Flat Earthers- what to do with em

Flat Earthers- what to do with em

Author
Discussion

200Plus Club

Original Poster:

10,676 posts

277 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Today we are having a break from flat earth and are back to 9/11 conspiracies. There's a shared video of the 2nd tower strike, from way behind, clearly showing the explosion out as the remnants of the plane almost exited the back of the tower.
This is conclusive proof however "THERE WAS NO PLANE" ..despite the video clearly showing a plane shaped gash in the first tower as well.

Anyway let's not get into a new thread about 911.

Atomic12C

5,180 posts

216 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
The more I read about them I see that they are quite religious grouping of people, with many believing in the traditional christian god.
They seem to wish to pick a fight with science and its development over the past century or so, and their approach is to adopt a form of anti-science argument on the nature of the earth itself.
Why they've focussed just on the shape/form of the earth to bolster their religious faith is something I'm not grasping as of yet.

Anyways, as they see science as the enemy of their religion they are adopting psuedo science and attempting to use religious trickery to twist the meaning of existing scientific theories and observations to create their "anti-science".

Basically trolling established science and theories to the point that people responde by asking questions. Some questions are easy to answer, some require a bit more than average knowledge of science to answer. And I think its here where those that do not have a decent grasp of science fall in to their flat-earth hole.


Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Yes - it's a form of anti-rationality. "I believe therefore I am right" is a winning argument as far as they are concerned.

It's pretty much not worth discussing anything with them as they have switched off their brains.

coldel

7,733 posts

145 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Yes FE is intrinsically linked with proving God through the disproving of science. Problem I saw with all the discussion on other car forums that invariably come up with this stuff is that the posts are something along the lines of 'here is a you tube video explain how x y z can possibly happen on a round earth' - as mentioned previously in this thread, the first question should be 'has this been doctored, has the test been done fairly, who did the test i.e. were they being biased, etc.' which is gratuitously ignored.

I did a fair bit of reading up on 'round earth deniers' so those people that follow websites like sheep, and found that actually there is a fair bit of in-house squabbling going on about whose 'truth' is true about flat earth, where they contradict each other posting up various random you tube videos.

The best one was how gravity was explained...simply put, it is caused by dark energy pushing the flat earth at a constantly accelerating rate creating gravity. They cannot say how they know this, or that they have any evidence of this being true, but hell it will do I guess.

To be quite honest, if it keeps people happy thinking they are 'in the know' whilst everyone else is ignorant, then it doesn't really bother me. Crack on I say if they feel it gives some sort of meaning to their lives!

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
Let's see this clip, then?
Its actually part of the clip i posted earlier in the thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo

The whole clip is only 10 mins but the bit that questions what appear to be bubbles (could be something else?) starts at about 7:25.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Let's see this clip, then?
Its actually part of the clip i posted earlier in the thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo

The whole clip is only 10 mins but the bit that questions what appear to be bubbles (could be something else?) starts at about 7:25.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo&t=...
The spacesuit shot is just graininess and scratchiness on the film - pre-digital, remember.
The "bubble" in front of the solar panel is just a small particle of something.

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
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.
I don't disagree. doesn't it follow that you are in the opposite camp, and have a mental disposition to see what you want to see? if anything is faked, you will be the last to accept it.

Eric Mc said:
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.
Should i understand this to mean that you would not be impressed if it was proved to you that there was faked NASA footage from after 1995?



200Plus Club

Original Poster:

10,676 posts

277 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
Its actually part of the clip i posted earlier in the thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo

The whole clip is only 10 mins but the bit that questions what appear to be bubbles (could be something else?) starts at about 7:25.
Everyone knows they are just the speech bubbles you get in cartoons. Jese.

Anyway back to reality, how did they get The Terminator to do that bit of voiceover and more importantly did he come back?

I saw nothing other than edited red circles added onto the video. I wasted a few minutes however watching their various "proofs". Can I get those minutes redeemed now cheers.

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo&t=...
The spacesuit shot is just graininess and scratchiness on the film - pre-digital, remember.
The "bubble" in front of the solar panel is just a small particle of something.
Most of them looked more likely to be little particles of 'something' to me too, but a few of them did look like air bubbles. I am not going to spend hours looking for the clip but i am sure i have seen another example that was clearer.

As always though I am happy for things that are questioned to be debunked. I am not trying to prove anything. As Eric points out, some of us have a natural disposition to 'see' things and think .."hhmmm maybe there is something there" and some of us don't.

I don't see why other people get so mad about it, but why would I? smile

That's probably my mild autistic traits kicking in.



coldel

7,733 posts

145 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Let's see this clip, then?
Its actually part of the clip i posted earlier in the thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo

The whole clip is only 10 mins but the bit that questions what appear to be bubbles (could be something else?) starts at about 7:25.
There is a bit at around 8:30 that shows three bubbles, but they all travel in different directions (the third one literally 45 degrees in a different direction). I guess throwing the question back at you to justify the conclusion they are air bubbles, given that if you generate air bubbles underwater they all go in the same direction, how would you explain them heading off in different directions?

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
200Plus Club said:
Today we are having a break from flat earth and are back to 9/11 conspiracies. There's a shared video of the 2nd tower strike, from way behind, clearly showing the explosion out as the remnants of the plane almost exited the back of the tower.
This is conclusive proof however "THERE WAS NO PLANE" ..despite the video clearly showing a plane shaped gash in the first tower as well.

Anyway let's not get into a new thread about 911.
Ah yes, the 'nose out' clip.

As you say, we don't need another 9/11 'discussion' on PH, some things are best left alone here smile

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Atomic12C said:
Anyways, as they see science as the enemy of their religion
And don't hesitate to use videos, computers, the internet etc to say so. Whilst sitting in their heated and electrically lit houses, in their man made clothes, eating food out of their fridge and freezer, cooked in their ovens. They rely on the science they despise to tell us how useless it is!!!

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
coldel said:
There is a bit at around 8:30 that shows three bubbles, but they all travel in different directions (the third one literally 45 degrees in a different direction). I guess throwing the question back at you to justify the conclusion they are air bubbles, given that if you generate air bubbles underwater they all go in the same direction, how would you explain them heading off in different directions?
I would say that atleast one of them were definitely were not air bubbles, and probably all three of them were some other kind of particle.

Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
Eric Mc said:
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.
I don't disagree. doesn't it follow that you are in the opposite camp, and have a mental disposition to see what you want to see? if anything is faked, you will be the last to accept it.

Eric Mc said:
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.
Should i understand this to mean that you would not be impressed if it was proved to you that there was faked NASA footage from after 1995?
Prove to me there is faked EVA footage pre 1995 i.e faked not using CGI.

Of course, you should be able to show faked EVA footage from both NASA and Soviet/Russian space missions - just for balance and to prove that faking EVAs is not the exclusive domain of NASA.

And you need to state categorically how and why the footage was faked and, show your sources for that proof. Simple stating "it looks faked" is not proof.

Simply stating reasons why you THINK they might have faked it is not proof either.

jurbie

2,339 posts

200 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
Its actually part of the clip i posted earlier in the thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo

The whole clip is only 10 mins but the bit that questions what appear to be bubbles (could be something else?) starts at about 7:25.
At 8.32 the clip shows 3 'bubbles', the first two go off in much the same direction, around 4 o clock but the third heads in a 2 o clock direction. Surely if these were bubbles in a water tank they'd all go in exactly the same direction?

coldel

7,733 posts

145 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
I would say that atleast one of them were definitely were not air bubbles, and probably all three of them were some other kind of particle.
Agreed. But confirmation bias of a FE would mean that even this very basic principle is ignored and the video put out there. A lot of the 'evidence' is rarely peer reviewed even amongst fellow FE's.

Interesting reading that NASA is hebrew for deceit...but I did notice that if we adopt the 'denier' language of flat earthers and call them round earth deniers the acronym is RED which is the colour of the devil! Conspiracy! laugh

200Plus Club

Original Poster:

10,676 posts

277 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
I've spent about 2 years watching these links being posted on FB daily lol. He's harmless tbh not trying to force it on anyone just sharing stuff a d generally questioning things that's all I think. Some of the people he shares however appear to be complete loons with tin foil hats.

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Prove to me there is faked EVA footage pre 1995 i.e faked not using CGI.

Of course, you should be able to show faked EVA footage from both NASA and Soviet/Russian space missions - just for balance and to prove that faking EVAs is not the exclusive domain of NASA.

And you need to state categorically how and why the footage was faked and, show your sources for that proof. Simple stating "it looks faked" is not proof.

Simply stating reasons why you THINK they might have faked it is not proof either.
I am sorry Eric, can you show me the memo that i must have missed that tells me you are my Boss?
Do you get dental with that position?

I am under no obligation to 'Prove' anything to anyone. I am just engaging in a discussion here.

It is your choice whether to engage me or not, if it riles you so much, that is not my intention and maybe you need to do ask yourself why that is!



Eric Mc

121,779 posts

264 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Shuvi McTupya said:
I am sorry Eric, can you show me the memo that i must have missed that tells me you are my Boss?
Do you get dental with that position?

I am under no obligation to 'Prove' anything to anyone. I am just engaging in a discussion here.

It is your choice whether to engage me or not, if it riles you so much, that is not my intention and maybe you need to do ask yourself why that is!
You make the accusations.

You back them up.

If you can't - that's OK. It only proves that you are waffling. That's fine. It's the conclusion I had already come to.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - simples.

I AM engaging you - but obviously not on the terms you would like.

Shuvi McTupya

24,460 posts

246 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2018
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
You make the accusations.

You back them up.

If you can't - that's OK. It only proves that you are waffling. That's fine. It's the conclusion I had already come to.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - simples.

I AM engaging you - but obviously not on the terms you would like.
The problem with that Eric, is that if it was a ''conspiracy' they are generally quite to hard to prove..otherwise they wouldn't be classed as conspiracies, but fact.