Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
Because science is based upon knowledge that is testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable my friend, it doesn't go by hearsay or gut feeling.
After all, do you apply that same argument to those who believe in ghosts/spirits, paranormal powers, out of body experiences, alien abductions, etc? :-|
So in the context of this video, someone believing the Earth is flat is not expressing an open mind, just the opposite with a denial of the facts.
Btw, I don't recall Neil rejecting the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe, only the idea of alien life visiting the Earth.
3
-
3
-
@a-k9161 - Wrong, instead you've proven my point perfectly and hence you've demonstrated why people like yourself are so easily taken in my charlatans :-|
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from my lazy friend;
[Disguised link which I'm sure you can work out]
tiny😮cc🖍️03eiuz
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
So, is there any part of "practically a perfect sphere" that you don't understand? :-)
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth is literally shaped like a pear, instead he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
THAT my friend is how you do research.
3
-
3
-
You said "If my info is correct you agreed to do it."
Show me where Eric agreed to do it please.
In fact, show me Eric requesting to debate ANY scientist or debating ANY of the flat Earth theorists who he accuses of being government shills just because they have a slightly different idea of the flat Earth to his own (i.e. those he sees as rivals :-)).
In fact, show me ANY debate among the leading flat Earth theorists to arrive at a consensus about their flat Earth, such as whether there is a firmament dome or not, or the height of the dome if it exists, or whether the flat Earth has an edge or not, or whether gravity does or doesn't exist, or why there isn't an accurate flat map of a flat Earth (with plans to create one), or whether the sun and moon are flat or globes, etc.
So if flat Earth theorists don't even debate each other over their conflicting versions of a flat Earth, then why should scientists take them seriously enough to debate them over claims that they can't even decide themselves?
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "For example if the earth is spinning at around 1000 miles a hour and gravity holds everything in place with all the centrifugal force being created by spinning at such a speed we could not even lift up a leg from the pressure being exerted by these forces"
And that's the problem my friend, because that is NOT common sense, that's only an assumption that you came to based upon gut feeling without doing any calculations to see if your claim is true.
Simply put, it isn't.
Concorde for example flew at 1330 mph, and yet why do you think no-one inside that plane felt that speed? In fact, if you blocked out the windows then people inside couldn't tell the difference if they were inside a simulator going nowhere!
And science is only a religion to those who don't understand science.
People like Eric Dubay are |iars who know how to manipulate others, making claims that may sound logical to the uninformed but are all just nonsense, and so while you're saying you don't know if Eric is right, you are falling for many of the flat Earth claims that they make, claims that are intended to fool you, and apparently succeeding :-|
3
-
@SubMasters - You also said "By the way where's all the telemetry data from NASA?"
Where's it's always been, since nothing has been lost.
Telemetry data was always printed out into documents so that the tapes could be reused (the whole point of magnetic tapes!).
After each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables
.
So here's the mission report for Apollo 11 (for example) published in November 1969. It even includes the astronaut's heart rate telemetry data as they descended to the moon's surface, their heart rate during their time on the moon and their heart rate when they left the moon's surface (hence proving none of the telemetry data was lost);
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf
So if you want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but why should that mean you MUST blindly believe ALL the hoax claims without question?
And read this too;
www.firstmenonthemoon.com/about.html
Quote: "We have compiled hours of content available from public domain sources and various NASA websites. Thamtech staff and volunteers generously devoted their time to transcribe hours of speech to text. By using simultaneous space and land based audio and video, transcripts, images, spacecraft telemetry, and biomedical data — this synchronized presentation reveals the Moon Shot as experienced by the astronauts and flight controllers."
Hence that's the same telemetry data that conspiracy theorists claim was lost.
The point is, as I said before, once the telemetry data was printed out for a hard copy the magnetic tapes were reused.
So we don't have all the tapes (just as we don't have all the tapes for most space missions of the 60s/70s), but we have all the telemetry data that were ON those tapes .
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332 - You said "Okay then why isn't his description of an Oblate Spheroid shown in NASA official(but CGI) photos of the Earth ....."
Except it is my friend, but many flat Earth believers didn't listen to what Neil said but only to what they wanted to believe he said (btw, can you explain how you PERSONALLY determined if a photo of the Earth is real or CGI. Can you take me through YOUR methods please. You don't have to answer that, but please think about where that CGI claim comes from... ;-)).
For example;
Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCKapivHGM
Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it".
Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator"
Interviewer: "A little chubbier"
Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..."
[Some audience laughter]
Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..."
[Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size]
Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere."
Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere.
Therefore the Earth will also look like a perfect sphere in photographs taken in space.
The point is, if you want to believe the Earth is flat, then fine that's your right, but you effectively lose the argument when you distort what is actually being said by scientists and others about the Earth being a globe :-|
3
-
3
-
3
-
@koolkrapsandracetracks4068 - The first flat Earth books were published over 150 YEARS ago, it didn't start with Eric Dubay in 2014, hence all of those examples are from real flat Earth believers I've debated over the years from a belief that started long before Eric made it popular, so it is not up to you to decide which are genuine and which are not my friend.
Anyway, thanks for stating what you believe, but here are some of the issues I have with your claims;
1. Firmament dome, but how high? Why don't any FE theorists know the height of the dome when they claim to know the height of the sun and moon? Shouldn't they be able to determine the height by measuring the distance to the North Star?
2. Srch the net for "Antarctica Tours" and "South Pole Trips" and notice all the tours and trips YOU can book onto to visit Antarctica and the South Pole in Antarctica yourself, if you can afford it, which is well passed 60° South!
3. For thousands of years ALL eclipses of the sun have been seen to happen at EXACTLY the same time as the time of the New Moon, where the moon is at it's closest point to the sun in the sky.
Flat Earth believers seem to be unaware of that fact, since how can it be a coincidence that total and partial and annular eclipses of the sun ALL just so happen to occur at EXACTLY the SAME time predicted for the New Moon for thousands of years, predicted based upon the movement of the moon relative to the sun :-)
Think about that please.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3