*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1330
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2020, 12:08:53 AM »
Quote
Well no, there's a bit of a flaw in your argument there.  Under FET, if I'm at sea level viewing a ship, the vertical angle I'm observing it at never changes. All that would happen is the ship would get smaller.  Just like your flawed analogy with the Sun getting obscured in point 2, those waves would have to be as high as the ship to obscure it, which implies that the further out to sea you get, the bigger the waves get.  It's rather the opposite on Earth isn't it?  EA tries to explain why it disappears from the bottom up, but fails because if EA were true, the entire ship would just slowly fade out of view as its light rays curved away from you.

I'll give you an example of the opposite viewpoint.  After many years at sea on ships I've had the chance to view what the shore looks like when coming closer & closer to land before going into a port.  A really nice example is going into Japan and seeing Mt. Fuji at a distance.  Each & every time we would go there (weather permitting) I would see Mt. Fuji rise out of the sea (very small at first) starting with the white capped peaks.  At first the white peaks actually would be partly hidden in the tops of the waves and slowly rise out of the sea as we approached Japan.  The mountain would also appear to get wider and wider the closer we got.  You can't use the perspective argument because that would imply you should see the wide base first.  That never happened.  The only logical explanation that makes sense is that the earth is round.  Even using the EA argument I would expect to see the much larger & wider base of the mountain whenever you could see the peak.  That never happened.  We also went to many large cities in many parts of the world.  The highest skyscrapers would also rise out of the sea, the tops of the skyscrapers first then get taller & taller the closer we came.  These are my observations confirmed many times over by many others as well.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2020, 12:40:37 AM »
I'll give you an example of the opposite viewpoint.  After many years at sea on ships I've had the chance to view what the shore looks like when coming closer & closer to land before going into a port.  A really nice example is going into Japan and seeing Mt. Fuji at a distance.  Each & every time we would go there (weather permitting) I would see Mt. Fuji rise out of the sea (very small at first) starting with the white capped peaks.  At first the white peaks actually would be partly hidden in the tops of the waves and slowly rise out of the sea as we approached Japan.  The mountain would also appear to get wider and wider the closer we got.  You can't use the perspective argument because that would imply you should see the wide base first.  That never happened.  The only logical explanation that makes sense is that the earth is round.  Even using the EA argument I would expect to see the much larger & wider base of the mountain whenever you could see the peak.  That never happened.  We also went to many large cities in many parts of the world.  The highest skyscrapers would also rise out of the sea, the tops of the skyscrapers first then get taller & taller the closer we came.  These are my observations confirmed many times over by many others as well.

Hi mate, I think you may have my intentions misunderstood, and it may have been a poorly worded analogy because your post there is preaching to the choir.  In my previous list I stated the following to challenge FET:

"Ships out at sea disappear from the bottom up as they go over the horizon.  In FET they would just get smaller and smaller, but still seeing the whole ship."

A ship disappearing from the bottom up is analogous to one appearing from the top down, which is in direct agreement with your real-world observations of much larger features on Earth.

The response I got was that as my angle of observation changes (I assume he meant angular size gets smaller?) it gets obscured by the crests of the waves, which is of course ludicrous.  If the Earth were flat, the ship would indeed just get smaller and smaller, but at any distance, if it were obscured by waves, those waves would have to be as tall as the ship to obscure it.  Hopefully all makes sense now!

Here's your flat Earth explanation though if you want to try and make sense of it:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1773
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2020, 01:05:38 AM »
I, like so many others, lost confidence in NASA on viewing video clips that had clearly been tampered with or in videos that clearly show bubbles outside the ISS or people attached to harnesses such as this one:



Don't get me wrong, I experienced nothing short of mental turmoil when my mind was coming around to the idea that space, as we are shown, is not real and the earth is not as it seems. Now, 2 years on, I am very comfortable with it.

In looking at your clip with the visible wire I was definitely intrigued. But here we go again with we see what we want to see. So I had to really look into this one as I have not seen it before. So, take it at face value. I did a deep dive on it and we will all walk away with what we believe, most likely. But in doing so, trying to be as objective as possible, I think it's debunked. Here's what I came up with.

In short, the "wire" is a line outlining a sign on the hatch behind them all in the frame. What I did to determine this, first off, is found the whole higher quality clip here, starting at around 31:46 of this:



The low quality of the clip you provided helps us not.

Then, there was a hint that the "wire" in question was actually a line printed on the hatch door behind them around some text. So I followed that lead. I then found a clear view of the hatch door, albeit, slightly off angle, and superimposed it over the video image. For the most part, it lined up. Shown here:



Now, I then took the clip and slowed it down - I went frame-by-frame to double-check, but I think the slowed down gif reveals a lot:



Notice how the "wire"/line never moves laterally or otherwise from it's fixed point along with the movement of the guy. Watch really, really closely. And even gets obscured by the pants of the guy behind the guy in front. It's not moving. It's a line in background. It's not a wire affixed to the guy in front nor grabbed by the guy on the right.

This was a particularly compelling in a, "Wow, is that a wire/cable thing faking the ISS tumbles and such?" video. No, it is not.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Iceman2020

  • *
  • Posts: 513
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2020, 02:01:59 AM »


How would they fake this effect?
___________________________________
"Earth isnt round or flat. It's fucked."
- Ricky LaFleur

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1773
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2020, 02:34:45 AM »


How would they fake this effect?

Not to mention how Skylab clips pre-date CGI capabilities and there are longer ones that exceed even vomit comet known durations...

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline james38

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2020, 05:29:15 PM »
Thank you for all the interesting points. This post will hopefully be a summary of the entire conversation thus far for anyone just joining. Unfortunately, I can't respond to the 10 points RhesusVX and Mark Antony are debating (though still interesting to read) since the original points I made are already blowing up.



To start, I'd like to respond to Mark Antony's point about debates going bad once video evidence is introduced:
Quote
The only debates I've had in the past were futile efforts with globe fundamentalists who have nothing but distain for FET (so the above debate is a breath of fresh air to me). One of the brick walls I come up against in these debates was when using photographic or video evidence. Usually at this point I get dismissed for presenting videos rather than "real science" such as what is found in peer reviewed scientific journals (the debate always gets very sour when I ask for peer reviewed articles in support of the globe theory in return) And that's where the debate usually ends.

I don't think videos should be dismissed outright. Of course, they aren't published science, but that doesn't mean we can't personally apply the scientific method in how we analyze them!

I apologize that this thread is going to look like its derailing if you read it from the beginning. After so much talk of philosophy and the definition of science, we are going to start sharing videos with each other? I started this thread as a complete newcomer here not knowing what to expect. So I started with some philosophical points, then after a good conversation with jack44556677 I felt interested in shifting the focus of the conversation towards the NASA conspiracy and some evidence of Antarctica. Again, I believe philosophy will still bubble up after we have some concrete evidence to discuss. I know most members of this forum probably have had these conversations a thousand times already, so I appreciate your patience with me as I navigate through it all.


Now onto my main pints...


As Jack44556677 said:
Quote
before NASA et al FINALLY validated it in the "space age" (If you believe everything you see on tv...)

Yeah, tv sucks. I don't even have cable. So since we all agree that the whole thing hinges on NASA, let's get into it. No TV is required.



1. Moon Rocks (just me so far)
Quote
I'll start with a section straight from https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings, "Existence and age of Moon rocks". Just go and read it, it's only a short paragraph. I see this as an example of some simple and straightforward evidence from multiple 3rd party sources that verify that NASA did collect moon rocks. Do you deny this?
Nobody has yet responded to this. Also quoting Mark Antony:
Quote
the fundamental differences lie in competing photographic and video evidence for and against FET
I don't think that's true, given this point about 3rd party research on moon rocks.

2. "Bubbles and Harnesses"? (MarkAntony and Stack)
Quote
I, like so many others, lost confidence in NASA on viewing video clips that had clearly been tampered with or in videos that clearly show bubbles outside the ISS or people attached to harnesses such as this one:
Thanks for sharing how you first lost confidence in NASA @MarkAntony, but can you break this down more for a newcomer or at least post some URLs for further reading? I don't understand the problem with harnesses or what is happening in that video.

I read through Stack's full response. It looks thorough, but I'm still missing the original argument about this video. was it there something that should have been there that wasn't or something that was there that shouldn't have been? Maybe whoever comments on this next can give a full outline of both sides for me or share some URLs for further reading? 

3. Switching Views (MarkAntony)
Quote
Don't get me wrong, I experienced nothing short of mental turmoil when my mind was coming around to the idea that space, as we are shown, is not real and the earth is not as it seems. Now, 2 years on, I am very comfortable with it.
Bringing back some of the philosophical discussion, I think it worth asking you the same thing I asked Jack. What, if any evidence or observations would cause you to start believing NASA's expeditions really took place again?

4. Vacuum of Space (MarkAntony)
Quote
But I would like to touch on the thermodynamic impossibilities relating to the infinite vacuum of space that @jack44556677 touched on [...]
So, this could be a powerful argument on your side. If you could just clear this up: is your argument that NASA's current explanation for how their spacesuits work inconsistent with physics as we know it? Or are you saying that their past explanations are not consistent, the current one are, but that the fact that their explanations changed over time is the problem. In any case, if you could provide the mathematical proof or at least a reference to a reading or a URL, that could also help. After you expand this, I'll give a more full response.

5. The Conspiracy (MarkAntony and jack44556677)
I'll admit again I liked the way to flat earth wiki explained the conspiracy, and yes you and Jack make it sound significantly less implausible. This might be obvious to a lot of you, but the first couple paragraphs of the "Motive of the Conspiracy" section which says "There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy ... There is a Space Travel Conspiracy" was not at all what I expected, and sounded a lot less crazy then what I expected. And it's what lead me to want to focus on NASA, of course. Now another good reference for this topic is the "Number of conspirators involved" section of https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories. So yes, after reading both of these I've concluded that I don't have as much evidence to back up my claim that the conspiracy is inherently impossible as I thought I did. I think we have to leave this specific point as a stalemate. The existence of a conspiracy has not been proven or disproven, simple as that. I think we should have enough evidence from specific expeditions (videos, moon rocks, etc.) to make those conclusions.

6. Water Wringing Video and pre-CGI clips (Iceman2020 and Stack)

I'm also curious to hear someone's explanation for these.

7. Antarctica (Mark Antony and jack44556677)
Quote
the pictures of Antarctica you linked us are physically impossible to acquire. Just look at how the earth is illuminated - almost perfect uniform lighting over an entire hemisphere. This is not possible at any time of day. The complete lack of cloud cover over vast expanses of the earth is another tell-tale sign.

Here's the image again for reference. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003402/index.html

Saying this image is physically impossible to acquire is quite a strong claim. Let's get into it.

7.1 Almost perfect uniform lighting
I don't have any specific references for this, but I think I've heard many times that NASA colorizes and in other ways modifies some of its images since the originals are not easy or even possible to see with the human eye. I'm not saying for sure that this image was modified, but just that it's possible. And of course, it being modified isn't evidence that it is fake.

7.2 complete lack of cloud cover over vast expanses of the earth
For one thing, I see a lot of clouds in the images. And even if some areas lack clouds in the images (like the American Midwest), what does that prove? You're saying that you know for a fact that on that particular day there were large visible clouds in the spot visible from space, but NASA's images suspiciously don't show those clouds? I'm not sure if I'm following your logic or not.

In conclusion about this image, I believe it's a stalemate. I don't think it's possible to prove these images are real or fake, so I don't think they stand as evidence in either direction. Again, I think we have better evidence to go on.


8. Just some discussion

I don't anymore feel the need to contest the physics of FET at all in this thread. Rather, since the entire theory depends on the NASA conspiracy, that's the only topic logically necessary. And as we can see, that alone is a HUGE topic!

There are people who beleive in the NASA conspiracy but still don't believe in FET. So it can be discussed in isolation of FET. This is in line with the FET wiki, which states that NASA believes the world is a globe so that is how it presents it. I'd wager that if FET was somehow disproven independently of NASA, a lot of former FET believers would continue to be NASA conspiracy believers since the NASA conspiracy does not logically depend on FET.




*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2020, 09:19:43 PM »
I don't anymore feel the need to contest the physics of FET at all in this thread. Rather, since the entire theory depends on the NASA conspiracy, that's the only topic logically necessary. And as we can see, that alone is a HUGE topic!

There are people who beleive in the NASA conspiracy but still don't believe in FET. So it can be discussed in isolation of FET. This is in line with the FET wiki, which states that NASA believes the world is a globe so that is how it presents it. I'd wager that if FET was somehow disproven independently of NASA, a lot of former FET believers would continue to be NASA conspiracy believers since the NASA conspiracy does not logically depend on FET.

You’re right, they are independent, but they are also very much related.  This may be a bit naive on my part, but, a lot of what I see/read along with FET is the dismissal of empirical science and other forms of evidence such as photographs and videos.  I get it.  It can be hard to comprehend something you can’t necessarily touch or see or verify for yourself.  Clearly it’s not possible for a regular citizen to go into space or just cross the Antarctic, so it’s easy to just dismiss photos and videos of the Earth as faked because nobody can really prove or disprove it.  They have to be taken at face value.  If somebody comes forward and says they are from NASA and they spent time at the space station, seeing the Earth as a sphere with their own eyes, nobody believes them so it’s a lose-lose situation.

The fact remains though that rockets exist, the space shuttle existed, and I’ve seen it with my own eyes launch out of sight above the Earth’s atmosphere from Florida.  Can I say for sure it went into orbit high enough above the planet to photograph it as we have been shown?  No, of course not, but one must ask the question - why would they send something up into the sky, do nothing with it or hide it for several days,  then return it to Earth with fake photos and video footage onboard?  Look at the recent dragon launch, getting two American’s on board the space station.  Again, plenty of live video footage, onboard and outside of the module, with the round Earth in the background.  Not only that, but when you looked into the night sky at the right time as predicted by the launch trajectory, you could see the “spot of light” moving exactly as predicted.  With a telescope or good binoculars you can see the space station with your own eyes.  This is a man-made satellite, not something that is part of the celestial dome/firmament.  Why would stuff like that be faked by NASA and other space agencies?  Surely, if it were being faked, it would only be for one of two reasons:
  • NASA believe the Earth is round and don’t want to look stupid
  • NASA are trying to convince everybody that the Earth is round
Again, maybe I’m being naive, but the simplest explanation is that the Earth is indeed round, and the experiments/exploration that NASA carries out just confirm that.

But yes, it is an independent belief, but also one that is intrinsically related to belief in flat Earth as well.  That somebody would still disbelieve NASA even if the round Earth was undeniably proven is probably true.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline james38

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2020, 10:02:33 PM »
Quote
The fact remains though that rockets exist, the space shuttle existed, and I’ve seen it with my own eyes launch out of sight above the Earth’s atmosphere from Florida.  Can I say for sure it went into orbit high enough above the planet to photograph it as we have been shown?  No, of course not, but one must ask the question - why would they send something up into the sky, do nothing with it or hide it for several days,  then return it to Earth with fake photos and video footage onboard?  Look at the recent dragon launch, getting two American’s on board the space station.  Again, plenty of live video footage, onboard and outside of the module, with the round Earth in the background.  Not only that, but when you looked into the night sky at the right time as predicted by the launch trajectory, you could see the “spot of light” moving exactly as predicted.  With a telescope or good binoculars you can see the space station with your own eyes.  This is a man-made satellite, not something that is part of the celestial dome/firmament.  Why would stuff like that be faked by NASA and other space agencies?

Thanks for sharing this. Surely we can agree that pics and videos can be faked. But the fact that we can see the ISS through a telescope? I think that might belong in the list of "3rd party evidence for NASA's expeditions", and I'm really curious to hear the rebuttal.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2020, 11:08:54 PM »
Thanks for sharing this. Surely we can agree that pics and videos can be faked. But the fact that we can see the ISS through a telescope? I think that might belong in the list of "3rd party evidence for NASA's expeditions", and I'm really curious to hear the rebuttal.

Well, the thread is supposed to be in relation to the burden of proof.  I don’t need to prove that I’ve seen, with my own eyes, the space shuttle launch from Cape Kennedy out of visible view from the surface of the Earth.  Plenty of citizens of Earth have seen the same.  Can I, or any other citizen prove it went into space and orbited the Earth?  No.  But if somebody is going to tell me that it didn’t go into space and orbit the Earth, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate what actually happened instead.  Same with photos and videos from space.  It’s easy to say you don’t believe something, but it’s a pointless statement in the absence of reason, which comes down to the NASA conspiracy.  Why would they even bother to fake it?

But heres the thing, the burden of proof extends to more than just the NASA conspiracy.  It extends to the whole of the flat Earth theory.  We have two millennia of evolved science and empirical observation that fully supports and validates the rotating globe model.  Even if you take NASA and their “fake photos” out of the equation, there is still enough evidence to support the globe model, because that model accurately shows, and predicts, everything that we observe in reality.  That a lot of the flat Earth community chooses to reject this evidence is fine, but, just like with NASA, the burden of proof is on them to reason why the evidence as presented is incorrect and provide alternative explanations.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some elegant equivalence theories presented, and it’s actually enlightened me, but equally there are gaping holes that confuse me.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline james38

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2020, 12:07:44 AM »
I'm sorry if I'm being rudely dismissive of your points. I'm trying to juggle including your talking points while also maintaining the structure of my argument. I'm trying to be selective about which evidence I present. I definitely appreciate your thoughts though and hope you stay a part of the conversation :)

It sounds like you're coming in with a very similar mindset as I did. That's why I came in with "burden of proof" as my central point. Once I started to realize how much FET critically depended on the NASA conspiracy, I realized that the "burden of proof" argument might not even be necessary! I'm wagering at this point that even if we have the burden of proof, we can still prove that NASA's expeditions were real. That's where I stand for now, at least.

The FET wiki claims that NASA's spaceships simply go up and out of view in the atmosphere, but not into "space". That's entirely consistent with what your eyes saw (but not your telescope!?). And it's not crazy or entirely unreasonable to believe that pics or vids can be faked with today's technology. In fact, with paranoia about deep fakes and all that, I actually sympathize with this perspective.

I agree with your second point that globe theory is 100% consistent with our observations of nature. I'm just at a point, after discussing this stuff at length with Jack, that I think the most powerful approach is to prove NASA's expeditions truly took place. FET researchers are working hard to develop an alternate theory to describe our observations of reality based on the flat earth model, and I honestly find their work fascinating even if I don't believe it.

If anyone can get me to a point where I have a logical reason to question NASA's expeditions, FET would become more than just fun reading. It becomes an actual logical possibility.

So I'm not completely opposed to your points! I just have a feeling that FET researchers are fatigued from the endless debates they must have. So I'm trying hard to keep my argument (and this thread) succinct, that's all.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2020, 08:52:47 AM »
I'm sorry if I'm being rudely dismissive of your points. I'm trying to juggle including your talking points while also maintaining the structure of my argument. I'm trying to be selective about which evidence I present. I definitely appreciate your thoughts though and hope you stay a part of the conversation :)

You’re not being rude or dismissive at all mate, and even if you were to disagree and tell me I’m wrong or whatever, that’s fine as long as it’s done with respect and decency.  I’ve been told I’m ignorant and uneducated plenty already, and find it rather hypocritical given the subject matter.

But, I have to say I like your approach.  It certainly does feel to me, and you seem to agree, that the flat Earth theory is contingent on the photographic and video evidence NASA provides from its expeditions as being faked.  But, even if it’s proven beyond any doubt that the NASA expeditions took place, this might satisfy some flat Earth supporters, but what about those who still don’t believe the photos and video footage generated from those expeditions represent a globe?  Will it still be an ongoing case of light does this, diffraction does that and gives the effect of the other?  It then just becomes another page on the Wiki that concludes from the observations made in accordance with Zetetic Inquiry, and the flat Earth model continues.

I know I sound sceptical, because I am.  But that’s why I’m here, because I’m curious, as is human nature, and want to better understand what flat Earth theory is all about rather than just outright say it’s stupid and that people who believe it are idiots.  That doesn’t achieve anything.  But, I’m a also man of science and evidence-based experimentation.  As we agree, we do have a model which 100% works in every scenario and can be programmed into a computer simulation with simple known laws, and no matter where you place the camera on or over Earth, you see what we would see with our own eyes.  This is currently impossible with any flat Earth model, hence my views on where the burden of proof lies.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline james38

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2020, 04:40:53 PM »
Firstly, I realize I was hypocritical to dismiss all video evidence outright when I used water wringing and pre-CGI videos posted by others in my points above. But at least, in that case, specific videos were used, which is probably one of the standards we should follow rather than referencing videos and pictures in a generic way.

Quote
what about those who still don’t believe the photos and video footage generated from those expeditions represent a globe

You're right, some people always will stick to their gut feeling even when all evidence contradicts it. This is true on both sides. If it turned out that NASA was lying and suddenly the science starts to show that FET is the more likely theory, many people would stick with globe theory against all logic. That's human nature.

So I didn't come here to try to convince anyone to change their views. I think it's more important to focus on questioning my own views and challenging my own biases.

Right now the conversation is mostly still at the stage where both sides are presenting evidence. I hope that once we've accumulated enough evidence we can all go deeper into the psychological/philosophical reasons why each side interprets the evidence differently. I don't like that FET characterizes the majority of people as indoctrinated into a "globe theory faith" and I equally dislike that the majority considers FET a "cult". I want both sides to gain respect for each other. But I'm personally not really ready for that whole rant yet. I still know very little about both sides compared to many members of this forum. I'm just trying to gather what I see as crucial information (and the most valuable information will be responses that NASA conspiracy believers have to my 8 points from a few posts ago!)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2020, 04:45:06 PM by james38 »

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2020, 01:24:31 AM »
@james38

Quote
I enjoy reading it and find a lot of what you are saying agreeable.

I'm glad you feel that way!

Quote
like Wittgenstein said

All I really know about him is he was a beery swine. Did I miss a good one?

Quote
We still should attempt to agree on working definitions for words.

I agree that is critical for effective communication (or at least the shot at it).

Quote
I say "My beliefs are determined by my knowledge/facts".

And I say as a (scientific?) researcher you should know better than to believe anything (especially that you can't prove/demonstrate)!  I appreciate that your colloquial (mis)use was intentional and is commonplace.  I feel strongly that the word belief not be corrupted/eroded.  It has a distinct meaning and turning it into a synonym for "knowledge"/"perspective"/"view"  is indefensible.  I have found that the verbiage of belief is best left relegated to mythology/religion - in this discussion and outside of it.

Quote
but that the conversation becomes convoluted and off-topic if we push our own exact definitions of words.

I find the issue central to the topic, and shared definitions are critical.  The verbiage of belief is often invoked unbeknownst to the speaker, and I find this commonplace, meaningful, and often earnest - even when it is not explicitly/consciously intended that way.  I try to avoid being a pedant whenever possible - I earnestly feel this point is important and noteworthy.

Quote
If I understand correctly, you mean the scientific method

I do not! The scientific method has no use in determining the shape of material things. Only rigorous and repeated measurement can determine an objects shape with certainty.

Quote
I'll backtrack and just say I don't think he's relevant or plays a role in my belief in the world's shape.

Again I am compelled, for demonstration - ideally, to point out the verbiage of belief where it does not belong.  Although I do know how you meant this, the statement is true, earnest, and valid in more ways than I suspect you realize.  Pythagoras had a LOT to do with your BELIEF in the worlds shape.

Quote
but that doesn't mean we don't have evidence today.

Absolutely! However, much of that evidence, today as always - hails from the ancient greeks!

Quote
To be honest, on a philosophical level I think we are mostly on the same page.

It does seem that way! This is encouraging.

Quote
What do you think about south pole, like the literal one that people can visit as well as the scientific research labs scattered around Antarctica?

I know that the token barbershop pole is only for the tourists.

I am not convinced there is a "south pole" at all.  The earth could be more like a ring magnet, and have a south pole that encircles the north.

I don't have much doubt that there are research and military bases there.  Herzog wouldn't straight up lie to me like that.

Quote
But let's focus on the evidence...

And the distinct lack thereof - depending!

Quote
Believing in "the conspiracy" (faked space expeditions) seems less absurd to me than it used to!

I have found that an objective evaluation of the evidence leads to one obvious conclusion. It's that objectivity that is the tricky bit. When validating a claim/evidence subjectively with presumptive bias, as a "debunker" does - for instance, you will essentially always be able to "discover" the "explanation". Cognitive dissonance all but assures it.

Quote
Do you deny this?

Firstly, radiometric dating methods, essentially, do not work.  You cannot date a rock by itself.  The most reliable dating method in archeology is pottery.

From what little independent testing has been done on "moonrocks" we can and have easily determined they are terrestrial in origin and composition (and in one of the nordic countries, the one given to them by an apollo astronot personally, it turned out to be petrified wood)

There is a real possibility that the moon is not tangible/physical, and almost certainly not made of rock.

Quote
1. "space" violates natural laws: please be more specific

Absolutely.  Chief among them are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the fundamental behavior of gas.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and the notion that there is one of, effectively, infinite size above our heads is both offensively stupid and unscientific.  Nequaquam vacuum.

Quote
2. notable whistleblowers/critics wound up murdered: who?

It's in the wiki! Perhaps the best well known is thomas baron, who is in the wiki.

Quote
3. faked footage: show me?

Perhaps the most quintessential/obvious is the rat on "mars".  Let me know if you have trouble finding it!

Quote
It's interesting hearing your biases.

My biases were what led me to be fooled that the footage on the tv was genuine.  It is through the identification and eradication of biases that we make progress in this subject and in seeing the world as it is!

Quote
In my opinion, these views are extreme. I'll leave it at that.

Recognizing that governments and militaries routinely lie to their people (and some of the reasons why) is hardly a radical view.  It is a basic historical and contemporary fact, which most people know and accept. Further recognizing that corporations/industry does the same thing for the same reason does not take a rocket scientist, nor any sort of "extremism".

Quote
I'm intrigued by the convex experiments you've been talking about.

I was talking about measurements, not experiments.  Experiment is not an ordinary word, it is technical vernacular with a rigorous and inflexible definition.  An experiment is a test that validates or invalidates (or neither) a hypothesis by establishing, ideally, a causal link between the IV/hypothesized cause and DV/hypothesized effect.  Nothing else is an experiment.  Mere observations are never experiments, and students are mistaught in his regard (the cavendish, eratosthenes, bedford level "experiments" are all just observations)

Quote
Why is this?

I suspect because it is a distraction, but this is a question for the wiki authors.  I do not claim that it is perfect, but considering how difficult it is to consolidate all the disparate and often conflicting views of individual (largely) researchers AND keep it intelligible/consumable is no small feat! I am very impressed with it and look forward to its continued refinement - of which your discovery may be a part.

Quote
So do you see your frozen lake experiment as being a continuation of these studies?

Absolutely (though it is in no way an experiment, nor is it mine), and the frozen lake is significantly superior to other locales.  Remove the uncertainty of atmospheric/optical effects by changing methods and one might argue they had "proof" that the globe is fantasy.

Quote
And do the articles I linked above perhaps miss any other experiments that have been conducted since then?

Of course. Some that spring to mind are the rectilineator (for measuring straight against level) and various contemporary observations by independent researchers.  Measuring the presumed curvature of water has never been done by anyone, ever - and this is significant in empirical science - which requires measurement....

P.S.

I see that I am behind in my responses!  Please have patience, I will respond as I can.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2020, 02:04:01 AM »
@fisherman

I have seen the rainy lake "experiment"/observation and I find that the methodology is flawed AND that it does not involve measuring water.

Quote
Its disingenuous to invoke hydrostatic law in your argument, when hydrostatics specifically account for the influence of gravity.

The equations were surreptitiously changed without validation/measurement.  This is unscientific and most likely scientific fraud as well.  Natural law MUST be established by (and IS) rigorous and repeated measurement.  This is a hard requirement in science - as it always has been - and is non-negotiable.

@ronj

We'll have to go into that further in another thread, I think.  It is intriguing!

@RhesusVX

Quote
However, where it all starts to fall down for me is the reference to historical and/or mythological sources.

That stuff is just gravy.  The meat is scientific observation and analysis.  A strictly objective scientific (and/or zetetic, perhaps) approach is the most efficient way to study this subject.  It's that objectivity and the many incorrect definitions taught of science, scientific method, and experiment that make that so challenging.

« Last Edit: November 04, 2020, 03:38:14 AM by jack44556677 »

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2020, 03:03:28 AM »
Quote
The equations were surreptitiously changed without validation/measurement.  This is unscientific and most likely scientific fraud as well.  Natural law MUST be established b (and IS) rigorous and repeated measurement.  This is a hard requirement in science - as it always has been - and is non-negotiable.

The equation just reflects the law that hydrostatic equilibrium means that pressure at any point in a fluid at rest is  due to the weight of the overlying fluid.

If you think the equation is wrong, then it follows that you believe that the law is invalid and can't legitimately appeal to it for your argument.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2020, 03:45:29 AM »
@fisherman

You don't seem to be following.

Quote
Natural law MUST be established by (and IS) rigorous and repeated measurement.  This is a hard requirement in science

There is no way around this point.  The equations were changed without validation - this is unacceptable/unscientific and likely scientific fraud to boot.  Natural law stands until refuted by contrary measurement.  No contrary measurement (measurement of the presumed/calculated curvature unscientifically/illegitimately injected into the equations) exists, has existed in the past, or likely will in the future (as it would be a violation of existing hydrostatic law, unchallenged for centuries).  The equations you are referencing are unscientific and bunk.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2020, 03:47:16 AM by jack44556677 »

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2020, 07:03:55 PM »
Quote
There is no way around this point.  The equations were changed without validation - this is unacceptable/unscientific and likely scientific fraud to boot.

What formula was ever changed?

The hydrostatic law of equilibrium, which governs a liquid at rest simply states pressure at any point in a fluid at rest is just due to the weight of the overlying fluid. A formula was developed to reflect that.  It is P  =  g ρ h, with g is gravity, ρ is density, and h the height.

If you don't think that is the correct formula, then what should it be?


Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2020, 08:59:32 PM »
@fisherman

Quote
What formula was ever changed?

The one that describes a fictional non-real "force" of gravity in its description/calculation/formulation of the, equally non-real, presumed curvature of waters surface at rest.

Roughly, at some point in the late 18th to 19th centuries the existing validated equations (natural law) describing the shape of water's surface at rest were surreptitiously changed to have the fictional "force" of "gravity" added into the equations without any validation or empirical science whatsoever. This is unscientific, and likely fraud as well.  Natural law is not speculative, nor theoretical. It is practical, demonstrable, and rigorously/repeatedly measured - this is not up for debate.

Quote
A formula was developed to reflect that.  It is P  =  g ρ h, with g is gravity, ρ is density, and h the height.

This equation has 2 fictional terms in it that were never validated. It is an abuse/corruption of pascals law - which is correct (and includes no fictional terms).  This is not really a discussion about that though... In any case, weight density is all that is used in the corrected equation.  M and g are fiction - they return to the weight they began and were measured as.

Quote
If you don't think that is the correct formula, then what should it be?

For pascals law, which we aren't really discussing - see below.

P=Dw*h (where Dw is ; Density, weight)


Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2020, 09:36:30 PM »
Quote
For pascals law, which we aren't really discussing - see below.

P=Dw*h (where Dw is ; Density, weight)

I hate to break it to you, but any formula that include weight, takes gravity into account as w=mg.

So exactly which law of hydrostatics are you referring to when you say that water can't curve?


Offline james38

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2020, 09:48:00 PM »
Quote
And I say as a (scientific?) researcher you should know better than to believe anything (especially that you can't prove/demonstrate)!  I appreciate that your colloquial (mis)use was intentional and is commonplace.  I feel strongly that the word belief not be corrupted/eroded.  It has a distinct meaning and turning it into a synonym for "knowledge"/"perspective"/"view"  is indefensible.  I have found that the verbiage of belief is best left relegated to mythology/religion - in this discussion and outside of it.
Quote
I find the issue central to the topic, and shared definitions are critical.  The verbiage of belief is often invoked unbeknownst to the speaker, and I find this commonplace, meaningful, and often earnest - even when it is not explicitly/consciously intended that way.  I try to avoid being a pedant whenever possible - I earnestly feel this point is important and noteworthy.
Quote
Again I am compelled, for demonstration - ideally, to point out the verbiage of belief where it does not belong.  Although I do know how you meant this, the statement is true, earnest, and valid in more ways than I suspect you realize.  Pythagoras had a LOT to do with your BELIEF in the worlds shape.

I will concede to strictly trying to use your definition of the word belief as long as it gets us on the same page. By your definition, I don't believe in anything since I'm an atheist? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote
The scientific method has no use in determining the shape of material things. Only rigorous and repeated measurement can determine an objects shape with certainty.

The scientific method can be used to test a hypothesis related to the shape of an object. For example, I can posit an object in my hand is spherical. I can attempt to roll it across the floor. Null hypothesis: it will not roll. If it rolls, I failed to disprove that it is spherical.

Measurement can determine an object's precise dimensions and shape.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Measurements can be used in scientific experiments.

How does this point fit into your larger perspective, anyway?

Quote
I know that the token barbershop pole is only for the tourists.

I am not convinced there is a "south pole" at all.  The earth could be more like a ring magnet, and have a south pole that encircles the north.

I don't have much doubt that there are research and military bases there.  Herzog wouldn't straight up lie to me like that.

A ring is similar to a disk, right? I'm really curious how you visualize this (and I know its just an idea, you don't have to defend it I'm just curious). Is it like the world from Halo?

Quote
Firstly, radiometric dating methods, essentially, do not work

From what little independent testing has been done on "moonrocks" we can and have easily determined they are terrestrial in origin and composition

Can you please back up all your scientific claims? Just a URL or title of the article will do. Or if it's your own independent research, that's great. As long as you can fully back it up. Specifically, can you back up that 1. radiometric dating does not work and 2. moon rocks are terrestrial in origin.

I also need to explain a bit more where I am coming from with the moon rocks. There's nothing inconsistent about the fact that they are terrestrial in origin if that is what studies found. The most prominent theory of the moon's origin is that it was created when another object collided with the Earth billions of years ago. That's not the point.

The point is that NASA presented the scientific community with a bunch of rocks, and the experiments by 3rd party researchers found evidence that is consistent with them being moon rocks. My main specific reference at this point is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016703773901907?via%3Dihub

In short, Laul and Schmitt from the Oregon State University of Corvallis found that rocks provided from both NASA and the soviet Luna sample return missions where "nearly identical in chemical composition". This in conjunction with the dating is consistent with the posit that these rocks come from the moon. Also, the nearly identical composition between the Luna and NASA rocks would be hard to pull off if each agency was running its own independent conspiracy. This suggests the most likely scenarios are that there was a global conspiracy or that there was no conspiracy at all. And if we already agree that a global conspiracy it too unlikely to have taken place, this makes the most likely scenario that both missions truly went to the moon. 

Quote
There is a real possibility that the moon is not tangible/physical, and almost certainly not made of rock.
That's a fun thought. Makes me want to read about moon gods.

Quote
Chief among [the natural laws that are violated by "space"] are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the fundamental behavior of gas.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and the notion that there is one of, effectively, infinite size above our heads is both offensively stupid and unscientific.  Nequaquam vacuum.

Is this your full explanation or do you have any further readings to back this up?

Quote
"Natural abhors a vacuum"
You're an eloquent writer, more than I ever will be. But if you want to talk science, you have to speak plainly and precisely, even mathematically if possible. Vacuums are a well defined scientific concept. But saying that "nature abhors it" is giving me nothing tangible that I can work with. Seriously, if you want to have poetry writing contest you will win by a long shot since I have the creative writing skills of a middle schooler. Luckily, that's not exactly what I came here for.

Because nature is not capable of "abhorring" something, that's an example of a claim that is unfalsifiable. So where exactly is the logical contradiction between the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the existence of space? I want to get into all of this.

Quote
[notable whistleblowers/critics who got murdered are] in the wiki! Perhaps the best well known is thomas baron, who is in the wiki.

Unfortunately, I don't have the capacity to read through every reference in the wiki, which is why I'm at this forum to ask the pros such as yourself to handpick the best for me :)

So I read about Thomas Baron. Fascinating! I can't find any reason to doubt the legitimacy of his story. It's very suspicious and creepy for sure. That being said, there's a certain probability the whole thing was a coincidence. There's also a certain probability that he was truly murdered by big brother, but that the moon landings still took place. I would not doubt anyone for learning about this, causing them to keep digging. But I hope you can agree this in itself is not evidence that NASA's expeditions were faked. It's suspicious, but not a logical contradiction.

Quote
Perhaps the most quintessential/obvious [faked footage] is the rat on "mars".  Let me know if you have trouble finding it!

I think I found it. Is this a good link?

Yeah, I see the rat! Or at least, the rock that looks like a rat. Is that it?

I hope we can agree at least at this point that you have no hard evidence that the NASA's expeditions were faked. Though I am starting to understanding where these conspiracy theories might be stemming from. And I'm not saying "conspiracy theory" in a derogatory sense. I'm just saying that's what it is. It's simply not scientific fact that NASA lied about going on expeditions into space, even if you are suspicious. I think there's even evidence supporting their claim that they did go. But can we at least agree there is not hard evidence that they did not go?


Quote
My biases were what led me to be fooled that the footage on the tv was genuine.  It is through the identification and eradication of biases that we make progress in this subject and in seeing the world as it is!


Quote
Recognizing that governments and militaries routinely lie to their people (and some of the reasons why) is hardly a radical view.  It is a basic historical and contemporary fact, which most people know and accept. Further recognizing that corporations/industry does the same thing for the same reason does not take a rocket scientist, nor any sort of "extremism".

I don't disagree that governments and militaries routinely lie. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have called you biased or extreme without backing it up, and it was a tangential and purposeless remark anyway. I just wanted to reign in the conversation a bit. Again, I think we are more or less on the same page here. I don't want to blindly believe the government any more than you do. I was expressing a feeling when I said your perspective sounded biased and extreme and that's all it was. What I'm really here for is to discuss specific evidence and our methodologies for analyzing and interpreting such evidence.

Quote
I was talking about measurements, not experiments.  Experiment is not an ordinary word, it is technical vernacular with a rigorous and inflexible definition.  An experiment is a test that validates or invalidates (or neither) a hypothesis by establishing, ideally, a causal link between the IV/hypothesized cause and DV/hypothesized effect.  Nothing else is an experiment.  Mere observations are never experiments, and students are mistaught in his regard (the cavendish, eratosthenes, bedford level "experiments" are all just observations)

Ok, I'll try to use this definition for "experiment" moving forward.

Quote
Absolutely (though it is in no way an experiment, nor is it mine), and the frozen lake is significantly superior to other locales.  Remove the uncertainty of atmospheric/optical effects by changing methods and one might argue they had "proof" that the globe is fantasy.

I think we can agree this measurement should be done. However, if you're ultimate goal is to measure the shape of the planet, wouldn't you agree it's not enough? What's to stop the crystal structure of ice or some other effect we aren't yet aware of from allowing a gigantic yet flat block of ice to float atop and the spherical world? Even if you have a perfect measreument of the frozen lake, that doesn't translate directly to the shape of the entire world.

There must be another measurement we can think of that measures the shape and dimensions of the world more directly. Here's a thought experiment (don't critique it based on if its realistically possible, its the principle that matters): What if we took a tape measure that was long enough to wrap the world. And with that tape measure we first encircled the polar region (which should show a relatively short measurement). Then we can work our way down to the equator (which should be relatively large). Now, once we go below the equator, we can both measure it and also make that measurement part of a hypothesis. I will hypothesize that when you measure the distance around the southern region (below the equator) it will become gradually shorter as you get further from the equator, and at the same rate that it gets gradually shorter as you approach the polar region. This would be consistent with globe theory and inconsistent with flat earth theory. But I'm not sure about your ring theory, which I need to hear more about. What do you think?

Quote
rectilineator
I did a bit of searching for this but couldn't find anything good. Any published research?