Flat Earthers- what to do with em
Discussion
Shuvi McTupya said:
DanL said:
Does anyone know why they they think they’re being lied to? By which I mean - whether the earth is flat or not is broadly unimportant. What’s the claimed motivation for lying about it, and “fooling” people?
I just googled it and all i came up with is that flat Earthers believe they are being lied too by Nasa, who are trying to 'hide god'. Make of that what you will.An awful lot of conspiracy theory mental cases (i.e. all of them) do seem to have a thing about "NASA".
Eric Mc said:
Shuvi McTupya said:
DanL said:
Does anyone know why they they think they’re being lied to? By which I mean - whether the earth is flat or not is broadly unimportant. What’s the claimed motivation for lying about it, and “fooling” people?
I just googled it and all i came up with is that flat Earthers believe they are being lied too by Nasa, who are trying to 'hide god'. Make of that what you will.An awful lot of conspiracy theory mental cases (i.e. all of them) do seem to have a thing about "NASA".
Eric Mc said:
The Flat Earth Society predates NASA by two years. It was founded in 1956. NASA was founded in 1958 (60 years ago).
An awful lot of conspiracy theory mental cases (i.e. all of them) do seem to have a thing about "NASA".
I blame Hollywood. They make much better space/moon films than NASA and they don't go to the moon/into space to do it. An awful lot of conspiracy theory mental cases (i.e. all of them) do seem to have a thing about "NASA".
They give massive exaggerated credit for almost all "falsehoods" to NASA. When it comes to space science, astronomy, physics, engineering, etc etc, t's almost as if they have only ever heard of NASA and know nothing about any other scientific institutions, research bodies, other government space agencies etc
And, of course, they don't.
And, of course, they don't.
Shuvi McTupya said:
Eric Mc said:
Even in 1956?
Sure, Hollywood's stuff was far less grainy than NASA's stuff, and the story lines were more exciting, even back then!And if you want a very good example of the best Hollywood could do regarding spaceflight in 1956, have a look at George Pal's "Destination Moon" and tell me then how good it is.
Shuvi McTupya said:
I have to wonder you you picked that year in that case.
And you do realise i am just baiting you, right?
To be honest, based on some of the suppositions you seemed to be advocating in previous posts, I'm not altogether convinced that you are baiting. Your previous comments do seem to indicate to me that you have a character that is prone to falling for some of this nonsensical mumbo jumbo in the mistaken belief that you are applying critical thinking.And you do realise i am just baiting you, right?
I always find that those who do spout support for such nonsense tend to be lacking in a basic understanding of science, technology or history.
Hopefullly, you are not in that category but your earlier postings were not encouraging.
The original Flat Earth Society was actually founded in the UK in 1956 EXPRESSLY because by 1956 it was pretty obvious that an earth orbiting satellite was going to be launched sometime in 1957 or 1958. Both the US and the USSR had stated that this was going to be their contribution to the International Geophysical Year (IGY) which actually covered an 18 month period from mid 1956 to the end of 1958. Both countries succeeded in their aims, with Sputnik 1 being launched in October 1957 and Explorer 1 being launched in January 1958. Indeed, the Soviets and the Americans even managed a couple of more successful launched before the IGY was finished.
In fact, the US Vanguard satellite launched in March 1958 is still orbiting the earth - even though it has long since conked out.
In all that time (1956 to mid 1958), there was no NASA.
Eric Mc said:
To be honest, based on some of the suppositions you seemed to be advocating in previous posts, I'm not altogether convinced that you are baiting. Your previous comments do seem to indicate to me that you have a character that is prone to falling for some of this nonsensical mumbo jumbo in the mistaken belief that you are applying critical thinking.
I always find that those who do spout support for such nonsense tend to be lacking in a basic understanding of science, technology or history.
Hopefullly, you are not in that category but your earlier postings were not encouraging.
In the spirit of honesty, i have seen quite a few things from NASA that do look staged to me, but at the same time I have no doubts that all the space missions happened so I am not sure why they would need to fake anything. I always find that those who do spout support for such nonsense tend to be lacking in a basic understanding of science, technology or history.
Hopefullly, you are not in that category but your earlier postings were not encouraging.
d, including one up the arse, then watch the f
Wont work - they will just claim he's be got to by The Man and is now a paid shill, and any video evidence is CGI/Fake
Dunning-Kruger is strong with these folk. They are right and know the "Truth"(TM), everyone else is blinkered of a shill. There is literally no evidence that can persuade them they are wrong. Anyone who does change their mind - see first sentence
Dunning-Kruger is strong with these folk. They are right and know the "Truth"(TM), everyone else is blinkered of a shill. There is literally no evidence that can persuade them they are wrong. Anyone who does change their mind - see first sentence
Mr2Mike said:
.........
One thing that makes me chuckle is the FE model with the sun and moon circling above a pizza shaped earth. To explain day and night the sun only illuminates a very specific region at any given time so it's apparently the sun is constructed more like a nuclear powered spotlight than a star.
Many of us (and that must include Flat Earthers) will have seen the sun set in the west and disappear below the horizon only to reappear some hours later climbing above the horizon in the east. And yet during those hours of darkness the sun will have been well above the horizon (even directly overhead between the tropics).One thing that makes me chuckle is the FE model with the sun and moon circling above a pizza shaped earth. To explain day and night the sun only illuminates a very specific region at any given time so it's apparently the sun is constructed more like a nuclear powered spotlight than a star.
So does that mean that half the population of the world are lying and it's actually dark there as well?
Shuvi McTupya said:
In the spirit of honesty, i have seen quite a few things from NASA that do look staged to me, but at the same time I have no doubts that all the space missions happened so I am not sure why they would need to fake anything.
Because they haven't faked anything.You are not doing yourself any favours.
CanAm said:
Many of us (and that must include Flat Earthers) will have seen the sun set in the west and disappear below the horizon only to reappear some hours later climbing above the horizon in the east. And yet during those hours of darkness the sun will have been well above the horizon (even directly overhead between the tropics).
So does that mean that half the population of the world are lying and it's actually dark there as well?
All them foreigners - you just can't trust 'em.So does that mean that half the population of the world are lying and it's actually dark there as well?
And all those time zones - and watching live TV from Australia when its daylight there and nighttime here. Those sneaky Aussies trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Eric Mc said:
Because they haven't faked anything.
You are not doing yourself any favours.
We have already established that you can't have this discussion because you will refuse to look at things people think might indicate manipulation or fakery. So let's not waste each other's time.You are not doing yourself any favours.
For example I recently saw a clip of a space walk and there was the occasional bubble coming from the astronaut's suit. To me that suggested that they had taken a training video from underwater and manipulated it to make it appear to be a real mission.
I can think of a few reasons why they may do things like that that without coming to the conclusion that all space footage is fake!
And of course It is possible that the bubbles have been added a later date by someone, anything is possible.
But you are not in a position to comment if you haven't seen it.
Shuvi McTupya said:
We have already established that you can't have this discussion because you will refuse to look at things people think might indicate manipulation or fakery. So let's not waste each other's time.
For example I recently saw a clip of a space walk and there was the occasional bubble coming from the astronaut's suit. To me that suggested that they had taken a training video from underwater and manipulated it to make it appear to be a real mission.
I can think of a few reasons why they may do things like that that without coming to the conclusion that all space footage is fake!
And of course It is possible that the bubbles have been added a later date by someone, anything is possible.
But you are not in a position to comment if you haven't seen it.
Let's see this clip, then?For example I recently saw a clip of a space walk and there was the occasional bubble coming from the astronaut's suit. To me that suggested that they had taken a training video from underwater and manipulated it to make it appear to be a real mission.
I can think of a few reasons why they may do things like that that without coming to the conclusion that all space footage is fake!
And of course It is possible that the bubbles have been added a later date by someone, anything is possible.
But you are not in a position to comment if you haven't seen it.
Shuvi McTupya said:
We have already established that you can't have this discussion because you will refuse to look at things people think might indicate manipulation or fakery. So let's not waste each other's time.
For example I recently saw a clip of a space walk and there was the occasional bubble coming from the astronaut's suit. To me that suggested that they had taken a training video from underwater and manipulated it to make it appear to be a real mission.
I can think of a few reasons why they may do things like that that without coming to the conclusion that all space footage is fake!
And of course It is possible that the bubbles have been added a later date by someone, anything is possible.
But you are not in a position to comment if you haven't seen it.
I have watched literally thousands of hours of EVA over 50 years (NASA, Russian and others) and I have never, ever remotely seen any footage that looked fake. The only people who see "faked" footage are those who are wired to see "fake" footage i.e. they have a mental disposition to seeing what they want to see.For example I recently saw a clip of a space walk and there was the occasional bubble coming from the astronaut's suit. To me that suggested that they had taken a training video from underwater and manipulated it to make it appear to be a real mission.
I can think of a few reasons why they may do things like that that without coming to the conclusion that all space footage is fake!
And of course It is possible that the bubbles have been added a later date by someone, anything is possible.
But you are not in a position to comment if you haven't seen it.
Up until the mid 1990s when CGI techniques became available, any Hollywood recreations of Zero G betrayed the fact that it was shot in a studio. Even the best Hollywood footage gave itself away (such as the EVA scenes in "2001 - A Space Odyssey"). So, for the first 30 years of EVA activity, the technology to accurately portray weightlessness just wasn't there.
The implications are that any footage of real EVA prior to about 1995 is genuine EVA footage. If you can show me an actual pre-1995 piece of NASA or Russian EVA that is obviously faked I would be extremely impressed.
After 1995, Hollywood began to acquire the technology to make EVA look more realistic - but even then they still get it laughably wrong - as in "Gravity" (which contains some of the better portrayals of EVA in a movie, to be fair).
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff