The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: axj592 on November 06, 2017, 03:32:55 AM
-
Hey, I'm new here to all of this info about FE and was wondering, do all FE believers truly believe all the footage/videos of the space travels and exploration to be false and a conspiracy?
-
Hey, I'm new here to all of this info about FE and was wondering, do all FE believers truly believe all the footage/videos of the space travels and exploration to be false and a conspiracy?
Yes - that seems to be one of the few things about which all of them agree.
There are two subtle variations on the claim - one being that NASA *KNOWS* that the Earth is Flat and is deliberately hiding the fact using faked pictures - the other being that they are confused by the flat earth images that they get back from satellites and then (quite innocently) "correct" for the error using computer image distortion to make them look round like they think they ought to be.
Either thought seems utterly batshit insane to anyone who's worked with NASA (as I have on a few occasions).
-
Hey, I'm new here to all of this info about FE and was wondering, do all FE believers truly believe all the footage/videos of the space travels and exploration to be false and a conspiracy?
Yes - that seems to be one of the few things about which all of them agree.
There are two subtle variations on the claim - one being that NASA *KNOWS* that the Earth is Flat and is deliberately hiding the fact using faked pictures - the other being that they are confused by the flat earth images that they get back from satellites and then (quite innocently) "correct" for the error using computer image distortion to make them look round like they think they ought to be.
Either thought seems utterly batshit insane to anyone who's worked with NASA (as I have on a few occasions).
I just find it interesting how one could believe so strongly in video footage "proving" a conspiracy, yet any evidence against the FE theory is automatically claimed false.
-
Hey, I'm new here to all of this info about FE and was wondering, do all FE believers truly believe all the footage/videos of the space travels and exploration to be false and a conspiracy?
Yes - that seems to be one of the few things about which all of them agree.
There are two subtle variations on the claim - one being that NASA *KNOWS* that the Earth is Flat and is deliberately hiding the fact using faked pictures - the other being that they are confused by the flat earth images that they get back from satellites and then (quite innocently) "correct" for the error using computer image distortion to make them look round like they think they ought to be.
Either thought seems utterly batshit insane to anyone who's worked with NASA (as I have on a few occasions).
I just find it interesting how one could believe so strongly in video footage "proving" a conspiracy, yet any evidence against the FE theory is automatically claimed false.
Yes. It's typical of the arguments presented here that they have a layer of plausibility that falls away when you look one step deeper.
In this case, it's (perhaps) just barely possible that there is a massive conspiracy within NASA - but how that could extend to all of their contractors, all of the OTHER spacefaring nations of the world (Russia, China, India, France, etc) is hardly plausible - especially at times like in the cold war when it would have been in the interests of some countries to discredit the others by revealing what they truly know. But then you look back into history and even back in the 16th and 17th century, the fact that FET doesn't allow you to navigate by the stars and compass in the southern hemisphere without having a VERY different map of the world would mean that countries like the UK, France, Holland and Spain would have to have both their Navies AND their Merchant ships being "in on the conspiracy" and using the "real" maps of the world, not the RE maps. Then consider that even if something that outlandish were possible, that people like pirates who sailed around the world would also have to have somehow been sworn to secrecy.
The deeper you look, the worse it gets. Airlines, airplane manufacturers, astronomers, siesmologists, shipping companies, ship's captains...and all of the people who make the equipment that they use - they'd ALL have had to be in on it.
Heck, I work in designing flight simulators used by airlines, airplane manufacturers, the air forces of the world and NASA...if FET were true, then even *I* would be in on the conspiracy...and if I was, I'd be in a lot of trouble for consorting with FE'ers!
-
Hey, I'm new here to all of this info about FE and was wondering, do all FE believers truly believe all the footage/videos of the space travels and exploration to be false and a conspiracy?
It's really quite simple. If they accept that pictures of the Earth from space are real, it instantly disproves everything in their belief system. So they have to believe that all evidence disputing their beliefs is wrong or fake.
-
Hey, I'm new here to all of this info about FE and was wondering, do all FE believers truly believe all the footage/videos of the space travels and exploration to be false and a conspiracy?
Heck, I work in designing flight simulators used by airlines, airplane manufacturers, the air forces of the world and NASA...if FET were true, then even *I* would be in on the conspiracy...and if I was, I'd be in a lot of trouble for consorting with FE'ers!
I knew you were a paid shill
-
(one possibility) being that they are confused by the flat earth images that they get back from satellites and then (quite innocently) "correct" for the error using computer image distortion to make them look round like they think they ought to be.
I don't recall that I've ever seen a flat earther believe that satellites are possible above a flat earth. Can you remember an example?
-
Hey, I'm new here to all of this info about FE and was wondering, do all FE believers truly believe all the footage/videos of the space travels and exploration to be false and a conspiracy?
No, that's absolutely not the case.the issue with most photos is that they can be falsified, not that they certainly are. Combined with other factors, it makes them inconclusive.
Cue usual blurb about 3DG lying and everyone just eating it up.
-
Hey, I'm new here to all of this info about FE and was wondering, do all FE believers truly believe all the footage/videos of the space travels and exploration to be false and a conspiracy?
No, that's absolutely not the case.the issue with most photos is that they can be falsified, not that they certainly are. Combined with other factors, it makes them inconclusive.
Cue usual blurb about 3DG lying and everyone just eating it up.
Are you saying that you believe some of the pictures of Earth from space are accurate and true? Can you share an example of one?
I think you are trying to make the FE position sound reasonable or perhaps at least defensible. Introducing reasonable doubt or something like that.
Aside from downward or zoomed shots with limited perspective, how does any view from space not conflict with flat Earth belief?
-
Hey, I'm new here to all of this info about FE and was wondering, do all FE believers truly believe all the footage/videos of the space travels and exploration to be false and a conspiracy?
No, that's absolutely not the case.the issue with most photos is that they can be falsified, not that they certainly are. Combined with other factors, it makes them inconclusive.
Cue usual blurb about 3DG lying and everyone just eating it up.
The hundreds (thousands?) if images from space, could perhaps, possibly be fake. So they're inconclusive.... Doesn't this mean you need to prove every single image is fake? If even one image from space that shows a globe Earth is real, bam. No more FE. Or am I missing something here?
Every image from space has to be fake for FE to have a snowballs chance in hell, do they not? I would love to hear how you can rationally disagree with that.
-
The hundreds (thousands?) if images from space, could perhaps, possibly be fake. So they're inconclusive.... Doesn't this mean you need to prove every single image is fake?
No one needs to "prove you wrong". You need to prove your own positive claims right.
Every image from space has to be fake for FE to have a snowballs chance in hell, do they not? I would love to hear how you can rationally disagree with that.
Not every image is fake. Some amatur balloonists who send dirigibles near the edge of space see a very flat earth, which we have pointed out rather extensively. Any curvature otherwise seen by amateurs at further extreme altitudes has also been pointed out to be elliptical in nature, rather than an arc of a circle, suggesting that we are looking down at a circle of the sun's light.
-
You need to prove your own positive claims right.
Exactly - you have to prove that there is a space travel conspiracy. You're asking us to prove that there is no conspiracy, instead of trying to prove your own positive claim that there is one.
Not every image is fake. Some amatur balloonists who send dirigibles near the edge of space see a very flat earth, which we have pointed out rather extensively. Any curvature otherwise seen by amateurs at further extreme altitudes has also been pointed out to be elliptical in nature, rather than an arc of a circle, suggesting that we are looking down at a circle of the sun's light.
False. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7422.msg130577#msg130577)
-
You need to prove your own positive claims right.
Exactly - you have to prove that there is a space travel conspiracy. You're asking us to prove that there is no conspiracy, instead of trying to prove your own positive claim that there is one.
Not every image is fake. Some amatur balloonists who send dirigibles near the edge of space see a very flat earth, which we have pointed out rather extensively. Any curvature otherwise seen by amateurs at further extreme altitudes has also been pointed out to be elliptical in nature, rather than an arc of a circle, suggesting that we are looking down at a circle of the sun's light.
False. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7422.msg130577#msg130577)
I strongly suspect that their logic is something like this:
Is this picture from space a fake? Does the Earth look round, if yes, then it's a fake.
-
You need to prove your own positive claims right.
Exactly - you have to prove that there is a space travel conspiracy. You're asking us to prove that there is no conspiracy, instead of trying to prove your own positive claim that there is one.
Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim. It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.
WE are the skeptics. YOU are the claimant.
In a discussion on the existence of ghosts, is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of ghosts, or is the burden of proof on the claimant who is mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist"?
False. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7422.msg130577#msg130577)
I have already addressed that video, please refer to the original discussion.
-
Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim. It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.
If NASA claimed to have landed on the moon and had provided no evidence to that effect. Then yes, I would agree, the burden of proof would be on them. But once they provide large quantities of evidence and you claim that evidence to all be fake, then the burden of proving the fraud is on you.
False. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7422.msg130577#msg130577)
I have already addressed that video, please refer to the original discussion.
The comments you posted on that video were about the horizon being blurry, which is a subjective opinion, but I don't object to that.
I posted another thread referencing the same video pointing out the sunrise preceded the expected sunrise time and that you could see the sunlight reflected off the moon while the sun was not visible. Both things consistent with a round Earth. Care to comment on those items? https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7422.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7422.0)
-
You are the claimants. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7009.msg126863#msg126863)
(incidentally, in that thread I wrote the following:
If you wish to continue in good faith, I encourage you to develop a response to the substance of my previous comment.
is it finally happening now?)
That space travel is real is not a fantastical claim. (https://www.google.com/search?q=space+shuttle+launch&pws=0) The science involved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_engineering) is public knowledge, the people involved (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOIj7AgonHM) are publicly available for interaction (http://www.visitnasa.com/), you can see the stuff we put into space (https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+ISS+from+ground&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig_NS6mq3XAhVLyoMKHfv7BqYQsAQIJQ&biw=1610&bih=901).
In response to the publicly accessible evidence that space is travel is real, you make a counter-claim that there is a conspiracy to fake space travel (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy). This extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Something like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE1OmvERQek) might be a start, where someone looks for evidence of fakery. As I suggested here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7009.msg127450#msg127450).
As for the video I linked, here is the original discussion (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7215.msg129336#msg129336). [actually, the original original discussion is here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6926.msg127007#msg127007)] The last statement in it was:
Also : the foreground picture clearly shows sunrise on a round planet. There isn't an inconsistent horizon at all. Some of it is bright, that's not 'inconsistent.' You're oblivious, openly lying, engaged in wishful thinking, and mayhaps too proud.
still true, too true
-
Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim. It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.
If NASA claimed to have landed on the moon and had provided no evidence to that effect. Then yes, I would agree, the burden of proof would be on them. But once they provide large quantities of evidence and you claim that evidence to all be fake, then the burden of proving the fraud is on you.
You nailed the problem on the head - no evidence is valid unless it supports FET. Decades of peer-reviewed science isn't proof of a round Earth, but some random video on youtube confirms, without a doubt, FET. Convincing people like Tom is out of the question. You could put him on the ISS and he would still find a way to claim the Earth was flat.
-
Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim. It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.
If NASA claimed to have landed on the moon and had provided no evidence to that effect. Then yes, I would agree, the burden of proof would be on them. But once they provide large quantities of evidence and you claim that evidence to all be fake, then the burden of proving the fraud is on you.
You nailed the problem on the head - no evidence is valid unless it supports FET. Decades of peer-reviewed science isn't proof of a round Earth, but some random video on youtube confirms, without a doubt, FET. Convincing people like Tom is out of the question. You could put him on the ISS and he would still find a way to claim the Earth was flat.
Actually, that is incorrect, what NASA does is not "peer reviewed". That is one of the many criticisms against them. There is also much criticism of the evidence on the internet elsewhere.
The sticking point for me is that the legislators who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration. Why should we trust a word from them?
And, yet, here you are you are telling me that I need to prove that those seditious politicians and Nazi monsters are dishonest... Very funny.
-
We're not asking that you prove that they are 'dishonest.' We're asking you to prove that NASA
executed has maintained for 50+ years a conspiracy to fake space travel. Notable as Operation Paperclip may be, and dishonest as legislators may be, it isn't evidence that the moon landing was faked, or that the Space Shuttle missions were faked, or that the Mars rovers are faked.
btw for those who don't already know, Nazis in NASA is a real thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip).
also, NASA does get peer review for publishing about new technology (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120) and astronomical data (https://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/peer-reviews.shtml), based on a quick search. so it's not accurate to say that "what NASA does is not 'peer reviewed'" - rocket missions don't really ... have a peer network? research does though. so, there you go
Anyway try again with the conspiracy bit, Godwin's law didn't work. go figure
-
Actually, that is incorrect, what NASA does is not "peer reviewed". That is one of the many criticisms against them. There is also much criticism of the evidence on the internet elsewhere.
The sticking point for me is that the legislators who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration. Why should we trust a word from them?
And, yet, here you are you are telling me that I need to prove that those seditious politicians and Nazi monsters are dishonest... Very funny.
So if someone from the government does something bad in the 1940's or 1960's that gives you free reign to disbelieve everything that conflicts with your belief system. Just a sad excuse to avoid explaining things you can't explain.
-
Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim. It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.
If NASA claimed to have landed on the moon and had provided no evidence to that effect. Then yes, I would agree, the burden of proof would be on them. But once they provide large quantities of evidence and you claim that evidence to all be fake, then the burden of proving the fraud is on you.
You nailed the problem on the head - no evidence is valid unless it supports FET. Decades of peer-reviewed science isn't proof of a round Earth, but some random video on youtube confirms, without a doubt, FET. Convincing people like Tom is out of the question. You could put him on the ISS and he would still find a way to claim the Earth was flat.
Actually, that is incorrect, what NASA does is not "peer reviewed". That is one of the many criticisms against them. There is also much criticism of the evidence on the internet elsewhere.
The sticking point for me is that the legislators who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration. Why should we trust a word from them?
And, yet, here you are you are telling me that I need to prove that those seditious politicians and Nazi monsters are dishonest... Very funny.
nasa has and does publish things in peer reviewed journals. who made your microwave? is that technology still a nasa secret, or has it made it out to the general public?
-
Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim. It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.
If NASA claimed to have landed on the moon and had provided no evidence to that effect. Then yes, I would agree, the burden of proof would be on them. But once they provide large quantities of evidence and you claim that evidence to all be fake, then the burden of proving the fraud is on you.
You nailed the problem on the head - no evidence is valid unless it supports FET. Decades of peer-reviewed science isn't proof of a round Earth, but some random video on youtube confirms, without a doubt, FET. Convincing people like Tom is out of the question. You could put him on the ISS and he would still find a way to claim the Earth was flat.
Actually, that is incorrect, what NASA does is not "peer reviewed". That is one of the many criticisms against them. There is also much criticism of the evidence on the internet elsewhere.
The sticking point for me is that the legislators who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration. Why should we trust a word from them?
And, yet, here you are you are telling me that I need to prove that those seditious politicians and Nazi monsters are dishonest... Very funny.
Where is your proof that they are not peer reviewed? NASA does a lot more than just launch rockets. Further, there are several other space agency around the world, so you can't say they are the only ones in the space flight game.
-
The sticking point for me is that the legislators who created NASA were also caught conducting a secret war. Those same legislators also put Nazi war criminals in the NASA administration. Why should we trust a word from them?
But we trust Rowbotham; a murderer and charleton because he makes points you agree with? If the Nazi's secret flat earth proofs were found in a bunker somewhere they would be;
a) Taken on with glee and touted as further proof
b) Ignored because they were the Nazi's
This is another case of cherry-picking what to take on face value and what to not.
-
We're not asking that you prove that they are 'dishonest.' We're asking you to prove that NASA executed has maintained for 50+ years a conspiracy to fake space travel. Notable as Operation Paperclip may be, and dishonest as legislators may be, it isn't evidence that the moon landing was faked, or that the Space Shuttle missions were faked, or that the Mars rovers are faked.
btw for those who don't already know, Nazis in NASA is a real thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip).
It is certainly enough to give pause. Are we to assume that these dishonest and murderous people turned over a new leaf to start an honest scientific space agency?
also, NASA does get peer review for publishing about new technology (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120) and astronomical data (https://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/peer-reviews.shtml), based on a quick search. so it's not accurate to say that "what NASA does is not 'peer reviewed'" - rocket missions don't really ... have a peer network? research does though. so, there you go
Anyway try again with the conspiracy bit, Godwin's law didn't work. go figure
We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.
What you are posting are technologies NASA and the National Science Foundation researches for profit, which is another scam. NASA researches these technologies and then licenses them out for profit. It is one of their revenue streams. NASA holds many important patent technologies it profits from. American tax payers PAID for these patents and yet we wont receive a single 'dividend' from them.
-
We're not asking that you prove that they are 'dishonest.' We're asking you to prove that NASA executed has maintained for 50+ years a conspiracy to fake space travel. Notable as Operation Paperclip may be, and dishonest as legislators may be, it isn't evidence that the moon landing was faked, or that the Space Shuttle missions were faked, or that the Mars rovers are faked.
btw for those who don't already know, Nazis in NASA is a real thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip).
It is certainly enough to give pause. Are we to assume that these dishonest and murderous people turned over a new leaf to start an honest scientific space agency?
also, NASA does get peer review for publishing about new technology (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120) and astronomical data (https://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/peer-reviews.shtml), based on a quick search. so it's not accurate to say that "what NASA does is not 'peer reviewed'" - rocket missions don't really ... have a peer network? research does though. so, there you go
Anyway try again with the conspiracy bit, Godwin's law didn't work. go figure
We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.
What you are posting are technologies NASA and the National Science Foundation researches for profit, which is another scam. NASA researches these technologies and then licenses them out for profit. It is one of their revenue streams. NASA holds many important patent technologies it profits from. American tax payers PAID for these patents and yet we wont receive a single 'dividend' from them.
No, you are talking about the peer review of space missions. My comment was far more general and was more about FEers believing unfounded garbage on youtube, but ignoring basic science. (science that has been peer reviewed)
-
NaSa is a bad thing people, and, desreves to be photosynthesized innto space to show them how their is really nothing in space but flat planeets
2nd warning.
-
The whole “NASA Nazis” thing might be important had those been filmmakers and propagandists; the sort of people who could help FAKE a space program. But no, they were scientists and engineers who had built and flown rockets of increasing range and improving accuracy; the sort of people who could help OPERATE a space program.
-
Are you saying that you believe some of the pictures of Earth from space are accurate and true? Can you share an example of one?
No, I am not saying that. I have no way of establishing either way in most cases. That's why they're inconclusive.
I think you are trying to make the FE position sound reasonable or perhaps at least defensible. Introducing reasonable doubt or something like that.
Contrary to what some of the more zealous RE'ers will tell you, I generally try to be reasonable.
-
Are you saying that you believe some of the pictures of Earth from space are accurate and true? Can you share an example of one?
No, I am not saying that. I have no way of establishing either way in most cases. That's why they're inconclusive.
I think you are trying to make the FE position sound reasonable or perhaps at least defensible. Introducing reasonable doubt or something like that.
Contrary to what some of the more zealous RE'ers will tell you, I generally try to be reasonable.
I would respectively have to disagree. I don't think it's reasonable to label all space based photography inconclusive because you can't establish their validity.
-
We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.
That's not true - there have been a total of seven civilian tourists who stayed in the ISS. They each paid a considerable sum of money to be there and they all wrote about their experiences.
Dennis Tito
Mark Shuttleworth
Gregory Olsen
Anousheh Ansari
Charles Simonyi
Richard Garriott
Guy Laliberté
Richard Garriott enjoyed it so much, he flew there a second time.
-
We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.
That's not true - there have been a total of seven civilian tourists who stayed in the ISS. They each paid a considerable sum of money to be there and they all wrote about their experiences.
Dennis Tito
Mark Shuttleworth
Gregory Olsen
Anousheh Ansari
Charles Simonyi
Richard Garriott
Guy Laliberté
Richard Garriott enjoyed it so much, he flew there a second time.
I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.
-
We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.
That's not true - there have been a total of seven civilian tourists who stayed in the ISS. They each paid a considerable sum of money to be there and they all wrote about their experiences.
Dennis Tito
Mark Shuttleworth
Gregory Olsen
Anousheh Ansari
Charles Simonyi
Richard Garriott
Guy Laliberté
Richard Garriott enjoyed it so much, he flew there a second time.
I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.
More people in the vast conspiracy I guess? Which of those evil categories did Guy Laliberté fall (founder of cirque du soleil)?
-
I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.
Don't you see a circular argument here? The board member of Space Adventures is a part of your conspiracy because Space Adventures send people to the ISS who must therefore be a part of your conspiracy.
It's classic Flat Earther nonsense - ANYTHING that doesn't fit your world-view gets dumped into the conspiracy bucket.
This is just lazy debating. You have no way to deny what a private individual photographed with his own camera while on vacation in space - so you just dump him into the "conspiracy" bucket.
-
We are talking about the peer review of space missions. There is no peer review, nor does NASA give outside access to their space vehicles.
That's not true - there have been a total of seven civilian tourists who stayed in the ISS. They each paid a considerable sum of money to be there and they all wrote about their experiences.
Dennis Tito
Mark Shuttleworth
Gregory Olsen
Anousheh Ansari
Charles Simonyi
Richard Garriott
Guy Laliberté
Richard Garriott enjoyed it so much, he flew there a second time.
I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.
When someone claims that day and night last 12 hours on the equinox, which is the commonly held definition of the term, you demand evidence because you are so skeptical.
But you claim if someone is an investor in a government contractor, that's enough evidence to dispute anything they claim from personal experience.
Anyone else see a double standard here?
-
I went through their Wiki pages and noticed a former NASA scientist, investors in government contractors, and a board member of Space Adventures itself.
Don't you see a circular argument here? The board member of Space Adventures is a part of your conspiracy because Space Adventures send people to the ISS who must therefore be a part of your conspiracy.
It's classic Flat Earther nonsense - ANYTHING that doesn't fit your world-view gets dumped into the conspiracy bucket.
This is just lazy debating. You have no way to deny what a private individual photographed with his own camera while on vacation in space - so you just dump him into the "conspiracy" bucket.
Your response to my question of peer review was to reference that space agencies have sent outsiders to space. The fact that they have been sending influential people within their own ranks pretty much nullifies your argument.
-
Your response to my question of peer review was to reference that space agencies have sent outsiders to space. The fact that they have been sending influential people within their own ranks pretty much nullifies your argument.
Just to pick an example, how is the founder of cirque du soleil one of their own ranks?
-
Your response to my question of peer review was to reference that space agencies have sent outsiders to space. The fact that they have been sending influential people within their own ranks pretty much nullifies your argument.
Just to pick an example, how is the founder of cirque du soleil one of their own ranks?
Also, it's not NASA who sent them...they paid a company to arrange a deal with the Russian space agency. NASA was strongly opposed to them entering the ISS on the first few trips - and even after they relented (because NASA doesn't "own" the ISS - it belongs to a consortium of nations) they said that the tourists were supposed to stay inside the Russian modules...although I read that this restriction was 'unofficially' relaxed in later missions after the tourists were required by the Russians to undergo more pre-flight training.
-
Where is your evidence that they are part of the conspiracy. A vague referee to Wikipedia isn’t good enough. We demand verifiable evidence,or we will discount your assertions.