[BRrollin]

Okay, so we agree that the composite image is not evidence that NASA faked space images, precisely because you originally implied that the person faked the images of space, and it was then shown that this is false, and you effectively conceded this point above.

The guy writes he "faked," an image.

The article describes how he faked it.

This demonstrates NASA releases faked images and one process for how they fake them.

[/quote]

My brother wants to be very cool. So I recommended he go hang out in a refrigerator.

I’ll explain why the above is relevant in a moment

You are engaging in what’s called a definitional retreat. You accuse NASA of faking their space images - because you don’t think they’ve been to space. The evidence you put forward was refuted (it looks like you didn’t read the article carefully). So rather than acknowledging the error, which would be rather adult of you, and moving on to more fruitful lines of reasoning, you are now attempting to cling to the fact that SOMETHING was faked. So it’s still good. Right guys? Still works?

....guys?

Nope. This is a poor pivot, even for you. If we permit the redefinition of a conversation’s salient term then we won’t be making good use of our time. Our discussions will twirl through infinite semantical loops while poor-intentioned actors equivocate.

Not interested. Find evidence or GTFO.

[GoldCashew]

Okay, so we agree that the composite image is not evidence that NASA faked space images, precisely because you originally implied that the person faked the images of space, and it was then shown that this is false, and you effectively conceded this point above.

The guy writes he "faked," an image.

The article describes how he faked it.

This demonstrates NASA releases faked images and one process for how they fake them.

[/quote]


Hi,

Was curious to know why you ascribe legitimacy to a guy or an article talking about a guy who says he faked NASA images VS. the thousands and thousands of pictures taken from space from the hundreds of astronauts (scientists, teachers, etc..) whom say they have been to space and took the pictures?

If your looking at this without applying any confirmation bias, how do you know that one is more legitimate than the other?

Why is it not reasonable to ascribe legitimacy the other way around, i.e. to the hundreds of astronauts whom say they have been to space with their pictures of space?

Thanks.

[totallackey]

Not interested. Find evidence or GTFO.

Well, since you are the one not interested....

And, since you are the one who has a defined positional worldview antithetical to the forum's positional stance, it would be you who should be gtfo'in...

Just sayin...

Only a person with their back to the wall would claim the word "fake," doesn't really mean the word fake.

[totallackey]

Hi,

Was curious to know why you ascribe legitimacy to a guy or an article talking about a guy who says he faked NASA images VS. the thousands and thousands of pictures taken from space from the hundreds of astronauts (scientists, teachers, etc..) whom say they have been to space and took the pictures?

First, there slightly over 500 people claiming to have been in space.

Of those, only thirty have ever been claimed to have traveled farther away from the earth than the ISS.

If your looking at this without applying any confirmation bias, how do you know that one is more legitimate than the other?

Why is it not reasonable to ascribe legitimacy the other way around, i.e. to the hundreds of astronauts whom say they have been to space with their pictures of space?

Thanks.

I already admit confirmation bias.

You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.

Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.

[BRrollin]

Not interested. Find evidence or GTFO.

Well, since you are the one not interested....

And, since you are the one who has a defined positional worldview antithetical to the forum's positional stance, it would be you who should be gtfo'in...

Just sayin...

Only a person with their back to the wall would claim the word "fake," doesn't really mean the word fake.

The zetetic method isn’t a worldview, it is a process. The associated worldview might be denialism, with the corresponding antithetical worldview being skepticism.

Anyway, back to your fart plumes. Still waiting for any evidence that plume containment means anything other than when you self Dutch oven with the bedsheets.

I know you won’t find any, which is why you keep stalling and deflecting.

[JSS]

I already admit confirmation bias.

You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.

Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.

I am curious, do you believe people have been to the top of Mt. Everest?  I assume you have never been to the summit yourself to verify it exists.

Why believe mountain climbers, but not astronauts?

How can you tell which group is lying and which is telling the truth?

[totallackey]

I already admit confirmation bias.

You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.

Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.

I am curious, do you believe people have been to the top of Mt. Everest?  I assume you have never been to the summit yourself to verify it exists.

Why believe mountain climbers, but not astronauts?

How can you tell which group is lying and which is telling the truth?

We have already had similar dialogue earlier.

You are writing of an earth-bound scenario, attempting to compare it to something to which I nor you have potential access.

I can travel (if wish) to the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Himalayan, ranges, and witness the summits.

I'm using my confirmation bias, the same way you use yours.

Pardon me if this offends you.

On second thought, don't pardon me.

Own your emotions and/or sensibilities and ask,"Why would I allow the different opinion someone has regarding the legitimacy of photographs affect me so much that I must spend days arguing that it is and must be illegitimate?"

[JSS]

I already admit confirmation bias.

You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.

Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.

I am curious, do you believe people have been to the top of Mt. Everest?  I assume you have never been to the summit yourself to verify it exists.

Why believe mountain climbers, but not astronauts?

How can you tell which group is lying and which is telling the truth?

We have already had similar dialogue earlier.

You are writing of an earth-bound scenario, attempting to compare it to something to which I nor you have potential access.

I can travel (if wish) to the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Himalayan, ranges, and witness the summits.

I'm using my confirmation bias, the same way you use yours.

Pardon me if this offends you.

On second thought, don't pardon me.

Own your emotions and/or sensibilities and ask,"Why would I allow the different opinion someone has regarding the legitimacy of photographs affect me so much that I must spend days arguing that it is and must be illegitimate?"

I'm not offended, I wouldn't care what you think normally, but you are using your opinion to tell others that pictures from space are fake and astronauts are liars.

Once you do this, then you have to back those statements up.

If you simply want to say "I believe the world is flat" that is fine, but the moment you start calling others wrong, and claiming things as fact, then you need to explain your reasons or provide evidence.

Asking questions like I did is the entire reason for this thread, it's why we are both here, is it not?

So back to the discussion, yes you could get to Mt Everest with a lot of work, but you could also reach the edge of space and see the curve with a lot of work. Both would take money and physical conditioning, but there is no reason you could not do both.

[totallackey]

I already admit confirmation bias.

You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.

Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.

I am curious, do you believe people have been to the top of Mt. Everest?  I assume you have never been to the summit yourself to verify it exists.

Why believe mountain climbers, but not astronauts?

How can you tell which group is lying and which is telling the truth?

We have already had similar dialogue earlier.

You are writing of an earth-bound scenario, attempting to compare it to something to which I nor you have potential access.

I can travel (if wish) to the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Himalayan, ranges, and witness the summits.

I'm using my confirmation bias, the same way you use yours.

Pardon me if this offends you.

On second thought, don't pardon me.

Own your emotions and/or sensibilities and ask,"Why would I allow the different opinion someone has regarding the legitimacy of photographs affect me so much that I must spend days arguing that it is and must be illegitimate?"

I'm not offended, I wouldn't care what you think normally, but you are using your opinion to tell others that pictures from space are fake and astronauts are liars.

Once you do this, then you have to back those statements up.

I have.

I posted an article where the person admitted he faked the image.

If you simply want to say "I believe the world is flat" that is fine, but the moment you start calling others wrong, and claiming things as fact, then you need to explain your reasons or provide evidence.

Don't need to to do anything, but I have anyway.

Asking questions like I did is the entire reason for this thread, it's why we are both here, is it not?

I'm fairly certain as to why I am here...

I'm not so sure as to why you are here.

I mean, we have this:

I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?

Asked in this thread (and answered by me):

Never has been my stance.

If I tell you the CPU in your phone is made up of a billion tiny switches so small you can't see them, all  flicking on and off a billion times a second and it's made from silicon, do you think I'm telling the truth?

Perhaps.

It is an earthbound object and something like this could be verified if I really thought it important.

So, the reasons for you being here are certainly up for debate, because it is apparent you don't or can't comprehend answers to questions you have already proferred.

So back to the discussion, yes you could get to Mt Everest with a lot of work, but you could also reach the edge of space and see the curve with a lot of work. Both would take money and physical conditioning, but there is no reason you could not do both.

Yeah, right...

LOL!!!

Here is the most fanfreakingfantastic claim ever made on tfes.org!

Unbelievable...

[JSS]

So back to the discussion, yes you could get to Mt Everest with a lot of work, but you could also reach the edge of space and see the curve with a lot of work. Both would take money and physical conditioning, but there is no reason you could not do both.

Yeah, right...

LOL!!!

Here is the most fanfreakingfantastic claim ever made on tfes.org!

Unbelievable...

You can climb Mt. Everest if you have the money.

You can travel in a hot air balloon capable of hitting 65,000 feet if you have the money.

Neither are easy, but both are possible and have been done by many people.

So if you believe in Mt Everest because it's possible for you to see it, then you should believe in pictures from 65,000ft because that is also possible for you to do.

[totallackey]

So back to the discussion, yes you could get to Mt Everest with a lot of work, but you could also reach the edge of space and see the curve with a lot of work. Both would take money and physical conditioning, but there is no reason you could not do both.

Yeah, right...

LOL!!!

Here is the most fanfreakingfantastic claim ever made on tfes.org!

Unbelievable...

You can climb Mt. Everest if you have the money.

Which I wrote.

You can travel in a hot air balloon capable of hitting 65,000 feet if you have the money.

The Karman line, defined by RE-adherents to be the edge of space is at 100km, well above 65,000 feet.

Neither are easy, but both are possible and have been done by many people.

Put an actual number in place of the word "many."

That way, we can all put a picture next to your mental definition of the word, "many,"; thus, in turn, finding out it is more akin to "few," as offered by Oxford and Webster.

[JSS]

You can climb Mt. Everest if you have the money.

Which I wrote.

You can travel in a hot air balloon capable of hitting 65,000 feet if you have the money.

The Karman line, defined by RE-adherents to be the edge of space is at 100km, well above 65,000 feet.

Neither are easy, but both are possible and have been done by many people.

Put an actual number in place of the word "many."

That way, we can all put a picture next to your mental definition of the word, "many,"; thus, in turn, finding out it is more akin to "few," as offered by Oxford and Webster.

1. What is many? In a balloon? A dozen? On rockets? Hundreds.

2. Who said anything about the Karman line? 65,000ft is high enough to see the curve if it exists. Of course a balloon can't get you into space where there is no air.

3. We both know you will never ACTUALLY climb Mt Everest. But your argument is it is POSSIBLE so you believe it. Well a balloon at 65,000ft is POSSIBLE too. So it doesn't matter how many people did it.

Which brings us back to reasons for dismissing astronauts testimony and photographs but accepting Mt Everest as simply one supports your beliefs, and one does not. That isn't logic or science, it's faith.

Saying you believe Mt Everest because it's possible for you to see it in person is not a very good standard of evidence. You will never go there, never see the summit for yourself, but I hope you admit that it's a real mountain.

[GoldCashew]

Hi,

Was curious to know why you ascribe legitimacy to a guy or an article talking about a guy who says he faked NASA images VS. the thousands and thousands of pictures taken from space from the hundreds of astronauts (scientists, teachers, etc..) whom say they have been to space and took the pictures?

First, there slightly over 500 people claiming to have been in space.

Of those, only thirty have ever been claimed to have traveled farther away from the earth than the ISS.

If your looking at this without applying any confirmation bias, how do you know that one is more legitimate than the other?

Why is it not reasonable to ascribe legitimacy the other way around, i.e. to the hundreds of astronauts whom say they have been to space with their pictures of space?

Thanks.

I already admit confirmation bias.

You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.

Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.

Hi,

In the Flat Earth Theory forum section, I posted a recommendation for Flat Earthers to "stress test" their theory that Space Travel is a conspiracy hoax during the May 27 manned SpaceX launch to the ISS.

This would present Flat Earthers with a golden opportunity to observe the launch, and track the trajectory and telemetry of said launch, including tracking each of the stages of the rocket with Dragon capsule all the way to ISS.

Flat Earthers contend that rockets launch but then ditch in the ocean thus, never reaching space. This could be an opportunity to track everything from start to finish to test against your theory. Additionally, if space travel is a hoax or a conspiracy and a Dragon capsule suddenly appeared to land on Earth, where did it originally come from, if not from space? These are examples of things Flat Earth members could try and observe to test their theory.

Flat Earthers could even use high powered telescopes to track the ISS object orbiting overhead.

See details in that particular thread.

Thank you.