*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2091
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2018, 06:49:48 PM »
... aircraft don't fly direct. They go via way points, beacons, they go round in circles in holding patterns, wind effects them, temp, pressure, number of passengers and fuel also effects cruising speed, as does the centre of gravity which is load dependant (Where the passengers sit).

(slightly off-topic, I know, but ...)

.... why don't you present this argument to anyone who claims the ISS is really a high-altitude plane? For all of this is sure proof that the ISS, with its regular flight path, absolutely-perfect orbit timing, etc. CANNOT be a plane.
It cant be a passenger plane like a 737. But high altitude military planes don't take off from commercial airports, they don't follow departure routes or arrivals plates, they aren't made to wait in holds. When you see a jumbojet full of passengers leave an airport like this ...



then come back to me.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 02:12:29 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2018, 07:11:53 PM »
When you have some proof that the ISS is any kind of military plane, then come back to me.

From my personal observations, it cannot be a plane. Planes don't behave like that.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2091
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2018, 08:01:04 PM »
When you have some proof that the ISS is any kind of military plane, then come back to me.

From my personal observations, it cannot be a plane. Planes don't behave like that.
How do you know how secret military planes behave? No one knew how the SR71 behaved until AFTER it had been decommissioned. Same with the hope diamond.

Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2018, 10:14:07 AM »
When you have some proof that the ISS is any kind of military plane, then come back to me.

From my personal observations, it cannot be a plane. Planes don't behave like that.
How do you know how secret military planes behave?

I've seen the ISS, on more than one occasion, cross my sky twice in the same evening. It did so exactly as predicted for me by in-the-sky.org, it went into Earth's shadow as predicted by the app, and went in the same direction each time. It shows no deviation from wind, weather or such, it shows no vapour, propellant or other trail behind it.

I know that planes cannot cross my sky at one time, then cross my sky again in the same direction, 90 mins later, without doing one of two things
A- going around our planet in 90mins at approx 17k mph (Mach 16+), or
B- changing direction to go back to the starting point in my sky.

They're not putting on a display specifically for me, they don't know where I am when observing, so we have to rule out option B.   Else, how would they know when to turn?

Also, other observers are seeing the ISS go in the same direction, nobody sees it change direction, nobody sees it go East - West, so we can further rule out B from that.

Again, how would the pilot know when to turn, such that they were out of sight for the observer / all observers, and able to turn back to the starting point?

The only sensible option is A.

You're just speculating - maybe a plane could do this, maybe that. Have you any proof that a plane is actually doing this?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 10:31:18 AM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2091
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2018, 02:10:57 PM »
I've seen the ISS, on more than one occasion, cross my sky twice in the same evening.
Who says you saw the same vehicle? You saw TWO instances of a machine pass overhead. Why do you make the immediate inference they must be the same machine? If I saw a train go past me on the platform at my local train station, and then another identical one go past 10 mins later in the same direction, I wouldn't leap to the conclusion it was the same train. I'd assume it was two trains run by the same company with the same paint job on them.

It did so exactly as predicted for me by in-the-sky.org,
My regional train company does that with trains.

it went into Earth's shadow as predicted by the app, and went in the same direction each time. It shows no deviation from wind, weather or such, it shows no vapour, propellant or other trail behind it.
Again, how do you know what type of propulsion secret military aircraft use?

I know that planes cannot cross my sky at one time, then cross my sky again in the same direction, 90 mins later, without doing one of two things
A- going around our planet in 90mins at approx 17k mph (Mach 16+), or
B- changing direction to go back to the starting point in my sky.
Or C, its not the exact same aircraft.

They're not putting on a display specifically for me, they don't know where I am when observing, so we have to rule out option B.   Else, how would they know when to turn?
Why would they turn? Fly straight, get from edge to edge. Fly a different route home, pretending to be any other 'satellite' on a different 'orbit' (route) going a different direction.

Also, other observers are seeing the ISS go in the same direction, nobody sees it change direction, nobody sees it go East - West, so we can further rule out B from that.
How do you even know what you are seeing? If I projected a hologram onto a glass-like firmament, you'd see whatever shape I decided to put there. This is even easier than multiple vehicles. I just point a powerful light source at the firmament and you'll see whatever I show you. And I can turn the light off whenever I want a 'shadow of the earth'.

Again, how would the pilot know when to turn, such that they were out of sight for the observer / all observers, and able to turn back to the starting point?
Pilot? We live in an age of UAVs. Why the hell would I want a pilot? He needs life support, oxygen, warmth, pressurisation, instrumentation, knobs and dials, ejection facilities ... he's a pain in the backside. I'm going to replace him with a pentium processor.

The only sensible option is A.
Or C ... multiple UAVs ... or better yet, D ... holographic projection.

You're just speculating - maybe a plane could do this, maybe that. Have you any proof that a plane is actually doing this?
You're just speculating that you are being told the truth.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 02:12:55 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Google AI
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2018, 02:58:44 PM »
You're just speculating - maybe a plane could do this, maybe that. Have you any proof that a plane is actually doing this?
You're just speculating that you are being told the truth.
The information given concurs with the information seen/experienced personally. So either A. They're executing the deception so perfectly, that one can't find a flaw in it. Or B. They're actually doing it.

Granted, whichever side you choose to go with one can certainly state/claim it's entirely speculation. But at least my personal experience agrees with the information presented. At that point, what reason is there to be seriously in favor of option A? Other than deciding that they can't be trusted for any reason whatsoever, or similar ideology I suppose. Actually curious here. Disregarding anything else, if all of a persons experiences with said object exactly reflect as much of the publicly given information as can be personally verified (arc speed across the sky, shape, timing) then what logical reason is there to be in serious doubt of the rest?

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2091
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2018, 03:18:00 PM »
About 6 months ago, I went to the mall. You'll never guess who was there. Santa!
Let's examine the evidence presented.

I saw him with my own eyes.
He was giving out presents.
The mall was advertising meetings with Santa.
He had a sleigh.
There were elves.

Are you trying to tell me Santa was in on it, all the elves were in on it, the parents of all the children were in on it, the mall owners were in on it and Santa's sponsor Vodaphone was in on it too? All just to fool me and the children? What possible motivation could there be for this?

Let's follow your line of thinking ...

The information given concurs with the information seen/experienced personally.
Saw him with my own eyes. Red suit, beard, giving out presents. Check.

So either A. They're executing the deception so perfectly, that one can't find a flaw in it. Or B. They're actually doing it.
Agreed. A or B.

Granted, whichever side you choose to go with one can certainly state/claim it's entirely speculation.
Erm, ok. I can only speculate it isn't Santa. You're losing me here, but OK.

But at least my personal experience agrees with the information presented. At that point, what reason is there to be seriously in favor of option A?
You tell me. Why do parents lie to children, mall workers lie to children, sponsors lie to children, and people dressed up like idiots lie to children? More interesting question, if you didn't know their exact motivation for doing this ... does it make it any more probable that I met Santa? And are the motivations of all the actors (parents and vodaphone for example) the same? Why would they collude against me and the children?

Other than deciding that they can't be trusted for any reason whatsoever, or similar ideology I suppose.
So children should trust their parents, trust the mall, trust the sponsors and trust the idiots in the green and red suits ... just like you trust the government.

Actually curious here. Disregarding anything else, if all of a persons experiences with said object exactly reflect as much of the publicly given information as can be personally verified then what logical reason is there to be in serious doubt of the rest?
Children across the world get to meet Santa in a mall ... they all experience it ... it has huge publicity ... talk of Santa happens on TV, radio, books, its part of the zeitgiest.

What logical reason should I doubt the existence of Santa? Or am I just another conspiracy theory nut?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 03:27:07 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Google AI
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2018, 04:16:04 PM »
About 6 months ago, I went to the mall. You'll never guess who was there. Santa!
Let's examine the evidence presented.

I saw him with my own eyes.
He was giving out presents.
The mall was advertising meetings with Santa.
He had a sleigh.
There were elves.

Are you trying to tell me Santa was in on it, all the elves were in on it, the parents of all the children were in on it, the mall owners were in on it and Santa's sponsor Vodaphone was in on it too? All just to fool me and the children? What possible motivation could there be for this?

Let's follow your line of thinking ...

The information given concurs with the information seen/experienced personally.
Saw him with my own eyes. Red suit, beard, giving out presents. Check.

So either A. They're executing the deception so perfectly, that one can't find a flaw in it. Or B. They're actually doing it.
Agreed. A or B.

Granted, whichever side you choose to go with one can certainly state/claim it's entirely speculation.
Erm, ok. I can only speculate it isn't Santa. You're losing me here, but OK.

But at least my personal experience agrees with the information presented. At that point, what reason is there to be seriously in favor of option A?
You tell me. Why do parents lie to children, mall workers lie to children, sponsors lie to children, and people dressed up like idiots lie to children? More interesting question, if you didn't know their exact motivation for doing this ... does it make it any more probable that I met Santa? And are the motivations of all the actors (parents and vodaphone for example) the same? Why would they collude against me and the children?

Other than deciding that they can't be trusted for any reason whatsoever, or similar ideology I suppose.
So children should trust their parents, trust the mall, trust the sponsors and trust the idiots in the green and red suits ... just like you trust the government.

Actually curious here. Disregarding anything else, if all of a persons experiences with said object exactly reflect as much of the publicly given information as can be personally verified then what logical reason is there to be in serious doubt of the rest?
Children across the world get to meet Santa in a mall ... they all experience it ... it has huge publicity ... talk of Santa happens on TV, radio, books, its part of the zeitgiest.

What logical reason should I doubt the existence of Santa? Or am I just another conspiracy theory nut?
Yet you're missing an important piece of this one that you CAN personally experience/test (or not experience as the case may be). Presents appearing under the tree with no one having purchased them, labeled as 'From: Santa'. You've made a poor corollary because of it. Now, do you have an actual personal experience or test that can be done that sheds doubt upon the story of the ISS? Or just poorly crafted attempts to make my reasoning look 'bad' for some reason instead of answering the question?

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2091
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2018, 04:53:34 PM »
Yet you're missing an important piece of this one that you CAN personally experience/test (or not experience as the case may be). Presents appearing under the tree with no one having purchased them, labeled as 'From: Santa'.
And this happens. Ask any 4 year old. That's the point of the Santa thought experiment.

Assume you are 4 years old. You know only what other 4 year olds know. You aren't privy to adult information (analogous to government info). There are people who want to lie to you. In fact, your own parents are doing it. And they do it for two reasons.

1) Their own perverse pleasure because they think your ignorance is adorable ... I'm guessing governments can empathise with this
2) Because they think it makes your life more enjoyable not to know the truth and they know better than you ... I'm guessing governments can empathise with this too.

Now, what happens when you learn the truth? Do you get as many xmas presents as you get older? Do you get taken to get free gifts in the mall? Do your parents continue to make as much effort for xmas? Do you benefit from knowing the truth, or are you actually punished for it? What does a government do when you find out the truth about something ... do they reward you?

The Santa thought experiment is perfect because you've been red-pilled. You are the other side of the conspiracy. You've seen both sides. Do you go around telling small children that Santa doesn't exist ... or do you become complicit in the lie? And would you prefer to be 40 years old and still believe in Santa? It means more presents. There is no upside to knowing. The mentally handicapped still get trips to sit on Santa's knee. They still get those presents. It only stops once you know the truth.

So, how did you break free of the Santa delusion? Maybe an older sibling told you? Maybe a friend at school? And did you believe the first person who told you? It is doubtful. But after a while you became suspicious. You dug more and more ... and eventually, despite almost everyone telling you Santa exists ... those little voices of doubt ate away until you put enough of the pieces together and chose to no longer believe the fantastical stories you grew up with. Welcome to TFES. We're your older sibling. A man delivering presents all over the world on a sleigh is every bit as ridiculous as a man in a tin foil space ship walking on the moon, or a machine travelling at 22,000 mph full of scientists.


Or just poorly crafted attempts to make my reasoning look 'bad' for some reason instead of answering the question?
There is no point in me whispering "Santa doesn't exist" if you are 4 years old. It will only make you cry. But as you become more sceptical, say aged maybe 7 or 8 ... then you are ready to listen. Right now you are behaving like a 4 year old. Stop crying and start investigating.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2018, 04:55:57 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Google AI
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2018, 08:56:42 PM »

How do you even know what you are seeing? If I projected a hologram onto a glass-like firmament, you'd see whatever shape I decided to put there. This is even easier than multiple vehicles. I just point a powerful light source at the firmament and you'll see whatever I show you. And I can turn the light off whenever I want a 'shadow of the earth'.


I'm curious how tall you are willing to build this tower of ad hoc fallacies.

How can you use lights to project a shadow on the face of the moon?

http://www.amateurastrophotography.com/how-to-see-the-iss-transit/4593536074

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2091
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2018, 09:42:56 PM »
Very possible.

Quote from: http://www.printmag.com/article/moonstruck/
I was reminded of this ten years ago when articles started coming out about how a Coca-Cola executive named Steve Koonin had conceived a plan to use NASA laser technology to shoot colored beams into space in order to form the Coke logo on the lunar surface just in time for the Times Square Ball to drop. Shot down by the FAA, who pointed out that the lasers just might cut airplanes in half, Koonin reluctantly shelved the idea.

It is called moonvertising and it is illegal. But look who has the technology .... Not just any old laser company.


How is this

harder than


That tech is 20 years old. Coke were trying in 1999 to ping lasers off the moon.

Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Google AI
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2018, 10:32:58 PM »
Yet you're missing an important piece of this one that you CAN personally experience/test (or not experience as the case may be). Presents appearing under the tree with no one having purchased them, labeled as 'From: Santa'.
And this happens. Ask any 4 year old. That's the point of the Santa thought experiment.

Assume you are 4 years old. You know only what other 4 year olds know. You aren't privy to adult information (analogous to government info). There are people who want to lie to you. In fact, your own parents are doing it. And they do it for two reasons.

1) Their own perverse pleasure because they think your ignorance is adorable ... I'm guessing governments can empathise with this
2) Because they think it makes your life more enjoyable not to know the truth and they know better than you ... I'm guessing governments can empathise with this too.

Now, what happens when you learn the truth? Do you get as many xmas presents as you get older? Do you get taken to get free gifts in the mall? Do your parents continue to make as much effort for xmas? Do you benefit from knowing the truth, or are you actually punished for it? What does a government do when you find out the truth about something ... do they reward you?

The Santa thought experiment is perfect because you've been red-pilled. You are the other side of the conspiracy. You've seen both sides. Do you go around telling small children that Santa doesn't exist ... or do you become complicit in the lie? And would you prefer to be 40 years old and still believe in Santa? It means more presents. There is no upside to knowing. The mentally handicapped still get trips to sit on Santa's knee. They still get those presents. It only stops once you know the truth.

So, how did you break free of the Santa delusion? Maybe an older sibling told you? Maybe a friend at school? And did you believe the first person who told you? It is doubtful. But after a while you became suspicious. You dug more and more ... and eventually, despite almost everyone telling you Santa exists ... those little voices of doubt ate away until you put enough of the pieces together and chose to no longer believe the fantastical stories you grew up with. Welcome to TFES. We're your older sibling. A man delivering presents all over the world on a sleigh is every bit as ridiculous as a man in a tin foil space ship walking on the moon, or a machine travelling at 22,000 mph full of scientists.


Or just poorly crafted attempts to make my reasoning look 'bad' for some reason instead of answering the question?
There is no point in me whispering "Santa doesn't exist" if you are 4 years old. It will only make you cry. But as you become more sceptical, say aged maybe 7 or 8 ... then you are ready to listen. Right now you are behaving like a 4 year old. Stop crying and start investigating.
Yet you haven't presented a single bit of personally verifiable evidence to check on for this. I've done my investigating. I've explored the options. You don't have facts and images of any sort on your side (that I have ever seen) all you have are ad hoc ideas on how something *could* maybe work. We've brought up the solar power plane before. Why do any of us know about this if it's being used to fake the ISS? From where I sit, none. You have yet to prevent a valid reason beyond, essentially, 'it's to strengthen the conspiraceh!' To be honest the condescension involved in your tale doesn't help your case either. But I doubt either of us is going to get anywhere, it's just a bit of a shame you have little more to offer past the tired old 'look around and see!' that's been the refrain on these things for years. If I hadn't would I be attempting to discuss such a thing on such an out of the way place as the FE forums for so long? Doubtful. But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

Re: Google AI
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2018, 12:15:42 AM »
Very possible.

Quote from: http://www.printmag.com/article/moonstruck/
I was reminded of this ten years ago when articles started coming out about how a Coca-Cola executive named Steve Koonin had conceived a plan to use NASA laser technology to shoot colored beams into space in order to form the Coke logo on the lunar surface just in time for the Times Square Ball to drop. Shot down by the FAA, who pointed out that the lasers just might cut airplanes in half, Koonin reluctantly shelved the idea.

It is called moonvertising and it is illegal. But look who has the technology .... Not just any old laser company.


How is this

harder than


That tech is 20 years old. Coke were trying in 1999 to ping lasers off the moon.

How it's harder is there is no such thing as a black laser. I know there is a thing called a blacklight but you know that doesn't actually shine darkness, right? What technology are you aware of that shines a beam of darkness?


*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2091
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2018, 01:21:13 AM »
How do you know they aren't drawing the rest of the moon and leaving a little dark patch?



Again you are also crying at me like a 4 year old. Use google, investigate the possibilities yourself. Stop asking me but what about this, then what about this, then what about this. This forum board is not for me to answer flat earth questions. And this thread was supposed to be a discourse on AI before it got perverted by people complaining about earth's shape again.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Google AI
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2018, 06:52:10 AM »
I do apologise, you're right - I did forget the forum this is in

On the original topic, I maintain that it will be impossible for AI to solve this problem, because you will either restrict the input to the AI to the point it's conclusions are useless, or it will come to the same conclusion that humans have come to after examining the same evidence.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Google AI
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2018, 10:26:19 AM »
How do you know they aren't drawing the rest of the moon and leaving a little dark patch?

... because there's nothing to draw on, if that's the case. Come on, you've just suggested that the ISS was projected ONTO something, now you're suggesting the ISS is a gap in the projection. If that's the case, the projection has to be onto a Moon-sized object, else you cannot project.


Use google, investigate the possibilities yourself. Stop asking me but what about this

... but people are only responding to your theories which have no basis in fact, and which don't actually fit AT ALL with the personal observations of those discussing them with you

, then what about this, then what about this. This forum board is not for me to answer flat earth questions. And this thread was supposed to be a discourse on AI before it got perverted by people complaining about earth's shape again.

This forum is for discussion.

You're the one who suggested that a plane would be apparent by its responses to wind and weather, etc., but persists in the suggestion that the ISS could be plane ... again, does not fit with the observations or data. And I DID say I knew the ISS was slightly off-topic when I replied at #19.....

New thread coming, then, since you insist this one remain on AI.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2018, 10:30:03 AM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: Google AI
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2018, 01:25:04 AM »
... aircraft don't fly direct. They go via way points, beacons, they go round in circles in holding patterns, wind effects them, temp, pressure, number of passengers and fuel also effects cruising speed, as does the centre of gravity which is load dependant (Where the passengers sit).

(slightly off-topic, I know, but ...)

.... why don't you present this argument to anyone who claims the ISS is really a high-altitude plane? For all of this is sure proof that the ISS, with its regular flight path, absolutely-perfect orbit timing, etc. CANNOT be a plane.
You can't see the difference in high altitude planes with sole purpose to provide GPS data, and planes used to transport passengers.  You lost that debate fair and square, move on now
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time