Flat Earthers- what to do with em
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well that's a different matter. Aldrin didn't punch him because he was deeply offended by the plonkers idiotic opinions (as was suggested), he punched him because he feared for his and his wife's safety.
It was both. I'd have whacked him too for being an annoying, ignorant twerp.Shuvi McTupya said:
I could say the same to you Eric. you refuse to address the one thing i am talking about.
I havent said that any space missions are fake. All I have said is that i have seen a video that looked a bit weird and offered a list of possible explanations that i could think off but you refuse to even look at so you can comment.
Why do you disregard one obvious explanation, that to someone who’se never spent time in free-fall that things in free-fall look weird?I havent said that any space missions are fake. All I have said is that i have seen a video that looked a bit weird and offered a list of possible explanations that i could think off but you refuse to even look at so you can comment.
Edited by James_B on Sunday 5th August 20:31
James_B said:
No, it’s not like that. We see that most religious people believe in only their religion’s god or gods but that conspiracy theorists tend to believe in a great many.
The only interesting thing about conspiracy theorists is the aberrant psychology that leads people to these clusters of belief. It looks likely to be a problem with their agency detection. Agency detection is very important, but if it’s overactive then they see agency where there is none.
As in your case, it leads to people who believe in one conspiracy believing several. What else do you have these thoughts about? Chemtrails, pan-world government or the like, or are the three that you mentioned the only ones?
I dont even know what a pan world government is, and I dont believe in chemtrails, not that i would put it passed 'them' to use airborne susbtances..'Chemtrails' are a bit too obvious in my opinion! They are just Contrails The only interesting thing about conspiracy theorists is the aberrant psychology that leads people to these clusters of belief. It looks likely to be a problem with their agency detection. Agency detection is very important, but if it’s overactive then they see agency where there is none.
As in your case, it leads to people who believe in one conspiracy believing several. What else do you have these thoughts about? Chemtrails, pan-world government or the like, or are the three that you mentioned the only ones?
You appear to be suggesting that anyone that has questions when they see things that make no sense to them and have no precedent have psychological issues. I actually think that it is more weird when people just go "yeah so what, don't worry about it. I saw it on the BBC so it is true"
The things that have peaked my interest have been events that have allowed powerful people to do things that would not have been possible should the events not have occurred, EG:
The burning of the Reichstag, and the subsequent establishment of the Nazi party leading to WW2
The JFK/Lee Harvey Oswald/Jack Ruby thing.
Some of the events that happened on 9/11, and the subsequent invasions and regime change and the never ending war on terrorism etc etc
But I have learned that these are not discussions that are suitable for PH and I don't want to take this thread further off the rails so lets not get into it
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Eric Mc said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Much as I think moon landing deniers are complete idiots, I find it hard to believe that men brave enough to test and fly rockets would be greatly offended by these idiots. They're hardly snowflakes. I suspect the guy you spoke to, who was probably a bean counter or something, was greatly offended, but the blokes at the sharp end couldn't give two hoots about what a few morons think.
Buzz Aldrin was offended enough to smack one in the gob. Buzz is no snowflake.I don't think hitting people who hold stupid opinions is a cool thing to do.
t, deserved to get beaten.Bright Halo said:
I can always remember a friend of my dads who was well into his photography saying that the colour pictures the astronauts took on the lunar surface were incredibly good and how difficult that must have been even with their advanced Hassleblad cameras.
The focus, contrast and everything else was spot on.
All adjustments done manually whilst wearing very cumbersome gloves.
I heard that from him about 40years ago and then I read it in an article about two years ago by someone who thought the moon landings were real but the photography was all faked.
Strange world we live in.
Well if a friend of your Dad was into his photography then that's the whole thing blown wide open. Neil, Buzz, Alan, Pete.... all liars, the conspiracy exposed.The focus, contrast and everything else was spot on.
All adjustments done manually whilst wearing very cumbersome gloves.
I heard that from him about 40years ago and then I read it in an article about two years ago by someone who thought the moon landings were real but the photography was all faked.
Strange world we live in.
Or....maybe, just maybe, they knew exactly the amount of light that would be present on the moon (where, just in case you didn't know it was broad daylight for the entire duration of each and every landing). So knowing how much light there is you can set your exposure and shutter speed well in advance of taking pics, and set your focus too. Small aperture, focus to a mid-distance, everything looking nice and sharp.
Ah, but hang on you say, how come all of the pictures were so good? They weren't numb nuts. Tens of thousands were taken over the missions, many of which are on Flickr, and many of which are exactly as you'd expect, pretty poorly framed. Could it be that you only see the good ones on the internet? Well duh.
Shuvi McTupya said:
Super Slo Mo said:
Out of self interest I watched the clip. I don’t see anything untoward going on.
Television is my day job and all I saw in that film was some edited footage, with no proof of its provenance, that’s been cut together to tell a particular story.
It’s not proof of anything, I wouldn’t take it too seriously.
Thank you. that was one of my suggestions.Television is my day job and all I saw in that film was some edited footage, with no proof of its provenance, that’s been cut together to tell a particular story.
It’s not proof of anything, I wouldn’t take it too seriously.
So, in your opinion it is Nasa footage that has been edited in an attempt to discredit Nasa.
To me, it definitely looks like a guy might look if he were on a harness , but i am happy to accept he might not be!
As I said, I think it’s footage that has been edited in a particular way to tell a story. How that story is biased will depend on what it is the person editing the footage wants it to be.
I see your point that it might look as though he’s in a harness, but he’s effectively weightless so his posture would, you’d expect, be different to normal.
Personally I think his body would look different if it was just supported at the waist by a harness. So would his clothes.
Shuvi McTupya said:
I could say the same to you Eric. you refuse to address the one thing i am talking about.
I havent said that any space missions are fake. All I have said is that i have seen a video that looked a bit weird and offered a list of possible explanations that i could think off but you refuse to even look at so you can comment.
If they’re not faked, what would be the point in faking footage? They could (and do) easily get real footage...I havent said that any space missions are fake. All I have said is that i have seen a video that looked a bit weird and offered a list of possible explanations that i could think off but you refuse to even look at so you can comment.
Shuvi McTupya said:
You appear to be suggesting that anyone that has questions when they see things that make no sense to them and have no precedent have psychological issues. I actually think that it is more weird when people just go "yeah so what, don't worry about it. I saw it on the BBC so it is true"
No, not anyone who questions things, but yes the people who believe in these grand conspiracies that would take thousands or tens of thousands of people to carry them off. And it’s not what I think, it’s what the psychology reports say.Do you honestly think that someone like me, an ex particle physicist bases my view on what is physically likely on what I read on the BBC?
Which do you think is more like,y, you have a minor psychological mis-function or a great many thousands of NASA engineers and contractors have kept a conspiracy quiet for about fifty years?
The human brain is fallible, it is a much set of rules and signals optimised to survive on the Savannah. It goes wrong. Read the Oliver Sachs books, understand false memories, study how heuristics and biases affect our view of reality.
Claiming that your wet-wear is able to see a truth that few others see is generally a sign that you have a problem with your mind. A small mis-function, but quite possibly a diagnosable one.
Eric Mc said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well that's a different matter. Aldrin didn't punch him because he was deeply offended by the plonkers idiotic opinions (as was suggested), he punched him because he feared for his and his wife's safety.
It was both. I'd have whacked him too for being an annoying, ignorant twerp.James_B said:
Why do you disregard one obvious explanation, that to someone who’se never spent time in free-fall that things in free-fall look weird
]
I didn't disregard it, I didn't consider it but I did ask for any suggestions that I might have missed.]
Are you saying that astronauts in a weightless environment are actually experiencing a feeling of freefall like skydivers but without the wind, or the gravity? I am quite confident it doesn't feel like freefall to them but I do accept that when in orbit the craft is actually 'falling'.
They train underwater because it is very similar to the weightlessness they experience in space. Is the weightlessness different when they are in orbit to how it is when they are transiting to the moon, what with one being 'freefall' and one not.
James_B said:
Claiming that your wet-wear is able to see a truth that few others see is generally a sign that you have a problem with your mind. A small mis-function, but quite possibly a diagnosable one.
Let's not forget that there was a time when Suggesting that the earth was round would have got you roundly ridiculed by the masses of normal folk.Just because the majority believe something it doesn't always make them right, particularly if they believe it because politicians or the mainstream media convince them too and that's all the 'research' they need to do.
Shuvi McTupya said:
Let's not forget that there was a time when Suggesting that the earth was round would have got you roundly ridiculed by the masses of normal folk.
Just because the majority believe something it doesn't always make them right, particularly if they believe it because politicians or the mainstream media convince them too and that's all the 'research' they need to do.
Actually, there wasn't. A spherical earth was accepted around 300BCE. Just because the majority believe something it doesn't always make them right, particularly if they believe it because politicians or the mainstream media convince them too and that's all the 'research' they need to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
Shuvi McTupya said:
Some of the events that happened on 9/11, and the subsequent invasions and regime change and the never ending war on terrorism etc etc
Yes, it was all part of a clever plan to piss away billions and billions of dollars fighting a bunch of backwater primitives on the other side of the planet.eldar said:
Actually, there wasn't. A spherical earth was accepted around 300BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
And before that??https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
Shuvi McTupya said:
Let's not forget that there was a time when Suggesting that the earth was round would have got you roundly ridiculed by the masses of normal folk.
Just because the majority believe something it doesn't always make them right, particularly if they believe it because politicians or the mainstream media convince them too and that's all the 'research' they need to do.
The difference being that today you have to choose to be ignorant if you live in a first world country and were at least somewhat educated.Just because the majority believe something it doesn't always make them right, particularly if they believe it because politicians or the mainstream media convince them too and that's all the 'research' they need to do.
mko9 said:
Yes, it was all part of a clever plan to piss away billions and billions of dollars fighting a bunch of backwater primitives on the other side of the planet.
A lot of which (taxpayers money) ended up in the pockets of those who get to make such decisions so I am not sure they would regard that as being a downside.Shuvi McTupya said:
Is the weightlessness different when they are in orbit to how it is when they are transiting to the moon, what with one being 'freefall' and one not.
Massive misconception, right here; en route to the moon they are still in freefall, indeed still in earth orbit, just one with an apoapsis in the vicinity of the moon's orbital radius.Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff