluid and changing element) is on a lower resolution layer than the ground layer (which is static). This image does not claim to be a photograph, it is in a map/diagram rendering style.

Nothing surprising about a model showing computer-generated sea ice. You know this sea ice exists on a flat earth too, right? Just as much as it would on a globe.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Visibility of the ISS
« on: April 13, 2023, 05:32:41 AM »
I don’t see why it isn’t as simple as:

“Oh look, a clear photo of the ISS with a walmart telescope. This must mean orbits are real and therefore the earth is a globe.” (Yes, I know the talking points for this inside and out. I have been with secular FE groups for years. That doesn’t mean I think they hold any water.)

Luckily, for most people this is enough. Much easier to conclude that it is simply an object in a boring, explainable and predictable orbit instead of the multiple “alternate explanations”.

I can’t imagine living a life where I am convinced that everyone is lying about space being fake, and simultaneously having to admit that they’ve thought of everything from accurately faking the ISS floating overhead, onboard videos, constant launches, etc. Sounds like a maddening way to live.

There’s countless photographs from space demonstrating a globe, from partial curves to full disks in high orbit. But I know these can just be disregarded, so what would be an acceptable source? Someone sufficiently independent?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Visibility of the ISS
« on: April 11, 2023, 01:05:53 AM »
Except it doesn't disappear from view in only a select few regions, the ISS disappears from view while above the horizon (when obstructed) everywhere that it appears above the horizon.
You are saying once it disappears from your view, it is also invisible to everyone else?

Come now...

Your horizon isn't everyones' horizon.

You’re so close to getting it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: April 06, 2023, 12:05:55 AM »
There are two arguments here:

The clouds are darkening the moon like a room filled with smoke and the camera adjusts to compensate

This would necessitate that the clouds equally darken the Moon. In the above videos we can see that is not the case. There are different cloud layers and gaps of sky in the clouds. If the clouds were darkening the Moon we would see the clouds.

That the clouds are there but it's being erased by over-exposure

Over-exposure in those videos occur when the camera is zoomed out. When the camera zooms in the camera adjusts and exposure is corrected. The grey clouds do not appear in front of the Moon when two different cameras correct for exposure.

So you have it backwards. The over-exposure is the bright version.


Clouds = brighter than space (as they are moonlit). They will appear as gray over the black sky.
Clouds = darker than moon. They will appear as black over the white moon.

Exposure up = bright things lose contrast, dark things gain contrast. Thus you lose the clouds in front of the moon and gain the clouds around it.

Exposure down = dark things lose contrast, bright things gain contrast. The clouds in front of the moon are resolved and the clouds around the moon are lost with the black sky.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: April 04, 2023, 09:46:44 PM »
The plain simple answer: high exposure with thin clouds over moon = not enough contrast to make out a difference, even with your naked eyes. Use a camera and lower the exposure, and clouds will be resolved in front of the moon.
You can test this with a light source, some smoke, and a camera. You will get the same effect.

So many people in those comments kicking and screaming about how the sheeple blindly believe authority, when you can just think for yourself and come to this conclusion.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: April 04, 2023, 02:02:26 AM »
Another interesting phenomenon for this is that the Moon will sometimes appear to be in front of clouds. Clouds that will normally easily obscure a bird can't obscure the Moon. I saw this for myself just yesterday from the Bay Area California. The Moon and all of its details seemed to be floating in front of the clouds behind it. Only the darkest of clouds could obscure the Moon. This is similar to what I saw:

Are you suggesting that the moon is at a lower altitude than some clouds?

I am open to disagreement and discussion.
Please note this is largely based on my own observation on how many many people act.

Some groups (creationists, for example) frame “scientists” as this lying monolith that have some reason to lie about the fossil record or carbon dating. Or “scientists say the earth is a globe and you’re supposed to believe it because science said so”. Framing an enormous group of varying fields and millions of people as this evil machine results in actual major phenomena like vaccine hesitancy or distrust of institutions.

It’s not uncommon for me to come across a debate where one party will cite a study, and the second party will completely disregard said study because “it’s from academia and can’t be trusted”.

It is a fairly common misconception to be skeptic of the idea of evolution as a whole because of skepticism of abiogenesis. While those two ideas are different, creationist groups will conflate and mix them while all the while saying “this is the Satanic science religion that says God isn’t real and evolution is God”.

Or people becoming allured to the idea of flat earth because they utterly misunderstood something like “how can water stick to a ball” or “the moon lander sure looks made of tinfoil” or simple distrust.
And that’s the core principle: “experts cannot be trusted”. People will trust a random stranger on the internet over someone dedicating decades of their life for vaccine research, or a flat earth meme over an entire organization of people whose sole job is getting things in space. Arguing with them simply doesn’t work because many ask things that you can’t provide.

Such trap questions include:
“Show me an experiment where a monkey evolves into a human. If you can’t, evolution is fake”.
“Show me water sticking to a ball. If you can’t build a planet-sized gravitational experiment, the earth must be flat”.
Of course, to us that is fallacious reasoning but so many people genuinely believe this is a valid way to argue.

The desired evidence for both sides is not balanced. There is no peer-reviewed study, independent or not, that proves demons are real - however, lots of people genuinely believe demons are real and demons do bad things. On the other hand, there is a mountain of studies on how vaccines save lives, but they can be disregarded.

Contrary to what lots would claim, people don’t believe things because “science said so!”, though that is a common framing. The premise is desiring proof, and evaluating proof requires more thinking than just “science said so, God fake evolution good”. I can weigh all the proof and evidence, and determine on my own - without anyone telling me what to think - that, for example, the earth is a globe. There’s lots just like me who seriously considered all possibilities for these things and found personal confirmation that the experts are, in fact, correct.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: March 30, 2023, 06:41:22 PM »
I don’t see how explaining how reflections work relates to celestial bodies. To make such claims as the sun/moon is something something projection instead of objects in space, there should be proof. Speculating something about how “reflections are personal” is too weak to really take seriously. Through personal observation, without trusting external sources, we can agree where the sun and moon are and predict where they will be. To take seriously the suggestion that what looks like a rock with 3D craters is actually a personal projection, there should be some level of proof or reason to believe this.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: March 29, 2023, 03:31:52 AM »
In several of those images the lights are not shrinking in a linear manner. The first few lights in the set appear to shrink faster than the last few lights at the end of the row. The cause for this is described at

We all know how perspective works, and that particular page isn’t helpful to your argument. Angular size will continue to shrink even with diminishing deltas. Pluto cannot be seen nearly as easily as Io, despite being similar sizes.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun
« on: March 27, 2023, 05:54:02 PM »
You're right. This may be funding related. NASA needs problems to exist to convince Congress to give them money.

But this is assuming the explanation for something we don’t really have a basis for in the first place. Because it’s one thing to be aware that scientists can and do make mistakes, but another to make the base assumption that rather than being mistaken, the “photographs” of Enceladus and Saturn’s moons are not mistakes but intentional (seemingly pointless) artistic fantasy creations.

If they are an attempt to “create problems to get government money” they have utterly failed - Congress doesn’t really care about barren moons of Saturn. I simply have no reason to not accept that they sent Cassini there, got pictures, and don’t have full explanations for why Saturn’s moons are the way they are. This extends to the sun, as the topic opened. They have an explanation, but not a complete one. And this incompleteness (though actually pretty debatable, they don’t claim that it’s a “flaw in RE”) is at least transparent. The sheer magnitude of moving parts in such a conspiracy may be acceptable to some, but not to most.

Sort of reeling back in the original topic, I believe the problem of the sun is somewhat of an impasse. FE claims the sun is not as far as believed in RE. Perhaps, to help this claim, someone could go there. The only ones going there (solar probes) can be disregarded as the conspiracy. This is not an acceptable logical conclusion for most. Anything FE claims to be an explanation for why the sun looks the way it does is speculation, while anything constituting a scientific endeavor (a solar probe) is required to be part of the conspiracy.

If FE has an explanation for the appearance of the sun (which can be confirmed by personal observation), what scientific endeavors could be undergone to try and prove it?

Pages: [1] 2  Next >