[Dual1ty]

You are asked to get proof you went to the moon.
You go to the moon, take pictures, take rocks back home, get video, measurements, perform experiments. You thoroughly explain how it‘s done and televise it globally.

You are again asked for proof, despite having exhausted all means of providing proof. The onus is no longer on the party that claims to have gone to the moon.

If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid.

What, exactly, is the problem with data coming from a million miles away? I find it perfectly understandable. Maybe instead of looking for an easily digestible single fact, consider the gestalt of spaceflight and its history. For most people, the sheer breadth and depth of the industry and its achievements is more than enough proof. For some people it’s not enough, sure. I’m sure the people actually doing shady business are happy that people are wasting their time looking into space being fake.

As usual, the globe believer doesn't know the definition of proof or the difference between proof and evidence.

I find it perfectly understandable believable.

Of course you do - that's why you're a globe believer. And a Moon landing believer. And probably a COVID believer too. Is there any mainstream narrative you don't believe, by the way? 

[Realestfake]

You would love to think I just eat up whatever narrative. I’m here because I’m a skeptic in the first place. I found out the earth is a globe myself without believing what any external source said. I carefully and honestly considered all possibilities and eventually realized the earth is a globe.

There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.

[Dual1ty]

You would love to think I just eat up whatever narrative. I’m here because I’m a skeptic in the first place. I found out the earth is a globe myself without believing what any external source said. I carefully and honestly considered all possibilities and eventually realized the earth is a globe.

Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? Here's a quote that I found on the internet:

Sadly, or sillily, internet skeptics are really just bulwarks for established orthodoxies. They learn Logical Fallacy 101 but never really doubt their own doubts - which is the essence of skeptictism. They have an arrogance and smugness that an actual skeptic couldn't possibly have because it is inconsistent with the very notion of doubt.

There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.

Such as?

[DuncanDoenitz]

Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? Here's a quote that I found on the internet:

Whilst I can't speak for Realestfake, some of us actually find stuff out without using the internet. 

[SteelyBob]

You would love to think I just eat up whatever narrative. I’m here because I’m a skeptic in the first place. I found out the earth is a globe myself without believing what any external source said. I carefully and honestly considered all possibilities and eventually realized the earth is a globe.

Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? Here's a quote that I found on the internet:

Sadly, or sillily, internet skeptics are really just bulwarks for established orthodoxies. They learn Logical Fallacy 101 but never really doubt their own doubts - which is the essence of skeptictism. They have an arrogance and smugness that an actual skeptic couldn't possibly have because it is inconsistent with the very notion of doubt.

There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.

Such as?

Are you suggesting that video is evidence that Neil DGT thinks the earth is flat?

[Dual1ty]

Are you suggesting that video is evidence that Neil DGT thinks the earth is flat?

I mean, Neil probably knows that the Earth is flat. It sure seems that way. 

Are you saying that you think that the globe is "locally flat"? No such thing as "locally flat" on a sphere I'm afraid. And the size of the ball Earth is XS compared to the other cosmic balls you believe in, so ironically because that one ball is relatively small, you have a big problem on your hands. Oh, balls!

[Realestfake]

Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? Here's a quote that I found on the internet:

Sadly, or sillily, internet skeptics are really just bulwarks for established orthodoxies. They learn Logical Fallacy 101 but never really doubt their own doubts - which is the essence of skeptictism. They have an arrogance and smugness that an actual skeptic couldn't possibly have because it is inconsistent with the very notion of doubt.

What? Thanks for the quote(?), but I’m talking about the real world.

[Dual1ty]

What? Thanks for the quote(?), but I’m talking about the real world.

Sure you are. 

What mainstream narratives don't you believe? C'mon, spill the beans. 

[Pete Svarrior]

There are mainstream narratives I don’t believe, thank you for asking.

Such as?

This is a very interesting question, and it's a shame our resident sceptic didn't find it in himself to answer.

[Everette Graham]

Hi All,

It's been a while.  I couldn't help but take this most recent photo of the dark side of the moon by NASA's DSCOVR satellite very seriously. 



This satellite orbits more than a million miles above earth's surface and this is there first public photo.  What's strikes me most is the apparent size of the Moon and Earth.  Most photos from the moon show the earth as a small dot.  Obviously, within this photo the moon looks smaller and nearer to earth. I think this fits well within the Flat Earth notion of the cosmos.

Here's a good article by HuffPost with more details above DSCOVR:  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nasa-photo-moon-dark-side_n_55c23d3ae4b0138b0bf4abb5

The moon and the earth are experiencing the same perspective effect as images like this are experiencing.

[Everette Graham]

Okay, here's the photo i'm referring to that is pretty common in space media:

Earth Rise

You can read more about "Earth Rise" Pictures here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise

As you can see, the earth is much smaller compared to the moon as opposed to the very large earth compared to the moon in the new DSCVR shot. 

Stack, using your image (which is great btw) it looks like if somebody was standing on the moon, they would be dwarfed by a very large earth which you don't see in the "Earth Rise" picture above.

Astro it's definitely possible that the whole thing could be photoshopped to some level.

Dunkin, I think you have the most reasonable counterargument...   Using a long focal length lens or something similar you can produce an image like this based on research.

Regarding the 1 million Mile Mark, I am more interested in showing you the relative distance Dscvr is from the earth and moon - like Stack's image illustrates.

Any of the above theories have some elements of truth but none can be ruled out I feel.

I hope you genuinely don't believe that's a real image. The lunar surface, the stars, etc. It's obviously a fake, but I believe that I understand your point, which I addressed in my previous reply.

[Dual1ty]

Hi All,

It's been a while.  I couldn't help but take this most recent photo of the dark side of the moon by NASA's DSCOVR satellite very seriously. 



This satellite orbits more than a million miles above earth's surface and this is there first public photo.  What's strikes me most is the apparent size of the Moon and Earth.  Most photos from the moon show the earth as a small dot.  Obviously, within this photo the moon looks smaller and nearer to earth. I think this fits well within the Flat Earth notion of the cosmos.

Here's a good article by HuffPost with more details above DSCOVR:  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nasa-photo-moon-dark-side_n_55c23d3ae4b0138b0bf4abb5

The moon and the earth are experiencing the same perspective effect as images like this are experiencing.

"The same perspective effect". It's already been shown in this thread that it's not. They are in fact different perspective geometries.

But does it matter? Not really. What matters is what I already explained - that you don't know where the data used to generate that image came from.

[Everette Graham]

"The same perspective effect". It's already been shown in this thread that it's not. They are in fact different perspective geometries.

Why, thank you for the correction! Would you care to explain to everyone in the thread what the difference is?

[Dual1ty]

"The same perspective effect". It's already been shown in this thread that it's not. They are in fact different perspective geometries.

Why, thank you for the correction! Would you care to explain to everyone in the thread what the difference is?

Listen. You're asking me to explain the difference between the ground and the sky. If it's not obvious to you already that there's a perspective difference between a small Earth and a huge Earth (even if you don't know the geometrical details), it's a waste of time for me to explain the difference.

My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion. Now, if the best you can come up with against this argument is "incredulity", that's like saying that if you don't believe that a literal Jesus literally resurrected from death or literally walked on water you're being incredulous. Needless to say, this is a fallacy.

It's up to you if you want to be another believer of the secular religion. Or, alternatively, you could grow some real balls and develop some independent thought (which we're all capable of, by the way). Which one is it gonna be?

[AATW]

My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion.

You could apply that to anything which you can't directly verify, which is quite a lot of things.
BUT, it doesn't have to be a blind faith.

We all have a model of reality in our heads. How credible we find things is dependent on whether they conform to that model.
If, for example, you told me you could fly, then I wouldn't believe you. Because, famously, humans can't fly. You'd have to provide some pretty good evidence before I'd believe you. Even if you showed me video of you doing it I'd suspect some trickery.
If you told me that you could do a backflip then I might raise an eyebrow but if you showed me a video of you doing it (pre-supposing that I know it's you) then I'd believe you. I know it's something humans have the ability to do although most can't.
If you told me you could walk then I wouldn't particularly ask you to evidence that. Most people can.

When it comes to space flight. Well, I know that rockets exist. I've personally seen a Shuttle launch when I happened to be in Florida at the right time. The ISS is said to be orbiting the earth. You can look up where and when you can see it and you can observe it directly. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. By triangulation you can calculate the height and speed of it and cross-check that against NASA's claims. Radio hams have been able to contact the astronauts.

Satellite TV demonstrably works. The claim is that it works by dishes pointing at geostationary satellites above the equator. I've observed dishes in countries a lot closer to the equator angled up at a much steeper angle than ones in the UK, which makes sense in that context. And when my neighbour did some building work which blocked the dish I lost my TV signal. And GPS also demonstrably works, and does so in the middle of the ocean.

And of course it's not just NASA sending up satellites and astronauts. Many countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises are now getting in on the act. So we don't just have to take NASA's word for it. I've mentioned above ways anyone can verify their claims about the ISS. When it comes to the moon missions, you had teams in Australia relaying signals for them, you had Jodrell Bank in the UK tracking the Apollo craft - and an unmanned Russian one which was trying to steal a march on them. You don't just need to take NASA's word for it.

NASA and others have provided plenty of evidence of what they're doing, some of that evidence you can verify yourself. Have you? Independent thought isn't just claiming every mainstream narrative is false because it's mainstream.

[Dual1ty]

My point (which you're ignoring) is that it doesn't really matter. What matters is how trusting NASA requires an act of FAITH, just like any religion.

You could apply that to anything which you can't directly verify, which is quite a lot of things.
BUT, it doesn't have to be a blind faith.

We all have a model of reality in our heads. How credible we find things is dependent on whether they conform to that model.
If, for example, you told me you could fly, then I wouldn't believe you. Because, famously, humans can't fly. You'd have to provide some pretty good evidence before I'd believe you. Even if you showed me video of you doing it I'd suspect some trickery.
If you told me that you could do a backflip then I might raise an eyebrow but if you showed me a video of you doing it (pre-supposing that I know it's you) then I'd believe you. I know it's something humans have the ability to do although most can't.
If you told me you could walk then I wouldn't particularly ask you to evidence that. Most people can.

When it comes to space flight. Well, I know that rockets exist. I've personally seen a Shuttle launch when I happened to be in Florida at the right time. The ISS is said to be orbiting the earth. You can look up where and when you can see it and you can observe it directly. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. By triangulation you can calculate the height and speed of it and cross-check that against NASA's claims. Radio hams have been able to contact the astronauts.

Satellite TV demonstrably works. The claim is that it works by dishes pointing at geostationary satellites above the equator. I've observed dishes in countries a lot closer to the equator angled up at a much steeper angle than ones in the UK, which makes sense in that context. And when my neighbour did some building work which blocked the dish I lost my TV signal. And GPS also demonstrably works, and does so in the middle of the ocean.

And of course it's not just NASA sending up satellites and astronauts. Many countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises are now getting in on the act. So we don't just have to take NASA's word for it. I've mentioned above ways anyone can verify their claims about the ISS. When it comes to the moon missions, you had teams in Australia relaying signals for them, you had Jodrell Bank in the UK tracking the Apollo craft - and an unmanned Russian one which was trying to steal a march on them. You don't just need to take NASA's word for it.

NASA and others have provided plenty of evidence of what they're doing, some of that evidence you can verify yourself. Have you? Independent thought isn't just claiming every mainstream narrative is false because it's mainstream.

You're rambling... I'm talking about none of those things.

When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude. Not even with the ISS. And of course, nothing to do with rockets. But you already know that these things are different, and yet you're deliberately comparing them for the sake of making an argument and trying to legitimize NASA & the globe.

I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly. Even if someone tries to trick you with a video, that can be safely dismissed as something pretty innocent because it's for entertainment purposes (think Criss Angel on Mindfreak) - but if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different. Especially since in the case of NASA, the trickery and the deception that they constantly fabricate and push into the mainstream has cosmological implications.

Apparenty, I needed to explain this to you.

[AATW]

When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude.

Of course it does. Again, it's about our model of reality.
If we accept satellites exist and are beaming data from space to our satellite dishes - I've outlined some evidence for that - then why couldn't data be sent from a million miles away? Because it's a big number?
If we accept the ISS exists and is orbiting the earth - I've outlined the evidence for that - then why can't a satellite orbit at a greater distance? Again, is it just because it's a big number?

What is the difference in principle between the ISS, GPS satellites, TV Satellites and the DSCOVR one which the OP references? The principles which get them into orbit are the same.

I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly.

I do. My model of reality tells me that humans can't fly.
It also tells me that humans can send objects into orbits around the earth. Multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on it, the ISS can be directly observed, I have personally seen a Shuttle launch.

if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different.

Well, sure. IF NASA are doing the trickery. I've explained why I don't believe they are. There is good evidence for satellites existing. Evidence you can check yourself.
Have you? Or are you just declaring everything mainstream fake because it's mainstream?

[Dual1ty]

When NASA tells you that they have a satellite orbiting "L1" and it's sending data from 1 million miles away, that has nothing to do with TV satellites my dude.

Of course it does. Again, it's about our model of reality.
If we accept satellites exist and are beaming data from space to our satellite dishes - I've outlined some evidence for that - then why couldn't data be sent from a million miles away? Because it's a big number?
If we accept the ISS exists and is orbiting the earth - I've outlined the evidence for that - then why can't a satellite orbit at a greater distance? Again, is it just because it's a big number?

What is the difference in principle between the ISS, GPS satellites, TV Satellites and the DSCOVR one which the OP references? The principles which get them into orbit are the same.

I do wish you were capable of applying the same skepticism to the above that you apply to someone claiming they can fly.

I do. My model of reality tells me that humans can't fly.
It also tells me that humans can send objects into orbits around the earth. Multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on it, the ISS can be directly observed, I have personally seen a Shuttle launch.

if it is a government institution like NASA that gets billions in tax money doing the trickery and making claims about objective reality that at the same time get taught to young children in schools through a mandatory curriculum, that's completely different.

Well, sure. IF NASA are doing the trickery. I've explained why I don't believe they are. There is good evidence for satellites existing. Evidence you can check yourself.
Have you? Or are you just declaring everything mainstream fake because it's mainstream?

Where have I claimed that satellites are fake, darling? Can you quote me saying that or all you have is your strawman fallacious crap?

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there. Capisce? And no, satellite TV has nothing to do with DSCOVR. Now, pish off with your argumentative crap and have fun with your "model of reality". 

[AATW]

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

[Dual1ty]

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?