Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #60 on: July 13, 2018, 08:45:41 AM »
My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible.

This is where I have a problem with the FE mentality.
You believe in a flat earth and your FE model means space travel is impossible.
So when you're presented with evidence of space travel you declare it fake not because you have any evidence that it is fake but because it contradicts your world view. That is not rational. Statements like "In the absence of any footage that is not faked...". Where is your evidence that the footage is faked? You don't have any, you've done no analysis of the footage (correct me if I'm wrong). You declare it fake because it shows you to be wrong.

If you're presented with evidence which contradicts your world view then you need to assess that evidence as objectively as possible and consider whether that evidence shows your world view to be wrong. That is the bit you guys don't do. And to be fair that's quite a common thing, it's why people dig their heels in about all kinds of things. Cognitive dissonance, basically.

In my silly example about kangaroos, even if I've never seen one if I'm told by people that they've seen one, shown photos of them, shown video of one etc. If I keep on calling these people liars with no basis and declaring all the photos and video fake (having done no analysis of them myself) then fine, I can stick to my world view but it's not a particularly rational or analytical way of thinking. It's just denial of anything that doesn't fit my world view. This is what you're doing in this thread.

It's interesting that the summary of the responses so far is:
RE "Show me evidence of a flat earth"
FE "Take me up in a space ship and show me the globe earth" [Note here that you've never seen the flat disc earth either...]

RE are interested in data and evidence, FE is more "I'll believe it when I see it for myself".
And there's nothing wrong with investigating things for yourself per se but no-one actually lives their lives like this, testing every thing for themselves before believing anything. I don't believe you apply that level of rigour to any other area of your lives. And I see very little effort from FE people in terms of actually investigating things for themselves. What experiments have you done in developing your world view?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 09:53:21 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #61 on: July 13, 2018, 11:58:46 AM »
My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible.

This is where I have a problem with the FE mentality.
You believe in a flat earth and your FE model means space travel is impossible.
So when you're presented with evidence of space travel you declare it fake not because you have any evidence that it is fake but because it contradicts your world view. That is not rational. Statements like "In the absence of any footage that is not faked...". Where is your evidence that the footage is faked? You don't have any, you've done no analysis of the footage (correct me if I'm wrong). You declare it fake because it shows you to be wrong.

If you're presented with evidence which contradicts your world view then you need to assess that evidence as objectively as possible and consider whether that evidence shows your world view to be wrong. That is the bit you guys don't do. And to be fair that's quite a common thing, it's why people dig their heels in about all kinds of things. Cognitive dissonance, basically.

In my silly example about kangaroos, even if I've never seen one if I'm told by people that they've seen one, shown photos of them, shown video of one etc. If I keep on calling these people liars with no basis and declaring all the photos and video fake (having done no analysis of them myself) then fine, I can stick to my world view but it's not a particularly rational or analytical way of thinking. It's just denial of anything that doesn't fit my world view. This is what you're doing in this thread.

It's interesting that the summary of the responses so far is:
RE "Show me evidence of a flat earth"
FE "Take me up in a space ship and show me the globe earth" [Note here that you've never seen the flat disc earth either...]

RE are interested in data and evidence, FE is more "I'll believe it when I see it for myself".
And there's nothing wrong with investigating things for yourself per se but no-one actually lives their lives like this, testing every thing for themselves before believing anything. I don't believe you apply that level of rigour to any other area of your lives. And I see very little effort from FE people in terms of actually investigating things for themselves. What experiments have you done in developing your world view?

From what I've seen, every flat earther started out believing that NASA faked the moon landing. This becomes ingrained in their thought process and suddenly everything NASA does is a lie. This then becomes the root of all flat earthers logic, they believe in the conspiracy, so there must be a lie, and it can't be anything else than the earth is flat.

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #62 on: July 13, 2018, 12:21:58 PM »
From what I've seen, every flat earther started out believing that NASA faked the moon landing. This becomes ingrained in their thought process and suddenly everything NASA does is a lie. This then becomes the root of all flat earthers logic, they believe in the conspiracy, so there must be a lie, and it can't be anything else than the earth is flat.

It seems to me that it's a pretty big leap from thinking the moon landing was fake - a worryingly common belief - to thinking that ALL space travel is fake, all astronauts are liars, the ISS and all weather satellites are faked, GPS is faked somehow, satellite TV, etc, etc. And all because the world is really flat and all this is part of the cover up of that.

The "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude is inconsistently applied. "If you took me up into space and I saw the globe, then I'd believe it". Right...so you've been up and seen the seen the disc, have you?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #63 on: July 13, 2018, 01:05:20 PM »
My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible.
This is where I have a problem with the FE mentality. You believe in a flat earth and your FE model means space travel is impossible.
It is apparent to all your problem lies not with "FE mentality": rather, it concerns a lack of simple reading comprehension and unbelievable leaps toward unfounded conclusions.

There is nothing about "FE mentality" demanding schpayzze travel to be an impossibility.

There ARE MANY RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is an impossibility; indeed, I would venture there are MORE RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is bogus.

JRowe never made a connection between imaginary schpayzze travel and FE or DET.

As far as the OP is concerned, I will be performing a very simple experiment in the next few days to see for myself.

I will post the results here.


Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #64 on: July 13, 2018, 01:18:29 PM »
There ARE MANY RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is an impossibility; indeed, I would venture there are MORE RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is bogus.
I have literally never heard anyone ever claim that space travel is not possible outside of the context of a FE. Not saying they haven't, but I've not heard it.
That the moon landings were faked, yes. That is a depresingly common belief. But that the whole idea of space travel is faked by multiple countries? Never heard that before.

I look forward to the results of your experiment and applaud your efforts in doing one.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #65 on: July 13, 2018, 02:10:50 PM »
I've put up way more than you have. Every time you come up with a one-line dismissal, I cite multiple sources. You're the one who's not putting up anything apart from wild-ass theory...
Your sources are 'radio in the sky' and 'they say so.' And you call me closed-minded.
Jesus christ, you seriously quote 'recovery of lunar samples' as evidence of space travel? They're bloody rocks. Being told they're from the moon isn't proof of anything more than your woefully lax standards.

This is where I have a problem with the FE mentality.
You believe in a flat earth and your FE model means space travel is impossible.
So when you're presented with evidence of space travel you declare it fake not because you have any evidence that it is fake but because it contradicts your world view. That is not rational. Statements like "In the absence of any footage that is not faked...". Where is your evidence that the footage is faked? You don't have any, you've done no analysis of the footage (correct me if I'm wrong). You declare it fake because it shows you to be wrong.
And that is a blatant double standard. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that's common sense. I don't believe that space travel is faked independently, it is part of an overall scientific model. If I were to tell you I could fly, you would disbelieve me because of your experience of the world; however if you remove that experience, what grounds would you have to disbelieve me?
You believe the footage is real because it goes along with what it is you already believe. Fallacies of popularity and tradition and nationalism aside, what is it that makes your claim that they're genuine more reasonable than my claim that they're not? REer loves to spam links to the footage but never put in the legwork to prove anything more. It's basic science. All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model. Ditto for any science based on past events; take evolution, no one can physically go back in time and watch a whole bunch of animals procreating and map their genomes one at a time, but what they can do is establish that the mechanism for it to happen exists, establish that the means for that mechanism to function exist, establish that what we see matches what would have resulted from that mechanism, and it is a credible scientific theory.
The mechanism to fake footage? Yep. The motive to do so? If space travel is impossible, yup, they'd banked their hopes on it. And what we see now? Persistent failure for it to be accessible despite promises, nonsensical elements designed for style over substance, constantly drawing publicity... Yep, it all lines up.
Lose the double standard and start using the scientific method.

I don't believe space travel is impossible because it 'shows me to be wrong,' I declare it to be impossible because the physics that I have observed and determined about the world would not allow it to happen.
The fact the evidence does not contradict this, and indeed favors it in many instances, suffices.


Quote
RE "Show me evidence of a flat earth"
FE "Take me up in a space ship and show me the globe earth" [Note here that you've never seen the flat disc earth either...]

RE are interested in data and evidence, FE is more "I'll believe it when I see it for myself".
Look at what I actually say rather than what you want me to have said. Like I already pointed out, my answer to this question was more data and evidence. Space travel would be one example of that, it's not the only one, I only brought it up because it was relevant to the discussion I was having.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2018, 03:00:21 PM »
Your sources are 'radio in the sky' and 'they say so.'

No, SOME of my sources are as named. I named a number of others.

"And you call me closed-minded."

I didn't say that.

"you seriously quote 'recovery of lunar samples' as evidence of space travel? They're bloody rocks. Being told they're from the moon isn't proof of anything more than your woefully lax standards."

They're different enough from those on Earth for experience and qualified geologists to state that they are from the Moon. What qualifies you to say otherwise? Do you have any qualifications in geology? See the references section of the Lunar Sourcebook. It lists, among others, (many of) the geologists who have examined the lunar samples; it shows who they are, where they were working at the time, where their research was published and when. Are you better qualified than they?
 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that's common sense.

I find your claim/theory that the Moon is a superheated cylinder to be an extraordinary one. Where's your extraordinary evidence to prove it?

You believe the footage is real because it goes along with what it is you already believe.

No, I believe it because it fits consistently with ALL the other evidence.

Fallacies of popularity and tradition and nationalism aside, what is it that makes your claim that they're genuine more reasonable than my claim that they're not?

Nationalism doesn't come into it. My country had no involvement in the Apollo programme, as a for instance. I claim the Apollo photography and film records to be genuine because what they show fits EXACTLY with all the associated evidence.

REer loves to spam links to the footage but never put in the legwork to prove anything more.

What do you expect to be done in addition to this? If I present two photos comparing features of the Moon in sunshine and earthshine, in order to show the features match, and label the features for you, since to you they seem so dissimilar, what else do you expect to be done? If I present some lunar photography, what other legwork do you expect me to do? Travel to the Moon and take some more?

All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model.

No, you require evidence for your model.

The mechanism to fake footage? Yep.

The mechanism may well be there, but you've yet to prove it was actually used.

I don't believe space travel is impossible because it 'shows me to be wrong,' I declare it to be impossible because the physics that I have observed and determined about the world would not allow it to happen.

We await your proof, based on these "physics that (you) have observed". What observations? 

Look at what I actually say rather than what you want me to have said. Like I already pointed out, my answer to this question was more data and evidence.

I haven't seen you post any data, nor any evidence, merely theory and supposition. Saying that something 'could have happened this way', or that someone "could have had the motive to do so" is not evidence.....
==============================
==============================
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 Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9747
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2018, 03:20:06 PM »
There ARE MANY RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is an impossibility; indeed, I would venture there are MORE RE-tards who claim schpayzze travel is bogus.
TL, we talked about this. You're not allowed to personally attack your opponents in the upper fora. If you cannot argue your case respectfully, take it to Angry Ranting.

This is your second warning on this issue. As per the rules, short bans may follow from now on.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #68 on: July 13, 2018, 03:50:47 PM »
They're different enough from those on Earth for experience and qualified geologists to state that they are from the Moon. What qualifies you to say otherwise? Do you have any qualifications in geology? See the references section of the Lunar Sourcebook. It lists, among others, (many of) the geologists who have examined the lunar samples; it shows who they are, where they were working at the time, where their research was published and when. Are you better qualified than they?
They are rocks, composed of substances all of which have been found on Earth naturally. Tell me how the moon was the only possible source rather than doing your usual blind insistence and buying into hype.
 
Quote
I find your claim/theory that the Moon is a superheated cylinder to be an extraordinary one. Where's your extraordinary evidence to prove it?
Are you incapable of discussing a topic without desperately trying to change the subject? I am not going through the how and why of my model at a whim, I link it in my sig, and I'm pretty sure I've told you that before so why do you ask a question if you're just going to ignore the answer?

Quote
I haven't seen you post any data, nor any evidence, merely theory and supposition. Saying that something 'could have happened this way', or that someone "could have had the motive to do so" is not evidence.....
So you yet again fail to provide any more than "They say so!" as your evidence, all the while demanding I do something utterly unnecessary. Once again, as you ignored:

All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model. Ditto for any science based on past events; take evolution, no one can physically go back in time and watch a whole bunch of animals procreating and map their genomes one at a time, but what they can do is establish that the mechanism for it to happen exists, establish that the means for that mechanism to function exist, establish that what we see matches what would have resulted from that mechanism, and it is a credible scientific theory.
The mechanism to fake footage? Yep. The motive to do so? If space travel is impossible, yup, they'd banked their hopes on it. And what we see now? Persistent failure for it to be accessible despite promises, nonsensical elements designed for style over substance, constantly drawing publicity... Yep, it all lines up.
Lose the double standard and start using the scientific method.

It is fundamentally impossible to go back in time and see precisely what they did. Rather, all we can do is look at the consequences and see what the possibilities are. You think it's possible it's genuine? Good for you, I think it's possible it's not and you need to do a whole lot more than just angrily assert that you're right if you intend to make an argument.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #69 on: July 13, 2018, 04:39:54 PM »
what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat, depending on your POV?
An accurate flat-earth map on a flat piece of paper would convince me it's flat.
An accurate curved-earth map on a curved piece of paper would convince me it's curved.
There's nothing more dangerous than an idea, if it's the only one you have. -Émile Chartier

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #70 on: July 13, 2018, 04:42:48 PM »
They are rocks, composed of substances all of which have been found on Earth naturally. Tell me how the moon was the only possible source rather than doing your usual blind insistence and buying into hype.

I'm not a qualified geologist, so I defer to the writings and works of those who are. In brief overview;

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/samples/


In more detail, see sections 6, 7 and 9 of;

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/

The chapters summarise the results of the work done on the samples, and the references section tells you who did the work, where and when, and where it was published.

If the rocks were of basic Earth origin, dontcha think one or more of these folk would have noticed?

Oh, and I almost forgot - one of the Apollo 17 astronauts was a geologist, you can read his account of the big 'field trip' here;

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC1/trip.htm

Quoting and paraphrasing from various sources;

The rocks are similar to Earth rocks, but not identical. One obvious difference is that they all had micro-meteorite
impacts which Earth rocks don't have. Also they were very very dry, lacking in volatiles and not hydrated like their
Earth counterparts. And many are as old as 4.5 billion years old, older than any Earth rocks.

Some of the conspiracy theorists say that they are lunar meteorites - but the lunar meteorites are rare, and
not known at the time. The first lunar meteorite was discovered in the 1980s.

Others think unmanned rovers on the Moon brought the rocks back - but if so, how do they exactly match the rocks the
astronauts pick up in the videos? Also, the Russian Luna program returned a total of 0.326 kg of samples in three missions.
Apollo returned over 380kg in 2000 separate samples, 

Lastly, look over this 2009 paper examining isotope ratios in this rock, and giving new results about the moon (you'll need
to register and login to do so)

As someone said;  Could you imagine that back in 1969 some scientist involved in the fake anticipated that some time in 2009 someone would examine this rock and want to find out the isotope ratios of Argon, and manipulated them to make them appropriate for a an instrument not yet invented to answer a question not yet asked?

- -

Honestly, I could go on like this all day, finding more and more interesting articles about the lunar samples, but it's not
my prime area of interest, and I'm only putting this together because you asked, so ...

No doubt you'll insist that I should do some more "legwork", but as I say, I'm not a qualified geologist. Those who are, are
in no doubt about where the lunar samples came from.

Is that enough of me "angrily asserting" for you ... ??
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 04:44:25 PM 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 JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #71 on: July 13, 2018, 05:03:41 PM »
The rocks are similar to Earth rocks, but not identical. One obvious difference is that they all had micro-meteorite
impacts which Earth rocks don't have. Also they were very very dry, lacking in volatiles and not hydrated like their
Earth counterparts. And many are as old as 4.5 billion years old, older than any Earth rocks.
Seriously, are you trolling? They're dry and had holes in. Obviously no possible way to fake that. And that's the cast-iron proof you thought was worth quoting?
Dating's not even worth mentioning, they measure radioactive decay of elements apparently, except so long as those chemicals are present they're going to decay. if anything the moon is younger than the Earth, so... Ain't gonna be hard to find older rocks, worst case you've got to dig a hole.

Quote
As someone said;  Could you imagine that back in 1969 some scientist involved in the fake anticipated that some time in 2009 someone would examine this rock and want to find out the isotope ratios of Argon, and manipulated them to make them appropriate for a an instrument not yet invented to answer a question not yet asked?
Yes. Easily. They have access to labs, they're not just going to walk outside, pick up a couple of pebbles and say job done, they're going to expose it to unnatural environments as 'proof' of it's alienness. They might've had future equipment in mind, they might not have, but it'd be short-sighted to they wouldn't have done something.

See, this is my issue with you. For all your accusations that i'm just speculating, this is what would happen, or something like it. if someone wants to tell a lie, and has time to plan, they're actually going to put a bit of effort into it. You are assuming they're just going to be as lazy and transparent as possible, but that's not going to happen.  Means and motive exist trivially, and none of this is a stretch. Put yourself in their shoes, imagine you wanted to create a cover-up, you don't need to know the future in order to cover your tracks decently. Go find a more esoteric quarry, dehydrate a bunch of rocks, chip holes, take to the lab and tell them to create simulations of what 'real' moon rocks would be exposed to for the basis of comparison when Apollo gets back... Not hard.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #72 on: July 13, 2018, 05:09:23 PM »
Put yourself in their shoes, imagine you wanted to create a cover-up

WHY? Why don't you PROVE it was a cover-up first?

You expect me to do some "legwork", why don't you do some and actually prove if any fakery was involved here?


you don't need to know the future in order to cover your tracks decently. Go find a more esoteric quarry, dehydrate a bunch of rocks, chip holes, take to the lab and tell them to create simulations of what 'real' moon rocks would be exposed to for the basis of comparison when Apollo gets back... Not hard.

Again, just speculation on how something MAY have been done, according to your own imagination. Speculation, supposition, fantasy.

Even IF we accept that this could have been pulled off as described by you, where's your evidence that it was?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 05:24:46 PM 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 JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #73 on: July 13, 2018, 06:34:04 PM »
All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model. Ditto for any science based on past events; take evolution, no one can physically go back in time and watch a whole bunch of animals procreating and map their genomes one at a time, but what they can do is establish that the mechanism for it to happen exists, establish that the means for that mechanism to function exist, establish that what we see matches what would have resulted from that mechanism, and it is a credible scientific theory.
The mechanism to fake footage? Yep. The motive to do so? If space travel is impossible, yup, they'd banked their hopes on it. And what we see now? Persistent failure for it to be accessible despite promises, nonsensical elements designed for style over substance, constantly drawing publicity... Yep, it all lines up.
Lose the double standard and start using the scientific method.
I'm really pretty sick of repeating myself.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #74 on: July 13, 2018, 07:19:37 PM »
I'm really pretty sick of repeating myself.

Does this count as low-content posting in the upper fora?

Or petulant whining?
==============================
==============================
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: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #75 on: July 13, 2018, 08:06:29 PM »
All I require is possibility, the possibility that it is fake, for mine to be a credible scientific model. Ditto for any science based on past events; take evolution, no one can physically go back in time and watch a whole bunch of animals procreating and map their genomes one at a time, but what they can do is establish that the mechanism for it to happen exists, establish that the means for that mechanism to function exist, establish that what we see matches what would have resulted from that mechanism, and it is a credible scientific theory.
The mechanism to fake footage? Yep. The motive to do so? If space travel is impossible, yup, they'd banked their hopes on it. And what we see now? Persistent failure for it to be accessible despite promises, nonsensical elements designed for style over substance, constantly drawing publicity... Yep, it all lines up.
Lose the double standard and start using the scientific method.
I'm really pretty sick of repeating myself.
So don't.  It does not matter what you think, there is plenty of evidence that the moon landing happened.  And we know how satellites work.

Offline Catnip

  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #76 on: July 14, 2018, 11:53:13 AM »
It wouldn't take a lot, I'd believe the earth was flat if I saw a video of it from space. I'm not going to space, I'm really lazy.

pj1

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #77 on: July 16, 2018, 12:49:15 PM »
Quote
It goes up and comes down somewhere different.
I've never understood why arguments against the conspiracy rely on incompetence. If you were trying to keep a secret you would have to be an idiot to have it land in the same spot it went up. Literally everyone if put in the position to mastermind such a thing would come up with the idea "Ok, shift orientation, use the massive freaking rocket to cross a bit of a horizontal distance rather than a vertical one."

I don't understand whether you're being deliberately obtuse...

Yes, clearly then can land in a different place. But this relies on 1) initially reaching an altitude which means no line of sight for spectators 2) lands in a place where no one sees the "massive freaking rocket" come down again 3) no one except SpaceX was tracking it on radar 4) it didn't cross any no-fly zones where presumably radar operators would have become aware 5) technologically being advanced enough to build a rocket which can take off at high velocity and land, but not so advanced as it can't reach "space".

You're inferring that my comments relate to incompetence but, far from it, what I'm saying is that to fake it seems immensely complex based on the comments above.

I'm trying to have a discussion and you're just flippantly dismissing my comments without consideration.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #78 on: July 16, 2018, 01:06:53 PM »
I don't understand whether you're being deliberately obtuse...

Yes, clearly then can land in a different place. But this relies on 1) initially reaching an altitude which means no line of sight for spectators 2) lands in a place where no one sees the "massive freaking rocket" come down again 3) no one except SpaceX was tracking it on radar 4) it didn't cross any no-fly zones where presumably radar operators would have become aware 5) technologically being advanced enough to build a rocket which can take off at high velocity and land, but not so advanced as it can't reach "space".

You're inferring that my comments relate to incompetence but, far from it, what I'm saying is that to fake it seems immensely complex based on the comments above.

I'm trying to have a discussion and you're just flippantly dismissing my comments without consideration.
Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely.
1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard. Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea. For 3/4, radar's known to not be perfect, outside of wartime unexpected blips are just as likely to be flocks of birds, for starters. Add into that the fact Kennedy Space Center, for one example, is adjacent to a nature preserve and it's hard not to ask a question. Rocket goes off, nearby birds react.
For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible. I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart. Really it's not much more than careful timing and routing.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?
« Reply #79 on: July 16, 2018, 01:27:17 PM »
I don't understand whether you're being deliberately obtuse...

Yes, clearly then can land in a different place. But this relies on 1) initially reaching an altitude which means no line of sight for spectators 2) lands in a place where no one sees the "massive freaking rocket" come down again 3) no one except SpaceX was tracking it on radar 4) it didn't cross any no-fly zones where presumably radar operators would have become aware 5) technologically being advanced enough to build a rocket which can take off at high velocity and land, but not so advanced as it can't reach "space".

You're inferring that my comments relate to incompetence but, far from it, what I'm saying is that to fake it seems immensely complex based on the comments above.

I'm trying to have a discussion and you're just flippantly dismissing my comments without consideration.
Don't assume it's me being obtuse. When you believe something you tend not to examine arguments against an alternative too closely.
1's trivial, rockets are pretty well known for expelling a massive obscuring among of smoke, far more than any typical plane, so going out of view isn't hard. Ditto for 2, especially if they choose sea. For 3/4, radar's known to not be perfect, outside of wartime unexpected blips are just as likely to be flocks of birds, for starters. Add into that the fact Kennedy Space Center, for one example, is adjacent to a nature preserve and it's hard not to ask a question. Rocket goes off, nearby birds react.
For 5, reaching space is not a matter of being advanced, it's physically impossible. I've no doubt they tried, they just found that it literally cannot be done. The forces at altitude would tear any rocket apart. Really it's not much more than careful timing and routing.
Hubble telescope opinion please.