Comments by "MrSirhcsellor" (@MrSirhcsellor) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
Flat Earthers repeat every argument they hear, almost verbatim, from strangers on YouTube channels, so how can you honestly think they’re not just believing what they’re told as well? They choose to believe these con men over actual experts, despite their lack of credentials and experience, because they trust them more than current systems of authority, because these people are generally like them, average joes...but they’re still just blindly following what others tell them, so nothings really changed for them, they just think it did.
The difference is, science has developed a working model of reality that is testable and repeatable and USEFUL for applied science. Everything from engineering, to navigation, communication and infrastructure, it all makes use of the heliocentric model...and it works. That’s for a good reason, because it’s accurate. While FE just has paranoid bullshit, nothing that’s actually useful. They all just simply believe they’re somehow superior, simply because they’re part of a niche’ group of people, who believe something contrary to everyone else. They’re more like hipsters of knowledge...it’s exciting to think you know something others don’t, even if that something is completely nonsensical and doesn’t fit reality.
Also, ever think maybe that guy in the car was just being prepared? Is he hurting himself or others wearing a mask in his car alone? No, so why do you care? Probably even forgot he had it on...it’s pretty easy to forget when you’re wearing them off and on all day. Fact still remains, masks help limit the spread of pathogens ejected from every breathing individual, so it’s just smart. You’re not special or ahead of the curb for not wearing a mask...you’re just a selfish asshole.
I’m sorry if you don’t believe this pandemic is real, try spending some time in an ICU for a few hours. I had a doctor friend tell me a story of a dying man in his care, gasping his lungs out, saying the government had poisoned him, over and over again, never thinking he was sick with anything...believing right down to his last breath, that it was all bullshit. It’s incredible how deep this paranoia goes...it’s sad. We’re lucky this thing is only slightly worse than the flu in terms of mortality rate...or we’d be fucked. Even if you’re not sure, the least you can do is mask up. I get that you feel it’s a breach of your freedoms, but we’re in a society, that always comes with a certain level of manners and cooperation. Thinking of others sometimes, rather than just yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Moon orbits the Earth...and during about half of that orbit, it’s going between the Sun and the Earth. So seeing the Moon during the day is exactly what we’d expect to happen, if the Moon is orbiting around Earth. Pretty simple stuff to figure out. If you need further help, just watch this very simple demonstration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz01pTvuMa0&t
Why would you think oceans would be floating in the universe, if gravity is real? The strongest gravity well in our local area is created by our Earth, so water is going to be drawn to that gravity...it has no way of breaking free of that gravity. So what’s holding our oceans...gravity is. And yes we can conclude that, because gravity has been proven with evidence, if you’d like to see that evidence, I don’t mind sharing it.
Yes, governments lie, people lie...but science is just a method of thought for deducing the mysteries of physical reality, it’s just another tool in the belt...it has about as much agenda as a hammer does. The nice thing about science, is that anyone can learn how to use the method...then you can test these things for yourself and see if they’re true. People will lie, but evidence won’t. So learn the method if you’d like to learn how science came to the conclusions that it has. Then the world becomes a lot less scary and uncertain.
1
-
Wow...you really didn't pay much attention in physics class did you. Soooooo many misunderstandings. You're forgetting about the laws of motion, most notably conservation of momentum. Here's a helium balloon hovering inside a moving train https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Dyl2msozc wow...didn't know a balloon could move that fast! Once something is in motion, it stays in motion, conserving the momentum of the inertial reference frame it is moving with. A helicopter took off from the surface rotating with the Earth 1000 mph, it will conserve the momentum indefinitely and hover just fine in place, thanks to conservation of momentum and relative motion.
Pretty simple physics that is quite easy to demonstrate. Here's more proof of conservation of momentum. https://imgur.com/gallery/70m3Fku Wow...how is this guy landing dead center of the trampoline on each bounce, even though it's in motion? Now here's a guy hovering a drone inside a moving van, demonstrating the same physics of a helicopter hovering over the Earth as it rotates. https://youtu.be/HIycHlAsDZk?t=151
Our atmosphere does the same thing, it moves with our rotation at close to the same relative rate...so no, there won't be 500 mph winds and of course there isn't. But there are winds, and what do you think creates those winds in the first place? You guessed it, Earths rotation, which creates a fluid dynamic system of motion to occur in our atmosphere, generating winds. What causes the winds in your Flat Earth system of non motion? Shouldn't everything just remain still? Of course it's a lot more complex then that, storms and winds are generated in many ways, from pressure differences, to temperature, to buoyancy, but a HUGE factor is rotational motion. We know this, because our atmosphere behaves as it should if it were in a rotational motion, the Coriolis effect we observe in larger storms, is more proof of that motion.
Our spin does not create gravity...who the hell told you that? No wonder you're so mixed up about things.
A car doesn't have wings....a butterfly does, pretty simple to see how it's able to fly. It's incredible anyone has to explain that to an adult. So now what happens when a butterfly is not flapping those wings? You guessed it, It falls to Earth...like everything does...it is not free from gravity, it just has less mass making it easier to resist it. Gravity effects mass, if you have more mass, you will have a harder time resisting gravity. A car has more mass, so it's going to be effected much more by gravity...this is simple stuff. All things fall at the same rate of acceleration, because gravity attracts everything at the same rate, but with more mass, that means more matter being attracted, meaning heavier...meaning more energy is going to be required to resist gravity enough to get off the surface. This is demonstrated in flight aerodynamics and rocket science...we know how much energy is required per unit of mass, we put rockets into space all the time, we put planes into flight every single day. YOUR misunderstandings of physics will not change that. :/
So how does weight by itself put matter into motion towards the ground? That is an accelerating motion, but what causes that motion? First law of motion again is that nothing is put into motion without a force, so how does weight know to fall down towards Earth every time? Weight is caused by gravity for one thing, weight is a measurement of inertia caused by the downward acceleration of matter and the resistance of the surface keeping it from getting closer to center, which creates inertia, which we measure as weight. Density is what exists but density is not a force, it is just a property of matter and has no means to put anything into motion on its own. You require a force to put matter into motion...there is no way around that I'm afraid. So what force is causing the accelerating motion we call falling?
You really need to stop being so ignorant. Do you see all the technology out there today? Do you really think it got there because scientists don't know what they're doing? Maybe if you payed better attention in school, you wouldn't be so paranoid and afraid of the modern world. Learn some physics.
1
-
Well, he probably could have explained things better, I do agree, but this isn’t a science channel, so that’s not really what he does here. Johnny is an independent journalist, so he focuses more on the people and the group, not the science.
But if you require a bit more info, here it is. Both experiments he used were examples of inconclusive experiments. The first one (level on a plane) is just flawed from the start, because that’s not how a level works. A spirit level uses buoyancy in a two part density column, to find centre of gravity. Flat Earthers are ignoring the force of gravity, so they’re ignoring important variables and reaching a false conclusion, from the wrong assumptions. Put simply, you can’t use a spirit level to determine the shape of surface, any more than you can use a compass to determine the shape of a magnet; the bubble moves with force of gravity, just like a compass needle moves with the force of the magnet.
So it’s flawed right from the start, his point is that people who become flat Earthers don’t see or understand how that experiment is flawed…that’s a big part of why they become flat Earthers, they lack some knowledge and/or understanding, so they reach false conclusions. So he was basically trolling them, that’s the whole point of recreating that experiment, to make fun of them a little. He knew it was flawed before doing it, he only included it as a joke…but it does also help to make his main point; why do people become flat Earthers? The answer is because they’re kinda dumb and uneducated…if we’re being brutally honest. He was a bit more gentle about it, but that’s basically what it boils down too.
The other experiment is a bit better, in that it’s a legit experiment with a good premise, but the flaw it makes is sloppy experimentation. Robotham’s version of the experiment is inconclusive, because he simply did not do enough to render a conclusive result. And it was riddled with errors. He used the wrong math that didn’t factor height of the observer. He only used one marker, only making one observation, and included zero controls; proper experimentation requires multiple data sets, with controls to help isolate the variable you’re testing. And he ignored important variables like atmospheric refraction, which does occur, and can effect what you see at distances. So his experiment is extremely inconclusive…that’s the problem. You can not use inconclusive results to reach a conclusion with, if you do you are more than likely doing so out of bias. The problem here is that they do reach a conclusion, regardless of its flaws…and then they ignore any attempts to point out how it’s flawed.
Proper recreation of this experiment actually verifies the opposite of what he claimed, that Earth is curving. A great example of a modern day recreation of that experiment is the Rainy Lake experiment, look it up if it interests you, it’s not difficult to find the official research blog.
Anyway, I hope that information is helpful or at the very least interesting. Take care.
1
-
Ok, but that's assuming all the air isn't rotating WITH the Earth, at the same relative rate of motion. While driving in your car, are you feeling any of that drag force from the air that's moving with you, inside the vehicle? No...cause it's moving with you at the same rate, so it's not smashing into you, so no drag force. It does this thanks to relative motion and conservation of moment, which is basic physics of motion. So...what evidence do you have to assume the air of our Earth is not moving with the surfaces rotation? You'd have to falsify conservation of momentum, gravity, and fluid dynamics to make your assumption even remotely plausible...and it's all pretty established physics, so good luck with that.
Flat Earth loves to ignore physics when it suites them, but that's not how you remain objective. I'd suggest learning more about fluid dynamics and relative motion. It's all real physics that's pretty easy to demonstrate and understand, and it does matter here, so kind of important to understand this physics...before you jump to any false conclusions due to a lack of knowledge on the subject. So feel free, lots of videos and information here on YouTube that could help you out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@April85... People don't bat an eye at Flat Earth claims, because we know where you're going wrong. It's pretty simple. It's fine to question things, but after enough research it becomes pretty clear that Flat Earth is the perfect example of confirmation bias and misinformation run amok. But allow me to address some of your points now.
Yes, the LINEAR surface speed of the Earths rotation is 1000 mph, but viewing it from thousands miles away to get a full image, and parallax will cause that speed to appear to grind to a halt. Ever wondered why a 500 mph passenger jet that traces across the sky, doesn't look like it's traveling at 500 mph across the sky? It's simple, because of parallax, which is effected by distance. Basically, the farther away something is, the less it will appear to move...it's the same thing that makes objects you drive past on the side of the road appear to whiz by you at blistering speeds when they're close to you on the side of the road, but the further away you look (distant trees, houses, buildings, hills, mountains, etc), the farther these objects are away from you, the slower they appear to move relative to. Parallax is why this occurs. So knowing this...if you were to observe the Earth from thousands of miles away, which is required to get a full image of it, how fast do you think the surface would appear to move, due to parallax?
To get a full snap of the Earth, requires the observer be several thousand miles away...a passenger jet fly's at roughly 6 miles altitude, and travels at 500 mph, and from only that distance it looks like it's barely crawling across the sky...what do you think a few thousand more miles is going to do to the Earth? 500 mph is half the speed of the Earths rotation...so think about that for a moment. Take all the time you need.
Really though, you don't even need to go through all that trouble of understanding how parallax works (though it's not hard and you probably should anyway), all you need to realize, is that the Earth completes ONE ROTATION every 24 hours. So if you're an astronaut, and if you were look at the Earth...it would take 24 hours for it to complete a full rotation and come back around with the same face towards you that it started with when you started observing. To put that into perspective, pick up a basketball, now spin it so that it takes 24 hours to complete ONE ROTATION. That's 2x's slower then the hour hand of a clock! Do ya think you'd notice it rotating? Do you notice an hour hand moving? No...you don't....so what makes you think you'd spot it moving if it was rotating twice as slow?
No, I'm sorry, but I'm not looking for evidence of Flat Earth anymore, I'm not new to this discussion, I've been looking at this conspiracy for over 3 years now, I have concluded the Earth is a sphere. I know this argument inside and out and I've heard it all, I have successfully falsified every claim made by Flat Earth and compiled an absolutely overwhelming mountain of evidence that supports the Globe in every way.
So it's VERY clear to me, that Earth is a globe, it always has been...and it's not hard for anyone to verify it for themselves. The only people who think it isn't, are people who can't grasp simple concepts like parallax, and simple physics concepts like relative motion, gravity, entropy, etc...basically physics in general. Not just that though, it generally effects people who also have a great lack of trust in systems of authority, so a strong bias against them. Which causes them to often listen blindly to strangers on YouTube over actual experts.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble. It's not wrong to question what you're told, but you have to be careful where you're getting your info from when you do. So I hope you find this information at the very least interesting.
1
-
@April85... Are you referring to the continent sizes and varying colors from picture to picture? If so, I didn't address them, doesn't mean I don't know where you've gone wrong here as well. Just didn't wanna bury you in too much text...I rather prefer sticking to one point at a time.
I'll address the continent size with one piece of valuable evidence to that point. https://i.redd.it/8hao2aez62251.jpg Perspective is why the continent sizes change, as demonstrated in that photo there. Here's a video demonstration of this same effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEzcPJsDohA
Why do the colors look different in each photo? Because of the varying lenses used in photography, that all have their own color settings and presets and capabilities. This is going to vary the colors from photo to photo...it's unavoidable in photography. Even the lighting will effect color, if the camera has to adjust it's exposure to allow less light through for certain shots, then it's going to effect the color a bit as well, either saturating it or desaturating it.
Then there are the composite images taken in low Earth orbit, which are digitally touched up, and the colors here will vary from who's doing the composite rendering. As an artist myself, with hundreds of hours experience in photoshop, I'm constantly tweaking the hues and saturation of any art or photos I take....this will alter the colors of whatever I'm working on, that's what the hue and saturation control does, it's super easy to adjust the color of any photo. So this is also going to cause the colors to vary from photo to photo. This doesn't mean these are faked photos...it just means the colors were tweaked. Composites are not fake images, they are hundreds of smaller REAL images of Earth, stitched together to form ONE single image. Your phone does the same thing, with it's panoramic feature.
The claims by Flat Earth though are just "colors different, means these are all faked" or, "continents are all different sizes, means they're all faked". And no...no it doesn't, it just means your bias is leading your thinking. There are valid reasons why each photo of Earth is different, from colors, to continent sizes...you don't help your arguments much by ignoring these explanations we share.
Anything else you'd like me to address? Like I said, I know this argument probably better then most Flat Earthers...I know where you're wrong on every point.
1
-
@April85... And yet...that image and video I shared demonstrates how perspective changes the continent sizes on those model globes. Perspective isn't JUST about vanishing point....there are MANY more fundamentals of perspective then just vanishing point my friend. I suggest you spend a day watching some drawing tutorials on the fundamentals of visual perspective and they'll tell you all about it.
See, you learned about vanishing point from a con man singing you songs about Flat Earth on YouTube....I learned it from art classes DECADES ago, long before YouTube was ever a thing, long before flat Earth was a thing, and I've been studying the fundamentals of perspective for most of my life now ever since then, because I'm an illustrator for a living. Artists need to know a lot about perspective...we need to know those fundamentals so well, so that we can apply it, every day in the work we do.
So when it comes to perspective, please don't patronize me...I consider myself an expert on that topic in particular. I have earned that, from studying art most of my life. Distance and perspective make it possible to see more of the surface of sphere, so the farther back you go, the more of the spheres surface you see, the smaller those continents will appear, because your eye compares the continent size to the surroundings. It's an optical illusion known as a relative size illusion, illustrated best in this ebbinghaus illusion https://www.cleareyes.com/eye-care-blog/201711/exploring-relative-size-optical-illusions/.
1
-
1
-
@April85... My guess is, your guy was talking about taking photos in different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Different wavelengths include infrared, UV, microwave, radio, gamma, etc. We can't see this light with our eyes, but digital cameras that collect this light with special filters and then interpret it into raw data can. But, because we still can't see this light, it means the camera has to collect it as data, and then reinterpret that data into the visual light spectrum for us. This means they have recolor it digitally to make the data visible. These types of photos come out looking like this. https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40623-018-0789-5/MediaObjects/40623_2018_789_Fig1_HTML.gif Sometimes they color code the data like this. https://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Moon-multiwavelength-.jpg So that's why they recolor these images, they have too...because we can't see these spectrums of light, we can only see things in our visual light spectrum, red, green, blue, yellow, orange, violet, etc.
They do this with the Sun, the Moon, other planets, asteroids...we can learn a lot of extra information from these types of pictures, taken within a different wavelength of the light spectrum. Look at different images of the Sun in different wavelengths. https://wp-assets.futurism.com/2013/11/717632main_Sun-Wavelength-Chart_full.jpg Some things that were not visible in other wavelengths, suddenly become noticeable and easy to see. So this is why they take photos in the different light spectrums.
If I had to guess, that's what your scientist was really talking about...and you just heard him wrong. Probably just heard the words "can't take photos in space" and then completely tuned out the rest. But context is important...that phrase can mean anything given the context.
But, can't know for sure what exactly he was saying, until I know exactly what he said, so you'd have to produce that footage for me so I could have a look. But I've seen flat Earthers misinterpret words and meanings many times, so this more then likely just another case like that. Taking words and phrases out of context and spinning a bias misinterpretation upon them is called cherry picking...and it's a form of confirmation bias. It's important to get the details of what's being said correct, or you risk reaching a false conclusion.
You really gotta stop attacking things with bias...that's how you overlook information and misinterpret it....you've had your brain scrambled by con artists man. Why do people listen to non experts on YouTube so blindly, nodding and agreeing with every word they say and every piece of cherry picked information they share....but then you people don't bother to go out and actually talk to REAL experts and scientists about these things? It's incredible....that you think MILLIONS of people are lying to you....that you can't be wrong.
1
-
@April85... Now you're just rambling Mark. Focus your thoughts for a moment and articulate a response that's clear and cogent please. Are you saying radio, infrared, x-ray, gamma, etc has limitations on how far they can travel? No, they do not, these are all apart of the electromagnetic spectrum just like visible light is, they can travel infinitely far...it's basic physics. Light has no limit for how far it can travel, this is known physics. That means every spectrum of light as well. What WILL happen though at distances, is the frequency will distort and become harder to pick up, so it requires better transceivers to pick them up, you also have to be pointing that transceiver in the right direction and have it tuned to receive that specific wavelength...like tuning a radio in, but much more precise and sensitive.
Do hobbyists do this? Yes, they do. Here's a group that builds their own radio telescopes for super cheap, that they then use to pull data from satellites in orbit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGWFg7EDnyY&t Take a look at some of these photos of Earth they're pulling from these satellites, you might find them interesting. They even explain how to build these so you or anyone can do the same thing.
Radar has its limits, because of the curvature of the Earth. Radar requires a direct line of travel to the object you're pinging, if it's blocked by something, then it's not going to show up on radar. It's the curvature of the Earth that limits radar here on Earth, as well as atmospheric effects. But did you know they bounce radar off the Moon, bouncing radio frequency's off the surface which they can then use to determine how far away it is? They do the same for Venus as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mXBPZXyMHw
You really need to stop getting your science lessons from conspiracy documentaries and movies. Take an actual physics class, your information is all scrambled. You're just doing what every bias researcher does, paying attention to only the details that support your bias and ignoring everything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@April85... Physics is the study of physical reality...you live in and experience physical reality every single day, so there is no excuse, you can put physical reality to the test any time you like and learn about it yourself, any time you want. Little hard for them to lie to you about something you can test yourself at any time, with very easy to do experiments in most cases. So you've made a claim that they push false results...ok, so it should be pretty easy then for you to give me an example of some physics where they gave us the false results. I assume you've put these results to the test yourself, to know for certain they were wrong, so feel free to tell me which results in physics were wrong in particular? So go ahead.
I've seen the speech by John F Kennedy, it's a great speech and I have no doubt he was murdered for attempting to stop some really crooked people. Do I claim to know who those people are and what their agenda was? Nope, and I'm not going to speculate about things I can't verify either...I focus on conspiracy's I can verify or falsify with certainty, with science. I focus on the science, because I can verify science myself at anytime, so there's no room for speculation when I've done the science myself. I don' t like forming opinions around empty conjectures and insufficient evidence, so I don't argue other conspiracy's, because that's really all I can do with most of them, speculate. Flat Earth however, is complete bullshit and it's easy to falsify...doesn't take much effort and I can falsify it with certainty through very basic science and observation. I admire John F Kennedy, I think he was a great man and I agree, he was onto something big, or they wouldn't have killed him...and it really sux he got shot...but people often forget that he also signed the order to send people to the Moon and he was still alive while much of the testing was going on...meaning his office helped put some of the first people into space and helped fund NASA's first successful missions. Just cause he was onto something big...does not mean that something was flat Earth. All anyone can really do is speculate about that shit...and I personally refuse to join that bullshit. I will not chase bread crumbs that aren't really there. Humans are experts at finding patterns, especially when they're not really there...it's important to remember that last part and keep yourself from chasing bullshit.
1
-
@April85... Now lets focus on some science, cause that's all I give a shit about and I'm tired of your rambling.
"unless they need to convince you of matter and light bending to debunk other things"
Light bends...this is well known, it's called refraction. You know this, you've seen it before many times in your life. https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/light-refraction-physics-is-fun.jpg It matters for long distance observations, it will distort what you see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lmmzvzz_Xs&t So it's a variable you can't just ignore...https://youtu.be/KLufSkz-et0?t=551
It's not hard to prove that light bends and refracts as it passes through denser air....it's easy physics to prove and verify for yourself at ANY TIME, with just a few simple experiments, many of which I have just shared above...so go nuts, do some catching up.
"even rocket thrusters need to push off something"
No they do not...that's not how a rocket thruster propels...at least not the kind of pushing you think. You have this assumption that rockets push off of air...and that's not at all how they achieve flight. Rockets propel by Newtons third Law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's the same reason a gun recoils, it's not the air, it's the bullet pushing off the barrel and vice versa...they push off of each other. You can demonstrate this pretty simply with a simple experiment. Imagine you're skating on some ice, in your hand is a 20 lb medicine ball. Now stay in place so you're not moving, skates parallel to each other, now put the medicine ball at chest height and toss it as hard as you can with both hands away from your chest. What happens? You go one way and the medicine ball goes the other, essentially pushing off of each other. Action, reaction...simple physics of motion. Now, pick up the medicine ball and do the experiment again, except this time, don't throw the ball, but push it against the air in front of you as hard as you can. Now, what happens? Nothing...you don't go anywhere this time. See it's not the air the fuel is pushing off of...the tank is pushing off the fuel, the fuel is pushing off the tank, they push off of each other, to propel the rocket up. The air does very little to help...in fact, it's actually doing more to slow the rocket down, thanks to the drag force it's creating.
It's actually easier to propel around in the vacuum of space, because there is no air resistance. But Ok, I hear the crickets in your ears from here, so I won't leave you hanging without a demonstration. https://youtu.be/T8MOoUuLnug?t=356 Notice how this can of pop when it explodes, doesn't require any air to push off of. It's in a vacuum, and the moment it explodes the can moves violently. Action, reaction, Newtons third law confirmed. Many different ways you can verify this...it's simple science. Rockets don't just propel in vacuums....they propel BETTER in vacuums. They do not require air to make this propulsion possible. You're thinking of a jet engine, which uses air to generate thrust, which then uses the surrounding air under the wings to generate lift. Air is needed for airplanes and jets...not rockets. Easy science to confirm for yourself.
"...that something will have an effect on signals"
You're right, atmospheric conditions absolutely do have an effect on many wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, especially certain frequencies of radio...just like it does visible light when it bends and refracts it. It's also how radio propagation works. You should know what radio propagation is...being in communications as long as you claim you were. This is when you bounce radio signals off the upper atmosphere (mainly the ionsphere) and back down to surface...so you can send radio communications further. Now, if the Earth wasn't curving, why exactly would bouncing radio signals off the upper atmosphere send them further? Those signals would be traveling further technically...so wouldn't they crap out much sooner then direct radio signals? That is, if radio signals had a limit to how far they went....Hmmmm. Radio has a limit yes....because of curvature. Little hard to hit a receiver and interpret a message...if the Earth is curving away and blocking those receivers. But...guess we'll just go with your assumption, that radio signals have their limit...just because.
The thing about space that's great...there is no air in space. So signals have NOTHING to stop them, reflecting them, slow them down. So unless a radio signal hits a solid mass, like a planet, star, asteroid or any other solid space debris...it will travel indefinitely. We know this, we bounce signals off of the Moon and other planets. We receive signals from satellites. We receive signals from probes we've sent out into deep space. We build radio telescopes that help us see things regular telescopes can't pick up....so they're seeing further than regular telescopes that have a known light visualizing distance.
You speak of these people faking science...but then explain none of it, just give me snarky, holier than thow responses that are open ended and don't verify your claims one bit. Meanwhile, I'm falsifying each point you make, with evidence and logic. Giving you explanations for how the science works...giving you simple experiments that verify them. You just don't seem to get it, science isn't hard...physics isn't a made up curriculum to fool the masses, it's the study of the natural physical world around you...and when you learn this stuff, they don't just talk about it, THEY DEMONSTRATE IT! Through practical experiments that prove their conclusions.
School starts out by telling you how things work...but the further down the line you go in the educatoin system, the more they demonstrate things to you and PROVE IT with experimentation. Even further down the line, they don't just demonstrate it for you...they ask YOU to demonstrate it for yourself. Then later, before you graduate university level courses and get your degree/diploma, they ask you to CHALLENGE something old or DISCOVER something new. You do this in the form of a THESIS paper. These require you PROVE the science or falsify it, through your own means. Nobody holds your hand and tells you what to do or what to think. YOU make the calls.
1
-
1
-
@April85... It's always amazing to me how religious people throw out these proud school yard insults that involve their brand of fiction...as if it should mean anything to me. You might as well just say "best of luck when Thanos comes and snaps his fingers", do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Well that's what you sound like from my perspective, it means about that much to me. I've falsified pretty close to all of your points with evidence and logical explanations that anyone can test for themselves...and you can't reply back with a counter rebuttal, because you know I'm right and you have nothing.
I'm not trying to be a dick (well, not all of it anyway), I just don't like bullshit and people who spread it. If you had any actual arguments, they would stand up to review...you wouldn't have to be cryptic about anything, you would just rebuttal my points with evidence and logic and then I'd maybe agree with you if you successfully falsified anything I said. I don't think I'm being unreasonable at all...if you're going to make claims, you should be able to back them up with something. Instead, you spouted gibberish and never even attempted. Just ignored, deflected, ignored, deflected....the same bullshit from every modern science denier.
1
-
@April85... Then by all means, refute something for a change. Instead of deflecting to the next argument, pick something and stick with it and refute my science. Should be easy, I've given you plenty of opportunities to verify your claims as accurate and to falsify mine. Don't get mad and hissy at me for being checked on your claims...falsify my counters with your own science and explanations, that's all you had to do. If you can't, then it's more then likely because you're wrong...and it just hasn't set in yet. It's pretty simple.
Instead you just danced around everything I said and then rambled off a bunch of nonsensical, cryptic (as you put it), jargon. If I "cling to my silly information"....it's because it's undeniably true and you people do NOTHING to change that. You want science to change....then ok, prove the current science is false, prove your positions are correct with FACTS and logic and evidence. It's that simple. Otherwise, we have no reason to listen to you or accept your bullshit claims....why you think you can just rattle off empty claims one after the other and we should just believe you blindly, is insane.
1
-
@April85... Oh no Mark, I'm WELL AWARE that Flat Earth "claims" all the photos from NASA are fake....you guys won't shut up about it. But just because an image is touched up in photoshop....does not mean it's fake. I take REAL photos all the time, then I color correct them in photoshop to adjust brightness, saturations, colors....does that now mean my REAL photo is fake? No, it doesn't....photoshop does not imply fakery, but you only think in black and white absolutes, and so too you it does.
And they don't do this to every single photo....that's an empty claim that flat Earth makes. A lot of the pictures they take and have taken, are regular single frame photographs...that have never been touched up in photoshop. Heck, Himawari 8 takes a new photo like this every 10 minutes or so. None of these photos are rendered in photoshop, they are high resolution single frame images, taken by a digital camera. But...I bet you'll say digital cameras take fake photos, cause it's digital...cause that's how your brain works. Even though your phone takes digital images too, it's the same technology.
The real trouble with you people, is your tendency to think in absolutes...AND to make assumptions when it suites you. You did both right in the first paragraph of your last comment here.
First you ASSUMED that I've "never heard that NASA photos are all fake and composites", nope, heard it a million times from Flat Earth...you people won't shut up about it, it's one of the first empty claims we learn from Flat Earth. What was new information to me, was your claim that "cameras don't work in space"...THAT was a new claim to me, I hadn't heard that from Flat Earth before. But, you just respun what I said to fit into your narrative you have for me and now you have this opinion that I've never heard of the faked images claim before. Starting to see how your broken brain works yet? You pick and choose what you want to hear and then spin empty claims about people and things using the fragmented information you have chopped up and respun into your bias.
Then you said with ABSOLUTE certainty, that ALL THE PHOTOS are composites and fake....and that's not true at all. They're not ALL composites. These photos here for example https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544 none of these are composites, these are single frame photographs, taken on film. And you've done NOTHING to prove that they're faked...yet you'd probably say that they are anyway. On top of that...composites aren't even fake photos, they are REAL photos stitched together to make a full image. So you really need to get your facts straight on what constitutes fake and real.
I'm guessing if you were to show me this video where you learned that "cameras don't work in space", I'd learn that you took those words out of context....like Flat Earth always does. Then I'll learn that this claim isn't true at all...that you just heard him wrong. So go ahead, find me that video please, and I'll be glad to take a look to see if it's not just another false conclusion you reached, from misinterpreting what was actually being said.
The thing is, photos can be faked today, so it's near impossible to know if they were or weren't. So for this reason, I don't argue photographs for very long...because it's true, with photo rendering technology, it's nearly impossible to know for certain now, unless you're an expert on faked photography and CG rendering. But here's the thing...I'M NOT GOING AROUND SAYING THEY ARE FAKE, WITH 100% CERTAINTY! That's what YOU and flat Earth does. Without doing ANY work to prove that claim....you just say it, as if saying it enough times makes it true....and it doesn't. Stop saying these photos are faked, unless you know for DAMN SURE that they are, and you can prove it. I'm just tired of all the empty claims from Flat Earth, with ZERO backing evidence to support them. If you're going to say a photograph is fake...THEN PROVE IT! Or don't make the claim...because you really don't know then if you can't actually prove it. It means you reached that conclusion on assumption.....which means you're lying. THAT is what I hate about you people the most...making empty claims, with no backing....and then you think we should just nod and agree and then you get mad at us for questioning you.
I ONLY CARE ABOUT SOLID EVIDENCE! Which is why I focus on science. Science I can verify or falsify MYSELF, with my own experiments and observations. So that's why I focus on the science, because I can prove it wrong or right with absolute certainty. Like much of the physics you butchered...I can prove that wrong easily and then there's NOTHING you can say to refute it. And you haven't so far...that's why I focus on the science. Cause you can make all the empty claims you want about NASA, about JFK, about Angels and Demons and God and faked photos....but science, you can't weasel your way out of that with bullshit.
So let's talk some science, cause I don't care about empty claims....that's what I've been trying to tell you. Evidence to back up your claims, that's all that matters to me.
1
-
@April85... A fisheye lens that happens to get the continent of America exactly right, without distorting it? Hmmmm...nope, not seein any logic in that. Besides, a fisheye lens doing the trick you're referring too will have visual anomalies on the outer edges and will always render a perfect circle. I know exactly the trick you are referring too...this does not explain these photos here at all. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
As for the claim they're taken from an aircraft cockpit...ya, a space shuttle...which is a type of aircraft. You have not sufficient evidence in your claim that falsifies that the photos are taken from a space shuttle cockpit....you're just saying what you want, and calling it done. At least I'm willing to admit that I don't have sufficient evidence either for it being a space shuttle cockpit, doesn't change the fact that neither do you, and you're just making more baseless claims.
Laugh all you want, but you don't even realize you're just making speculations....which is not evidence. This is what I was talking about in my last comment...baseless claims is NOT evidence, it's just empty speculation, nothing more. I don't want to focus on bullshit like this.
This is why I don't focus on photographs, because I know you people. You'll just make empty speculations "it's a fish eye lens", or "it's an airplane cockpit, can't you see the brace?"...and then you think this is good enough. It's not...it's just speculations, empty conjectures without sufficient evidence to support it.
I can falsify your first claim of a fisheye lens though, that's easy, because these photos do not fit that description. There would be visual distortions that are easy to pick out in this kind of trickery. There is no bending or warping near the edges, so it's not a lens effect....so you're just grasping at the ol' Flat Earth excuse manual. What ever bullshit fits.
Do you like being proven wrong again and again Mark? When do you learn the difference between speculation and evidence I wonder?
1
-
1
-
@April85... Jesus...you are a by the book Flat Earther. Just consuming all the same stuff they all do and nodding and agreeing blindly to all of it. You REALLY think, I've been in this mess for as long as I have (3 and a half years now) and you think I've never seen this interview? You people man....just always assuming the reason we don't agree with you, is because we must not have seen the same "evidence". I'VE SEEN ALL THE SAME STUFF YOU HAVE! For the most part...I bet that's true. The only claim you've said so far that I am not aware of, is a scientist saying "cameras don't work in space", which I'm still waiting on evidence of.
Alright, so what is your point here? It's ONE guy who works in NASA's composite image department, explaining what HE DOES at HIS JOB. He doesn't speak for the entirety of NASA, and he's not claiming that ALL photos ever taken by NASA are composites.
He even explains here, that every composite is comprised from data taken by ACTUAL satellites in orbit....little hard to get satellites in orbit, if the Earth is not a sphere with gravity influencing it. An orbit is not possible without these two conditions.
Second, by "data" he's likely talking about the digital hard code that those photos get sent to him as, when they're taken. A digital camera doesn't print images on film, it stores it in the form of data...high resolution jpegs or PNG's, it's all data...but they are REAL PHOTOS none the less. A camera has to get into position above the surface, and then take a photo, with a regular viewing lens, the same as the one on your smart phone...and then that photo is stored in the form of data, on a harddrive. Which is then sent to this guy, after they've taken enough photos from these satellites.
He then puts them in photoshop to stitch the photos together, to render a composite image. He adds clouds, because they unfortunately move a lot...and if he doesn't edit the image at all, then the image will look like this. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76674/global_vir_2011328_lrg.jpg
So there's no choice but to edit them in Photoshop, if you want to render a composite image as it's supposed to look.
So you just keep acting like I don't know any of this stuff still.......MARK! Pay attention bud! I know what you're fucking talking about....I've been in this Flat Earth mess a long time. This is some of the first shit you learn about in this kooky conspiracy.
Composites, are images of Earth taken from low Earth orbit.
This is that guys Blue Marble image from 2002. https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76674/global_vir_2011328_lrg.jpg
Here's the Apollo Blue Marble image from 1972. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble#/media/File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg
The first one is a composite, the second is a FULL image taken at 27,000 miles distance, using a single frame of film...on a regular color camera. They didn't have Satellites back in 1972. There were no low earth orbit satellites back then taking digital photographs and sending them too anyone for composite work.
You're CHOOSING to believe what you want when you read those kinds of interviews. You seem to think this is evidence of something, but it's not. You're just choosing to ignore what's being said and then spinning your bias on it.
This is now considered low hanging fruit in this whole Flat Earth argument and it's kind of insulting that you'd bother sharing it, assuming I've seen seen it or heard his other interviews. "It is photoshopped...but it, has to be" Ya, exactly....FOR A COMPOSITE! Which is what HE DOES for a living. :/
This DOES NOT mean ALL the photos taken by NASA are composites. You need to stop claiming that they are....and PAY ATTENTION!
1
-
@April85... And yet, I've showed you several photos from space of the Earth, that are not CGI and not composite images...that you hand wave aside and just make excuses for and I've heard them all. But again, get this through YOUR mind...speculations are not evidence. It is difficult to verify a photo these days, that's why I focus on science I can verify. I also don't cherry pick quotes from people, to falsify an entire archive of photography. People misspeak all the time, and then fools jump on their words as if it actually means anything, blowing them out of proportion, waving it around as "evidence", while they ignore ACTUAL evidence.
You focus on only what confirms your bias, I focus on ALL the evidence. I do look at both sides Mark, that's how I know the flat Earth has no working model and no functioniong map for navigation. I know they can't explain a sunset, the southern hemisphere, star trails in the South, 24 hour sun the South, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, earthquakes, the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth, satellites, gravity, orbits, coriolis...the list goes on and on. Meanwhile the globe answers for all of these AND has the evidence to back them up.
While you have cherry picked quotes that you spin out of context and misinterpret, and misunderstood physics that you lie about and make empty claims with that you can't back up. Flat Earth is a model that can't explain anything...and you cling to it for ONE reason, because if all the science goes away, then YOU can go on believing your book of superstitions without any interruptions to that fantasy.
The simple fact is, nobody is navigating the planet with a flat Earth model...that's a fact, not an opinion. You need to wake up, Flat Earth is putting you to sleep with bullshit...and you're missing reality.
1
-
1
-
@April85... Compared to you, I might as well be Einstein. If you want to refute the physics I've shared, then do it. I can't do anything with whining. Share evidence that I'm wrong, or stop crying about it. You sure do ramble a lot and make empty claim after empty claim. Share real evidence please.
Real evidence includes: observations made in the real world, experiments that are conclusive, data, calculations, technology that applies the science. As a bonus, explanations with logic behind them doesn't hurt either.
What is not evidence: Quote mining, empty claims with no backing, delusions of grandeur, speculations, conjectures, the bible, nonsensical rambling, crying.
Really simple stuff. Stop wasting both our time.
I'll give you a topic. Explain a sunset on the Flat Earth. Should be simple, give me an explanation you can form into a hypothesis for how the sunsets on a Flat Earth. Then show me your evidence that verifies your hypothesis. Simple stuff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really? EVERYTHING is a lie? Or maybe you just weren't paying attention enough to realize how they were right? Were they lying about 2+2? Were they lying about how to read and write? Were they lying about the scientific method when they taught you the steps? They didn't have too teach you these things...your ancestors sure didn't get that kind of knowledge given to them, most people throughout history didn't have any education, they couldn't read, write, do basic math, and they certainly had no concept of the best method for deducing how physical reality works step by step. But you do...because of school.
Let's keep going, were they lying to you about how vinegar violently reacts to baking soda in your simple volcano science fair experiment, which demonstrated some basic chemistry to you? Were they lying about how electricity works when they were teaching you circuits in your physics 101 class or mechanics class? Were they lying about the Laws of nature, such as conservation of momentum and the Laws of motion, which you demonstrate every time you get into a moving vehicle of any kind? Throw a ball up in the air next time you're a passenger in a vehicle...did the ball smash you in the face, or did it go straight up and land straight back down in your hand? They run pretty clear demonstrations of motion like that as well in your science classes, were they lying to you then, or trying to help you see how things actually work? I think you should maybe go back to school and this time pay attention.
1
-
@jeffss04 "The earths SPINNING 1000mph and no one can feel it. Lie"
Consider the possibility that maybe you're just overlooking something...just cause you don't understand it yet, does not mean it's a lie, there's is always the very real possibility that YOU just don't understand something yet. So below is some info I'd like you to consider, feel free to ponder it or question it if all you'd like...or ignore it, it's up to you. I'm just here to share information.
When you're traveling in a plane going 500 mph at cruising altitude, you may notice that you are able to get up and walk around the cabin of the airplane just fine. Why is that? 500 mph is pretty fast, but at no point you're sucked to the seat. In fact, you barely feel anything in this instance and if there were no vibrations from the engines, no hum from the friction, or the wind resistance of the air outside, you wouldn't hear or feel ANY motion at all. Earth doesn't have engines causing a friction vibration and there is no air in space to cause a drag force...so what do you have now to help you feel the motion exactly? Truth is you don't have anything, motion is felt by your body in the form of inertia, inertia that is caused by a sudden or rapid CHANGE in motion. But once your body is moving at a steady constant rate, with no drastic change in forward velocity over time, with nothing to slow you down or stop you, then truth is, you won't feel any motion...because there won't be any inertia upon your body anymore. That's the science and physics of motion in a nutshell, conservation of momentum and relative motion. It is tricky to understand a little bit, but we're not lying to you when we try to help you see what we're seeing, we're trying to help you realize this science as well as best we can. It's fine to disagree still though, but first consider all the variables first before you do, that's all anyone asks of you.
"The earth was FORMED by NOTHING FUCKING nothing 13 billion years ago and no one saw it. Blatant lie"
Big Bang cosmology is just the leading theory currently, because that's what has the most evidence supporting if currently, nothing more. And NOBODY is quite certain on the starting details. Some people say it came from nothing, some people say its a constant never ending loop of creation and destruction, others in science are perfectly fine with concluding that a higher power created it, which is where I actually fall on that spectrum as well. Your error here is thinking in absolutes, science is happy to admit it doesn't have all the answers...but for some reason people seem to think they are all in agreeance, 100%, all the time, about everything. No, that's not how science operates...Big Bang is the leading theory currently, because it has the most evidence, until something else comes along that can trump that evidence, then it will continue to be the leading theory in cosmology, that's how it works. If you're curious, we called that evidence for Big Bang the 4 pillars of the big bang and you should give them a look sometime before writing them off and assuming things...though if the basic physics still isn't quite there yet, then I wouldn't personally suggest you learn to run before walking, but now you know where to look if you want to learn more about it. Or not...it's up to you.
God still fits within that framework, nobody is saying he can't exist, some would just prefer they had solid evidence before making that conclusion, that's all. I really don't get why people can't see that as rational. I know that your logic concludes that everything must have a creator, but there is very good evidence and arguments now that give us reason to question that conclusion, we're not just going to ignore that evidence, because some people would rather we don't ruin their fantasy. On the flip side though, science will likely never disprove the concept of A God and that's not really its goal either. Science just works to figure out how physical reality operates at the mechanical level, so that we can use that understanding to invent, innovate, engineer, navigate and discover more...that's all science is, it's a tool more then anything else, not much different from any other tool. And it works...your computer, your internet, your wifi connection...science made all that possible, the same science you were taught in school, that others listened too and learned more about, so that they could make these things for you. If teachers were lying to you...then nobody would be inventing anything and none of this technology you enjoy today would exist...that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Trust me, I didn't reach any of these insights above by not thinking about them. I think about them constantly and that's also why I'm here commenting, to put what I think I know to the test and challenge it, by talking to people of a different perspective. My apologies if you didn't want the discussion, but this is a public forum, so if you're going to make claims here, then expect to be checked for them.
1
-
1
-
Ya, see, that's your problem. You won't even look at the science...because a book of made up superstitions, has convinced you that it's lies...even though you really have no reason to believe anything that book says is true. Blind faith, over actual tangible evidence. You don't know the evidence is tangible, because you haven't really taken a look at any of it, because you're afraid if you do...that you'll lose that warm fuzzy feeling your blind faith in that book gives you. Ignorance is bliss...but it's still wrong at the end of the day. That book just keeps you from participating in the world that is RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU and keeps you from learning and understanding how it works.
The bible didn't create your computer, it didn't connect you to the internet and didn't send your comments through the wifi that connects you to people....SCIENCE did that. Man accomplished that...WE BUILT THESE THINGS, from studying the natural world and deducing how it works. If God provided everything for us, then great, but I very much doubt he'd give a shit if we didn't believe in him...he's given us no reason too, or at least no reason to believe in bibles, that could have just as easily have been written by man, scamming people by exploiting our natural tendency to build superstitious ideas around the gaps in our knowledge, all for the purpose to gain control over others. God might be real, science isn't out to destroy the concept of a God...but I VERY MUCH DOUBT that any of us have that interpretation correct.
Science is just a tool, an extension of ourselves, a method of thinking we use to figure out how things work...and it works. You'll never know that though...because you'd rather stay ignorant and believe it's something to hate and fear. What sux the most is that you'll still reap all the rewards of mankind's collective efforts...all while never really knowing how any of it works. While you whine about evolutionary biology...doctors are using that knowledge to engineer cures for you. While you whine about the shape of the planet, scientists and astronauts are using that knowledge to put satellites and rockets into space. While you whine about the Big Bang cosmology, scientists are figuring out how to manipulate the fabric of space time, so that we someday get off this rock and explore the cosmos in greater depth.
If God gave us life and free will, then he's now created life that he is responsible for and must respect...just as much as he demands respect, he has to respect us...or he will never get that respect. Respect is earned, not given...my parents gave me life, doesn't mean they own me, that's the mistake lots of parents make and that's how they lose their children's respect. I believe a true God would not just understand that, he'd be well ahead of me, not expecting anything of me, except for that I don't squander the life I've been given.
Maybe he's testing you, seeing if you'll fold and become a slave to fear, rather then reach for the stars and become something greater, a being with self respect.
Maybe give science a try sometime, it's not your enemy and you don't have to be afraid of it. Most scientists are actually theists, not the other way around. God becomes even greater to them, just knowing how vast this universe is that he created! THAT is a truly powerful creator, wouldn't you say?
1
-
@karolyapostol7213 Yes, I've noticed that Flat Earth helps a lot of people get closer to their faith, and I'm sure that must be a very powerful feeling, finally having something that gives you a bit of hope that all that time and bible study wasn't wasted. But it is your bias...even if it were true, it's still a bias that leads you and sometimes even takes the reigns completely. What I mean is, I think it keeps you from looking closer. Rob Skiba, Mark Sargent, and especially Eric Dubay, have been outed many times to be con men...Eric Dubay being the worst offender, bordering on cult leader.
They're very convincing on the surface...especially when you allow them to take you on the ride they've prepared for you. But if you remove all bias and look at what they're claiming objectively, you find out pretty quick...they're lying and they're damn good at it. Eric Dubay is the best at it, he seems to have learned a lot about hypnotic suggestion and he uses that skill effectively. Which keeps you from realizing...that he's crazy, he's a Nazi sympathizer and an extreme narcissist, with psychopathic tendencies as well. Just watch Bob the Science Guys break down of some of Eric's videos of him losing it when he learned that people were following other Flat Earth researchers instead of him...it's pretty eye opening how crazy and narcissistic he really is.
Anyway, I'm not saying you can't have faith, of course you can, I actually find faith in a higher power to be a very noble practice and many religions harbor and teach a lot of really great values, that are starting to fade away in society and that's sad. So religion of course has it's pros, even for a guy like me who has never been religious, coming from a 100% atheist community. And of course you should ask questions...I just think people should recognize when they have bias and realize that some really shitty people WILL use that bias against you, to sell you all kinds of lies. My bias is my trust in science, I'm aware that I can tend to treat it with a bit more faith then I should. Thanks to recognizing that bias though, I can then keep it in check a lot better, so that's really all I ask of people, to be aware of their bias, identify it and learn to control it.
In my experience, it's not NASA that's been lying to you, it is the people cutting up these videos and digging for things they can pull out of context and respin for you, packaged with empty speculations, that you will confuse as truth...if you're not careful. Give me any NASA faked space video and I almost guarantee, I can point out how they've conned you.
But personally, I don't focus on NASA, because at the end of the day, I'm not an astronaut and I don't work for them, so I'd rather not speculate on things I really have no first hand experience with. Instead I prefer to focus on the Earth that is right below your feet, it's not hard to verify the Earth is a Globe for yourself, with very simple observations and experiments you can do right in your back yard. So that's what I prefer to focus on, cause it's a little hard to lie about something I can touch and test directly.
That's what I focus on, the science, because THAT is something I can verify or falsify directly, for myself. When it comes to NASA, all I can really do is speculate...but so can they, that's all they're doing, is feeding you speculative claims, that could be bullshit and likely are. It's important to know the difference between speculation and actual evidence...MOST of the claims made on those NASA faked space docs...are just speculation and conjecture. One good way to disprove their claims, dig up the full video that they cut up...there are a few occasions where they intentionally edit certain parts out, to help sell their speculation to you even more. If they were really trying to be truthful, they would not need to resort to such deceitful tactics.
I'd just like to make one more point. Your computer, your internet, your wifi...this stuff didn't happen cause scientists were lying to each other, its made possible because they're sharing information openly and honestly, networking about every discovery made with complete transparency. It does not benefit society AT ALL to lie about the shape of the planet. There is more technology and infrastructure that relies heavily on our knowledge of the shape and scale of our planet being accurate, then you probably realize and there are just to many people working on it directly, to cover something like that up. So I'm just saying, it's worth your time to question Flat Earth just as much as you now question the mainstream. Yes, some of the things they claim are very convincing...but only if you're not aware of how they're lying to you. Sometimes it's not lies though, sometimes it is just simple misunderstandings that they run with, cause they don't realize how they've gone wrong. Rob Skiba for example, I think he just leans on his bias to much and he doesn't know enough about physics to know where his errors are. Mark clings to speculations, attacking the conspiracy with more conspiracy...but when does he ever get his hands dirty and do experiments? He sure talks a lot, feeding you reasonable doubt and you'll fall for it because he's great at making things sound logical...but most of what he says, is just speculation, smoke and mirrors, clever misdirection designed to dazzle you...and he's gotten damn good at it.
Eric Dubay though...that guy is an absolute liar and I would be very cautious about the things he says. In my honest opinion, that guy is a psychopath, so be cautious.
Anyway, I'm more then happy to share more information if you'd like, I've been looking at this particular conspiracy for a long time now, I've identified where they go wrong and where they lie, on just about every argument. At the very least, you'll learn a different perspective, so up to you really. I also don't mind learning more from the opposing perspective, so feel free to share, I don't mind taking a look. I don't claim to know everything, I just don't like potential misinformation spreading unchecked and unchallenged. Thanks for the civil dialogue thus far, it's nice to find level heads in these more heated topics.
1
-
@karolyapostol7213 That's fine, I get that, and my intention is not to discourage you or mock you in any way, only to share some information from the opposing viewpoint, so that you have a broader range of the facts to reach a conclusion from. I think it's important to try our best to recognize our bias and then remove it as best we can and it's important to look at BOTH sides of an argument, not just sit firmly in our own echo chambers of information. So I'm just sharing information, the rest is up to whom ever is listening.
Well, ol' Rob Skiba is at least trying, he at least goes out and tests things for himself...but he is led by bias just as much if not more so, and it's clear when you really dig into his work, that he seems to intentionally keep some details from people. He'd have to be, because if you look at his work and review it, a lot of what he claims becomes pretty easy to spot the errors, when you don't allow the same bias that led his conclusions to get in your way. Which I don't have, I'm not religious, so it's pretty easy for me, I don't share the same bias. There's always some detail he leaves out, and I think it's intentional...though I give him the benefit of the doubt, because he does appear more honest then the others at times, but it could just be a clever rouse, peppering in a few instances of honesty and kindness, to help you trust him more, it's a tactic used by police sometimes during interrogations...the good cop they call it. Allow me to show you a few places on his own front page there, where he intentionally hides some details.
If you scroll down to the part where he starts talking about composites and the size of continents he says this "Yet, when you do a search for "earth from space" you find very few "authentic" pictures of our own planet." Then he shares a few pictures he's dug up, one a composite of thousands of images taken from low Earth orbit, the other a composite by color filter, the GOES image is a full image, the only part that is composite is the colors. I see them sharing these same odd looking photos a lot...yet I NEVER see them sharing photos like these ones below.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157657289512883
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157656739898544
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
This is an archive of the thousands of photos taken during the various Apollo moon missions. They're not hard to find, a quick google search looking for the Apollo photos will bring you to several online resources that archive these photos. Do these photos I just shared look fake to you? These are not hard to find, yet when do you ever see Rob Skiba or anyone else in Flat Earth sharing them? They just repeatably say it's difficult to find, all while sharing the most odd looking photos they could find of Earth, composites, that are typically not full images of Earth. Then they'll often even make the claim that ALL images are composites, that no true images exist. Again, do those photos I shared look like composites to you? Do they look as wonky and fake as the photos Flat Earthers share? No, I don't think they do, they look very authentic to me...which is why you never see Flat Earthers sharing these kinds of photos...which is a red flag for me personally.
Then they'll pepper in little things like this, as Rob Skiba did on his page quoted here "To make matters worse, when fabricating the "blue marble" pics of our earth, they can't even get the proportions of the continents or color of the water consistent from one rendering to another". He's making the claim that because the continents and colors vary from photo to photo, it must mean they're all faked. But I'd like to share a video with you that demonstrates what perspective can do to the shape and scale of the surface of a ball. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEzcPJsDohA Here is an image that does the same thing, that's a little quicker and easier to understand https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg.
Perspective can and does change the scale of those continents quite a lot, as those resources I just shared demonstrate pretty clearly. What I find truly odd, is that Rob NEVER mentions this on his page...he JUST tells you that it's odd the continents and colors are different in each photo, without providing any further context as to why. For as long as Rob has been doing this for, he would be aware that perspective and distance can alter the continent sizes...yet he never mentions it. Why doesn't he mention it? Because he's trying to lead you through a bias thought process. Showing you what he wants you to see, to help sell you a bias conclusion, in hopes that you'll be roped in by it. Some people follow his thought process there, completely unaware of what perspective can do to the surface of a 3D ball, and then they reach a conclusion without factoring that information in. Once that conclusion is reached...it becomes very hard for them to go back and take a look at what they might have missed. Rob knows this, that's why he doesn't share that little detail.
He does it again slightly lower in his argument, with the Galileo video of the rotating Earth. This is what he says about it "This is supposedly a time-lapse video of a 25-hour period of Earth's rotation and yet none of the clouds are moving or morphing at all?" If you take a look at the video he's provided, it's a very low resolution, very grainy copy of this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVuqcEuIRgs. Watch the entire video if you could but pay attention to the last 20 seconds or so where it zooms in, and shows you a much clearer view of the clouds moving and shifting.
Rob no doubt has seen the higher resolution video (it's still a little grainy, but much better then his video he shared), and he is then no doubt aware that the higher resolution makes it MUCH easier to notice the clouds are moving...yet he makes that claim anyway on his website, while sharing a much lower resolution video? So he's lying then...cause there's no way he hasn't seen the higher resolution video, he would have had to have pulled from it, to create his lower resolution copy. Again, intentionally misleading people...does that sound like the kind of person who is being honest with their research and presentations?
Believe what you want, but if you don't pay closer attention, these people will lie to you and take you on a ride of their design. It make their claims VERY convincing on the surface...but ONLY if you stay on the surface and don't go digging where they don't want you too. If Rob was an honest researcher, he would not intentionally hide things from you. Here I have pointed out just a short sample of some things he's lied about, right on his own web page. So I hope that helps to illustrate why you should also question these people, just as much as you now question the mainstream. Don't just listen to them blindly either.
Now I hope you can see why people like me are here constantly commenting...some of us are just trying to help people, and keep them from falling into these traps. Rob is not the only Flat Earther that does this...pretty much ALL the larger channels do this, spinning information to fit their narrative, they are far from objective. So I hope this information is at the very least interesting to you, thanks again for the civil discussion. Stay safe out there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Don Traub Nothing really works with them, but that’s really all you need to disprove a Flat Earth. The Sun would never set on a Flat Earth, you would always see it. Even if it could set due to perspective (as they claim), we’d expect it to shrink in angular size before it ever reached the vanishing point at horizon, among many other problems they create with their circling Sun explanation...that they refuse to look at. Ignorance is a sport for them, so you’ll never really win with them, they’re not listening, but that is a great proof either way, whether they like it or not. Our setting sun makes zero sense on a Flat Earth, no matter how many ways they try to ram that square peg into a round hole, the Globe is still the only model that fits with reality here.
1