1

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat Earth alternative to a globe

« on: Today at 01:15:16 PM »

I'm more partial to this version as it distorts the southern hemiplane continents less:

I don't know how you found this, but I actually love it. It's a lot closer to reality than the AE map, that's for sure.

2

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: Today at 09:33:23 AM »

Son, if all you have is the credibility argument, all that does is support my point. Credibility is just another word for believing. It literally comes from the latin CREDO (creed). Believing belongs to religion, not science. Thank you for supporting my point.

You are so close to an epiphany.
All you need to do now is understand that pretty much everything you are stating is also merely a belief based on what you find credible.
There is no difference between “believing” something and “knowing” it, other than your own perceived certainty. Truth exists independently of your beliefs.

Believing doesn’t “belong” to science or religion. Cogito ergo sum, basically. You know you exist, everything else you think you know is simply based on evidence and what you find credible. There is, of course, a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief. I have outlined the evidence for believing NASA’s claims, you have ignored it all and presented nothing but an argument from incredulity.

LOL. If truth exists independently of beliefs, how is there not a difference between believing and knowing other than subjective certainty? See? You're not making any sense.

There is a difference between blind belief and evidence based belief, but evidence based belief is the reason that innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit, all the time. That's what you're supporting.

Of course I'm incredulous of anything NASA produces. That's actually a compliment. Thank you.

3

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: Today at 09:25:36 AM »

No, I don't need to dance when you tell me to dance. If anything you should be the one dancing for me because you are the reality denier. Nothing personal, though.

If you do not care to support your claims with evidence, nobody cares to pay attention to your claims. If this is how it will be, our conversation will end here because I am not going to drag this on to end up nowhere new.

But are they MY claims, though? No, they're not. They are objective claims which have been discussed hundreds of times before. That's what you're not understanding.

Since I no longer have the video, it can only be an anecdotal point, and that is what it was - I never claimed it was anything beyond an anecdote. You asked "What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?" and that was part of the answer.

You made an assertion that there was a CGI glitch in the video. Even though you cannot find the video now, you still never shared the evidence that the video had a CGI glitch that you had at that time. Or... maybe you had no evidence? Maybe you were only seeing the video from a viewpoint that fits your narrative? Coming up with baseless conclusions about things?

That doesn't compute because back then I didn't have a narrative other than my faith in heliocentrism and the globe. But nowadays I don't have a narrative either, I just go by facts.

The point is that's not a good example to debunk the claim that NASA fakes stuff. Like at all. It's not good to use it as evidence that NASA fakes stuff, either. It's just something curious that happened and could be interpreted a certain way, but it's not evidence of anything.

I'm sorry it doesn't fit your standards. I will do better next time, your highness.

I don't think it fits anyone's standards. It's just a video of a little girl talking to Buzz. Where's the evidence about NASA faking stuff? Maybe if Buzz had said "we faked it" or "we can't go there" it would be different.

You don't need to tell me "good job", I'm not a dog. But if you think it's an unsupported claim, that's your opinion. I'm not obliged to support my claims every time I make a claim (it's not like Earth not being a spinning globe is my personal subjective claim anyway), and I'm certainly not obliged to provide anything to you specifically just because you have this notion that me not doing that proves your beliefs right somehow.

No, it's not my opinion that your claim was unsupported. You quite literally made the assertion and followed with no evidence. What type of support is that? While you're not obliged to support your claims, you should have 0 expectations for anybody to take your claims seriously without evidence. I do not have the notion that your lack of evidence proves my beliefs. I do, however, strongly believe that your lack of evidence for your claims invalidates them as of this moment.

Again, not my claim.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: Today at 08:50:57 AM »

And nor was Jurassic Park writer Michael Crichton taught the ins and outs of LGBT sex acts as part of his curriculum.

Speaking of which - they also teach about dinosaurs and all kinds of absurdities in middle school. I'm pretty sure that's why he wrote that book. To me that's more important than 1 hour of sex ed that incorporates anal talk, but ok, this thread is about the gender bender agenda. I'm just saying that to me the absurdities that get taught to middle schoolers in the reality of a forced classroom environment are more important than half an hour of high school anal talk.

5

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 10:30:21 PM »

No, I'm back to explaining how science is not about credibility.

What do you mean "explaining"? You asked above if I thought science was about credibility and I said no.

Can you prove that unicorns or leprechauns exist? No? Maybe they're not real, then. Isn't that my whole point?

If that is your whole point then it's a pretty silly one. You can't prove anything to the standard you demand - we've established that it's not possible for NASA or anyone else to prove that the picture was taken from a million miles away. So, like a lot of things, we can only base our opinion on how credible the claim is.
Unicorns and leprechauns are, famously, mythical. Pretty much no-one claims they exist. If anyone did then they'd better have some very compelling evidence.

Not to mention that in order to talk about the possibility of signals sent from 1 million miles away, you need to prove that it's even possible for a signal-emitting device (or anything at all) to get there in the first place.

Again, like many things, that can't be proven to the standard you demand. But the fact that rockets exist is relevant to how credible this is. If the technology which is said to get things in to orbit didn't even exist then a claim about satellites existing would be akin to a claim about unicorns.
But rockets do exist. GPS Satellites exist, the ISS exists and can be observed. Those things are in low earth orbit, but TV satellites aren't, they're 23,000 miles above the equator. So why is it such a leap to think that things can't orbit further out?

Well, that proves the current accepted model of the universe, then.

Why are you straw-manning me? I didn't say it proved anything.
But you keep obsessing over NASA as if they have some monopoly on space. They do not.
The first module of the ISS was launched from Kazakhstan.

Your issue with NASA is that they "fake almost everything" and your basis for that is apparently in part some video which you claim had some CGI glitch (I have suggested an alternative explanation) and which you now can't find. Compelling stuff.

You paint yourself as this "independent thinker" but all you present is arguments from incredulity.

Son, if all you have is the credibility argument, all that does is support my point. Credibility is just another word for believing. It literally comes from the latin CREDO (creed). Believing belongs to religion, not science. Thank you for supporting my point.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: There is no LGBT agenda within the government.

« on: June 02, 2023, 09:55:23 PM »

I only looked at the last link.
Boy is that misleading.

1. A sex-ed class talking about anal sex and why its pleasurable along side vaginal sex and why its pleasurable go hand in hand.  Plus, it works for pegging.  Ya know, woman fucking a man analy with a strapon?

2. Sex toys.  Yes, they exist.  Highschoolers already know about them.  Why are you shocked its part of the curriculum on sex ed in high school?  What, you think they should teach "when you marry a woman, have yourself hlget a hard penis then out it into her vagina until you feel stuff come out.  Ok, class done."?

I'll have to read the others later.

Yeah, that one's pretty stupid. Only conservatives are outraged at that. But there definitely is a gender bender agenda, though. The very fact that they're forcing boys to sit in a classroom all day listening to some BS is already evidence of that if you ask me. If I was their age (and they're definitely not children) and I wanted to learn about anal sex, I would just go to some porn site. I definitely wouldn't need some witch talking about "booty holes" lmao.

7

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 09:14:37 PM »

Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive.  In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.

This argument always comes across as so desperate. "If they were dishonest, they'd be more perfect about it; therefore, they must be honest." There isn't even an attempt at a logical sequence here.

Markjo, you forget that most people in this world are shockingly incompetent. If mediocrity works for their goals, why do you assume they'd strive for perfection?

Because even "shockingly incompetent" people often go to great lengths try to avoid getting caught, especially when getting caught can have some pretty significant ramifications.  Are you suggesting that doesn't care about getting caught?   It seems that NASA must not only be "shockingly incompetent" about letting obvious mistakes get into their archives, but also shockingly apathetic about getting caught.

You're assuming that it was an obvious mistake, but it wasn't an obvious mistake at all. That glitch only happened for approximately a second at some random point in the video. Easily could've gone unnoticed. And it did go unnoticed. How someone found that after it was uploaded to the archive, I don't even know. It's not like it was a relevant video, either. Just some inconsequential "camera footage" about nothing.

Other than that, they can get away with pretty much anything because it's all about faith anyway. NASA is simply a church at the end of the day.

8

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 07:31:01 PM »

Yeah, but I don't need to support it, do I? Not considering all the info that, again, is out there already. All you have to do is remove your cognitive bias brain implant and take a peek at all the available info, not believe me because contrary to what you're saying I don't expect anyone to believe anything I say - that's not why I'm here. If anything, I'm here to tell you to not believe anything anyone says (particularly government agencies like NASA), but only if you want to because I can't force you.

Uh, yes, you absolutely need to support your claims. Just telling me that the info is out there isn't enough. It's a cop-out for providing evidence. You couldn't even care to elaborate on the info. You're extremely broad with your answers and it's telling me everything I need to know about how this discussion will continue.

No, I don't need to dance when you tell me to dance. If anything you should be the one dancing for me because you are the reality denier. Nothing personal, though.

No, I don't have the CGI glitch video, it's long gone from my computer and more likely than not that YouTube video is gone too due to censorship.

Okay, so then there's no point in bringing your little video up if you can't even provide an ounce of evidence that this video even existed.

Since I no longer have the video, it can only be an anecdotal point, and that is what it was - I never claimed it was anything beyond an anecdote. You asked "What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?" and that was part of the answer.

Really, that clip of the little girl with Buzz? That's your example? I think you can do better than that if you really believe every ounce of skepticism regarding NASA is unjustified and every piece of evidence that NASA lies is "easily debunked".

It's common and everyone here knows about the video. I was giving an example that everybody here can easily understand and relate to.

The point is that's not a good example to debunk the claim that NASA fakes stuff. Like at all. It's not good to use it as evidence that NASA fakes stuff, either. It's just something curious that happened and could be interpreted a certain way, but it's not evidence of anything.

Ultimately, the #1 PROOF (not evidence) that NASA is faking stuff is that Earth is not a spinning globe. Since you claim to be open-minded - are you open-minded to that one too? I doubt it!

Another unsupported claim. Good job. It's even more dishonest that you say proof rather than evidence.

You don't need to tell me "good job", I'm not a dog. But if you think it's an unsupported claim, that's your opinion. I'm not obliged to support my claims every time I make a claim (it's not like Earth not being a spinning globe is my personal subjective claim anyway), and I'm certainly not obliged to provide anything to you specifically just because you have this notion that me not doing that proves your beliefs right somehow.

9

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 02:37:03 PM »

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they fake almost everything?

Wow, an original claim that you would still refuse to support if your life depended on it. I ask you what has led you to believe that NASA is incredible, and you respond with "They fake almost everything." This is a really broad response with no elaboration. It's a claim you freely throw out without caring to support it.

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

Would you care to provide the source of this video so we can all access it? Surely you don't expect me to just blindly believe you, right? On top of that, what evidence do you have that it was in fact CGI, rather than just an average glitch? I know a lot of conspiracy theorists like to throw out "CGI" at most of what NASA shows the world, but they never care to show us the evidence that what NASA is showing us contains CGI. So unless you can genuinely provide airtight evidence that the specific video you are referring to contains malicious CGI, I, along with everyone else, can and should dismiss your claim.

But obviously if you're a staunch globe believer / NASA lover you will see that and shrug it off, or try to come up with an alternate "logical" explanation which supports a "not CGI" narrative, even though NASA itself provided no statement about it.

Incorrect. I am not close-minded and I am very welcome to a change of my views. If you can provide truthful and sufficient evidence that NASA included malicious CGI in one of their videos, I would accept your evidence upon further research to ensure your evidence is truly truthful.

That's just one little thing of many. I really can't be bothered to explain why NASA shouldn't be trusted or all the stuff they've faked, especially considering all the info that's already out there about it. It's one of those things that if you know, you know. A really obvious one is the Moon landing, but you probably believe that one too, huh? Even though most people who don't believe it are actually globe believers. But there's a lack of those type of globe believers here, I noticed. Coincidence? Of course not.

All of the videos and conspiracy theories I've seen about NASA faking things are easily debunked. Whether it be glitches in ISS videos or live streams, space telescope imagery, satellite data & imagery, moon landings, you name it. I'm almost certain I've heard it all at this point. The biggest flaw I notice in all of these conspiracy theories is that none of them genuinely provide actual evidence. If evidence is provided, it's usually taken out of context. For example, a lot of moon landing deniers like to show off a small section of an interview that Buzz Aldrin had with a little girl. The issue is that they never let Buzz Aldrin finish his sentence in any of the clips shown. Or better yet, they never show how the interview even starts out. If these conspiracy theorists were honest about their evidence, they would be happy to show everybody the full interview, rather than a cherry-picked clip that was thrown way out of context. The few times that I have brought that up to some of these people, I tend to have my comments deleted, I get blocked, or my comment just never surfaces and remains hidden under all of the gullible people that fell for the clip, angrily shaming Buzz Aldrin and NASA like robots. So to answer your question, yes, I believe in the moon landings. Being an astrophotographer myself has only strengthened the evidence that the moon landings were real. Of course, as I stated earlier, if you would care to provide sufficient evidence that the moon landings were faked, I'd absolutely look into it without a doubt. With all of this being said, I hope I can receive a response from you including the video you referred to & sufficient evidence for all of the assertions you have made here. If not, do not expect anybody to believe what you say. Everybody can, and most likely will simply dismiss your assertions.

Yeah, but I don't need to support it, do I? Not considering all the info that, again, is out there already. All you have to do is remove your cognitive bias brain implant and take a peek at all the available info, not believe me because contrary to what you're saying I don't expect anyone to believe anything I say - that's not why I'm here. If anything, I'm here to tell you to not believe anything anyone says (particularly government agencies like NASA), but only if you want to because I can't force you.

No, I don't have the CGI glitch video, it's long gone from my computer and more likely than not that YouTube video is gone too due to censorship.

Really, that clip of the little girl with Buzz? That's your example? I think you can do better than that if you really believe every ounce of skepticism regarding NASA is unjustified and every piece of evidence that NASA lies is "easily debunked".

Ultimately, the #1 PROOF (not evidence) that NASA is faking stuff is that Earth is not a spinning globe. Since you claim to be open-minded - are you open-minded to that one too? I doubt it!

10

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 02:15:58 PM »

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is?

No. Science is about making and testing hypotheses which explain how the world and universe work.
The hypotheses are never said to be 100% proven, but with testing you can build confidence in them being correct.
And they should always be open to improvement or replaced entirely if a better model comes along.

Not really. A hypothesis is meant to be used as a tool like math; both of those were never meant to be what science revolves around, contrary to what they tell you these days. A big part of the problem is that science got corrupted by power and the scientific method got polluted from the 17th century by inductivism. Which again, could be a useful tool, but it was given much more importance than it deserves because they were already all in with Copernicanism at that point and they needed a justification to call it science when it was obviously not. Well, you would call it science, but that's what all pseudoscientists or pseudoscience believers claim their pseudoscience is too.

But this claim, like many claims, can't be directly tested. You've already agreed there is no way to prove that the image in the OP came from a satellite a million miles away.
So we're back to how credible you find the claim, and that relates to your model of reality. Is there anything that makes you think it's not possible to send signals from a million miles away?

Earlier in this thread you said:
"If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid"
But now you're agreeing that can't be done.

No, I'm back to explaining how science is not about credibility. Can you prove that unicorns or leprechauns exist? No? Maybe they're not real, then. Isn't that my whole point? I think it is, thank you. Even if there were unicorns and leprechauns all over the earth, that still doesn't prove that you can strap them to a rocket and they will reach "L1" because of some imaginary slingshot effect based on the core assumption that the Earth is a spinning ball.

Not to mention that in order to talk about the possibility of signals sent from 1 million miles away, you need to prove that it's even possible for a signal-emitting device (or anything at all) to get there in the first place. The only place that "L1" exists is in people's imagination. In other words, no proof at all that it exists.

Have you witnessed any rocket launches?

Is that supposed to be evidence of anything other than they launch rockets? You NASA lovers crack me up with your "arguments".

And, again, you don't just have to take NASA's word for it. Multiple countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises have launched things too.

Well, that proves the current accepted model of the universe, then.

You do realize that what you're calling "space" is actually LEO, right? Most (well, really all) of the "space" operations are well below the LEO boundary. So basically a few hundred miles max. And that's assuming that an object can go that high, which is already a big assumption. A few hundred miles is what % of 94 billion light years? I'm not even gonna do that math - you do that for me since you're the Star Trek fan.

11

Flat Earth Media / Re: NASA: Going Nowhere Since 1958

« on: June 02, 2023, 09:07:37 AM »

The original video got censored because it is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Here's the video:

https://odysee.com/@jeranism:9/nasa-going-nowhere-since-1958:6

12

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 08:01:47 AM »

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive.  In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.

So it wasn't a CGI glitch because if it was it would've been caught.

Well, they didn't catch it. That was the beauty of it.

Amazing the arguments you NASA lovers come up with.

13

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 10:51:19 PM »

NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they fake almost everything?

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

But obviously if you're a staunch globe believer / NASA lover you will see that and shrug it off, or try to come up with an alternate "logical" explanation which supports a "not CGI" narrative, even though NASA itself provided no statement about it.

That's just one little thing of many. I really can't be bothered to explain why NASA shouldn't be trusted or all the stuff they've faked, especially considering all the info that's already out there about it. It's one of those things that if you know, you know. A really obvious one is the Moon landing, but you probably believe that one too, huh? Even though most people who don't believe it are actually globe believers. But there's a lack of those type of globe believers here, I noticed. Coincidence? Of course not.

14

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 07:21:09 PM »

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?

They are operating nothing except a computer program. And yes, SpaceX / NASA launched it - and?

It was launched by spacex from an air force installation (now space force). Exactly where did NASA come in to it? Do NOAA believe they have a satellite but the data is being faked? Did spacex and the air force think they were launching a satellite but it was secretly swapped out and their own transmissions and signals faked or did they know it failed and they are part of the coverup as well?

Yeah, an air force (government) installation that NASA (government) uses all the time. SpaceX provides the rocket, that's about all. The "mission" itself is managed by NASA and NOAA (government). You can read about it online, it's not a "conspiracy theory".

They don't have to swap anything, all they have to do is fake the telemetry. The satellite itself probably went nowhere except maybe the Bermuda Triangle. It certainly did not leave Earth!

15

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 07:05:36 PM »

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?

Safe to say that they are operating nothing except a computer program. And yes, SpaceX / NASA launched it.

16

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 05:24:23 PM »

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

17

Suggestions & Concerns / My memes were moved and I received a warning

« on: June 01, 2023, 05:06:47 PM »

I see memes all over this forum, so what's the issue? I love memes - especially ones that help illustrate a point (which mine did).

I got a warning for "extraneous posting", which is untrue.

18

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 04:30:35 PM »

When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude.

Of course it does. Again, it's about our model of reality.
If we accept satellites exist and are beaming data from space to our satellite dishes - I've outlined some evidence for that - then why couldn't data be sent from a million miles away? Because it's a big number?
If we accept the ISS exists and is orbiting the earth - I've outlined the evidence for that - then why can't a satellite orbit at a greater distance? Again, is it just because it's a big number?

What is the difference in principle between the ISS, GPS satellites, TV Satellites and the DSCOVR one which the OP references? The principles which get them into orbit are the same.

I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly.

I do. My model of reality tells me that humans can't fly.
It also tells me that humans can send objects into orbits around the earth. Multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on it, the ISS can be directly observed, I have personally seen a Shuttle launch.

if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different.

Well, sure. IF NASA are doing the trickery. I've explained why I don't believe they are. There is good evidence for satellites existing. Evidence you can check yourself.
Have you? Or are you just declaring everything mainstream fake because it's mainstream?

Where have I claimed that satellites are fake, darling? Can you quote me saying that or all you have is your strawman fallacious crap?

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there. Capisce? And no, satellite TV has nothing to do with DSCOVR. Now, pish off with your argumentative crap and have fun with your "model of reality". 

19

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 03:23:22 PM »

My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion.

You could apply that to anything which you can't directly verify, which is quite a lot of things.
BUT, it doesn't have to be a blind faith.

We all have a model of reality in our heads. How credible we find things is dependent on whether they conform to that model.
If, for example, you told me you could fly, then I wouldn't believe you. Because, famously, humans can't fly. You'd have to provide some pretty good evidence before I'd believe you. Even if you showed me video of you doing it I'd suspect some trickery.
If you told me that you could do a backflip then I might raise an eyebrow but if you showed me a video of you doing it (pre-supposing that I know it's you) then I'd believe you. I know it's something humans have the ability to do although most can't.
If you told me you could walk then I wouldn't particularly ask you to evidence that. Most people can.

When it comes to space flight. Well, I know that rockets exist. I've personally seen a Shuttle launch when I happened to be in Florida at the right time. The ISS is said to be orbiting the earth. You can look up where and when you can see it and you can observe it directly. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. By triangulation you can calculate the height and speed of it and cross-check that against NASA's claims. Radio hams have been able to contact the astronauts.

Satellite TV demonstrably works. The claim is that it works by dishes pointing at geostationary satellites above the equator. I've observed dishes in countries a lot closer to the equator angled up at a much steeper angle than ones in the UK, which makes sense in that context. And when my neighbour did some building work which blocked the dish I lost my TV signal. And GPS also demonstrably works, and does so in the middle of the ocean.

And of course it's not just NASA sending up satellites and astronauts. Many countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises are now getting in on the act. So we don't just have to take NASA's word for it. I've mentioned above ways anyone can verify their claims about the ISS. When it comes to the moon missions, you had teams in Australia relaying signals for them, you had Jodrell Bank in the UK tracking the Apollo craft - and an unmanned Russian one which was trying to steal a march on them. You don't just need to take NASA's word for it.

NASA and others have provided plenty of evidence of what they're doing, some of that evidence you can verify yourself. Have you? Independent thought isn't just claiming every mainstream narrative is false because it's mainstream.

You're rambling... I'm talking about none of those things.

When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude. Not even with the ISS. And of course, nothing to do with rockets. But you already know that these things are different, and yet you're deliberately comparing them for the sake of making an argument and trying to legitimize NASA & the globe.

I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly. Even if someone tries to trick you with a video, that can be safely dismissed as something pretty innocent because it's for entertainment purposes (think Criss Angel on Mindfreak) - but if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different. Especially since in the case of NASA, the trickery and the deception that they constantly fabricate and push into the mainstream has cosmological implications.

Apparenty, I needed to explain this to you.

20

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 08:35:45 AM »

"The same perspective effect". It's already been shown in this thread that it's not. They are in fact different perspective geometries.

Why, thank you for the correction! Would you care to explain to everyone in the thread what the difference is?

Listen. You're asking me to explain the difference between the ground and the sky. If it's not obvious to you already that there's a perspective difference between a small Earth and a huge Earth (even if you don't know the geometrical details), it's a waste of time for me to explain the difference.

My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion. Now, if the best you can come up with against this argument is "incredulity", that's like saying that if you don't believe that a literal Jesus literally resurrected from death or literally walked on water you're being incredulous. Needless to say, this is a fallacy.

It's up to you if you want to be another believer of the secular religion. Or, alternatively, you could grow some real balls and develop some independent thought (which we're all capable of, by the way). Which one is it gonna be?