Did you know...

Conspiracy Theories are not arguments worth anything . FE'rs use these as a means to ignore information and nothing more.. I can equally apply the same fallacious logic to them conspiring to create an ideological cult, or to sell FE T-shirts.. Sorry kids, but if you have to use conspiracy theories as an argument, you clearly have nothing to argue with in terms of data.. If you haven't noticed, every Fe'rs argument is assumption, opinion, and assertion. 99% of the above comments are nothing of worth..

Here's a fun game the whole family can play!

Determine the Circumference of the Earth Using the Sun.. You can even translate these to longitude and latitude coordinates.  
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Astro_p018.shtml

It's get an education day here!

Ah, but you misunderstood me. I didn't say "It's impossible to see a stratellite/satellite from Earth". I said "check your sources before posting them or you might end up looking dumb".

The way you worded your edit it makes it still a fallacy. 

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 20, 2010, 10:10:10 PM

Ah, but you misunderstood me. I didn't say "It's impossible to see a stratellite/satellite from Earth". I said "check your sources before posting them or you might end up looking dumb".

The way you worded your edit it makes it still a fallacy. 

That's because it is a fallacy .. They are phishing for ignorant people who are easily manipulated into believing this FE ideology.. Remember this conspiracy So until they can provide something we call honest discourse, they have absolutely nothing intelligible to offer.

How does pointing someone's incompetence constitute a fallacy?

How does pointing someone's incompetence constitute a fallacy?

This is because a simple mistake will not make you look dumb, nor will it negate any other source provided as if they are magically related. Also the Title says CGI but the poster of this video is questioning if others were vs establishing if they actually are by making a CGI movie.. And for the Record, I can get a fairly decent of an image of the ISS with my Telescope . Taking pictures through a telescope is more difficult due to shutter settings, lighting, and lensing effects, and it would take more than one effort to get it right, and possibly never get it right based on varying conditions. And most people don't have all that great of a telescope  


And I was referring to FE in general

And I would be careful of that word "incompetence" as it seems like a common problem around here

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 20, 2010, 11:28:21 PM

How does pointing someone's incompetence constitute a fallacy?

This is because a simple mistake

It's not making a simple mistake. It's using sources the poster hasn't even checked on their own.

will not make you look dumb,

Oh, but it will! And it did!

nor will it negate any other source provided as if they are magically related.

That is correct. However, it's not good for one's credibility if they prove themselves to be laughable.

Also the Title says CGI but the poster of this video is questioning if others were vs establishing if they actually are by making a CGI movie..

Which is exactly the root of the problem. I'm glad you were able to point it out before me.

And for the Record, I can get a fairly decent of an image of the ISS with my Telescope .

That's brilliant. You'll feel perfectly welcome among all the scientists, pilots, astronauts, and chemists we have here.

Taking pictures through a telescope is more difficult due to shutter settings, lighting, and lensing effects, and it would take more than one effort to get it right, and possibly never get it right based on varying conditions.

Awh, I was hoping for some OC from you.

And most people don't have all that great of a telescope

I believe you are slightly confused when it comes to the punctuation of the English language. What you're looking for is a full stop (sometimes referred to as a period), not a semicolon followed by a right parenthesis.

And I was referring to FE in general

That alone makes you better than numerous posters here. I approve!

And I would be careful of that word "incompetence" as it seems like a common problem around here

It does? Hmm, let me check...
Oh, okay, it doesn't.
The word has been used circa 15 times this year.

This is because a simple mistake

It's not making a simple mistake. It's using sources the poster hasn't even checked on their own.

He's human, and mistakes are bound to be made. Chances are, he probably took the first few links in a search and posted them. This isn't the same as intentionally posting misinformation.

Oh, but it will! And it did!

Oh but it doesn't, stupidity isn't judged on fundamental mistakes, and this is especially true when the poster admits to his or her error. A dumb person would have denied the error much like many posters do here in order to support their positions.

That is correct. However, it's not good for one's credibility if they prove themselves to be laughable.

Firstly let's not talk about laughable credibility here, there is laughably plenty of that going on in just the "FAQ" section alone.. When someone makes a mistake such as the above, it doesn't necessarily kill their credibility, or the credibility of the other sources provided.. Now if he ignored and denied his mistake I would thus question his credibility. And this isn't something I can equate to people who for instance, direct people to the laughable "FAQ" of this website as evidence of FE when it clearly is not anything other than a tossed salad ideological construct trying to use scientific terminology to which it apparently doesn't even comprehend well enough to understand that their ideological theory makes no logical sense.

Which is exactly the root of the problem. I'm glad you were able to point it out before me.

Actually it's not, and I say this because most people would have no idea how to make a CGI movie, or how to use 3DS Max, or Maya.. This is not an argument to support an argument against any given video footage of the ISS. And if you took the time to actually look at the ISS yourself through an appropriate Telescope, you would understand why this is.

That's brilliant. You'll feel perfectly welcome among all the scientists, pilots, astronauts, and chemists we have here.

Doesn't take a scientist, pilot, chemist, or astronaut to do this.. Your argument here is irrelevant, or pleading to categorize me into a group without even knowing who I am. This here is your own mistake, or example of incompetence.

Awh, I was hoping for some OC from you.

please be specific, what are you saying by the use of "OC"..

I believe you are slightly confused when it comes to the punctuation of the English language. What you're looking for is a full stop (sometimes referred to as a period), not a semicolon followed by a right parenthesis.

If I were you, I would refrain from attacking peoples grammar mistakes. If this is your pleading attempt to credibility, it really shows that you are in desperate need of it. Be wary of hypocrisy here, I will quote mine you.

It does? Hmm, let me check...
Oh, okay, it doesn't.
The word has been used circa 15 times this year.

A very poor attempt at trying to be sarcastically clever. The entire "FAQ" is a load of incompetence

How does pointing someone's incompetence constitute a fallacy?

Because of how you did it.  If you want to know you will have to start a new thread. This thread is not about fallacies. 

Quote from: markjo on July 19, 2010, 05:09:35 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2010, 08:49:59 PM

Quote

Can you give us the technical read outs of these Stratellites?  How do they stay up seemingly forever?  How are they refueled?  Who controls them and from where?  And ... How can I hack into one so I can crash it down into your front yard so you can prove to the world that they're real?

Stratellites can stay in continuous operation without maintenance for periods longer than 14 months at a time.

Quote

No, stratellites would require enough onboard power to move across the sky, and you just told us that ICBMs can't even do that.

Stratellites are typically solar powered.

Stratellite is a registered trademark of Sanswire Corp. and refers to their stratospheric communication platform which is currently in development.  Do you have any evidence that this product has been operationally deployed anywhere in the world?

While Sanswire may have a trademark over the term "Stratellite," high altitude communications balloons have been in operation for many decades. When TheEngineer was a member of these forums he personally attested of various government stratellite operations he knew about.

NASA has admitted that they are involved in the manufacture of $500-a-pop mini stratellites.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11911-nasa-develops-smart-weather-balloons-for-launch-sites.html

Quite a bargain compared to the tens of millions of dollars which goes into the average satellite.

Quote

Wow that was really not helpful, not even close to what I asked, and also impossible.
How does one stay aloft with only solar power in very low density atmosphere?  Have they invented ion drives?

Stratellites are filled with helium and made of strong material.

The link shows weather ballons. Why you have to troll on every possible topic. Why you dont have any data, any source, any math, any evidence of what you are saying. Please explain to us.

If your "society" have enough real members (i doubt it), you can buy a good telescope and see that the satellites are not ballons.
You can even buy a telescope and track the ISS, in this way you can end the debate if the earth is flat or not.

Nobody has managed to explain how Irridium flares occur on a FE yet (RE model does so perfectly).
TB's loon-loon reference is no good either, as he is using NASA and old forum-members as source, neither of these are viable as source according to FET standards.

If your "society" have enough real members (i doubt it), you can buy a good telescope and see that the satellites are not ballons.

Aside from the ISS which is larger than a soccer field, no satellites/stratellites are visible in the night sky.

Have you ever scanned the night sky in search of one of the hundreds of communication satellites supposedly in orbit? They cannot be seen.

Maybe not if you live in a light polluted area, but try taking a plane up on a clear night away from city lights (I find that a run of the Gulf of Mexico or from San Diego down Baja works well.) and you will see many.  Im sure a trip out into the country will do the same for you Tom.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/28/amateur-astronomer-spies-on-spy-satellites/

Ralf Vandeberg is paid by NASA. Do a search for his name on these forums.

Quote

If your "society" have enough real members (i doubt it), you can buy a good telescope and see that the satellites are not ballons.

Aside from the ISS which is larger than a soccer field, no satellites/stratellites are visible in the night sky.

Have you ever scanned the night sky in search of one of the hundreds of communication satellites supposedly in orbit? They cannot be seen.

Again, this statement is misleading. While it may be true that most of the thousands of satellites and satellite corpses cannot be seen, some can indeed be seen on a clear night (not just ISS).

Quote from: markjo on July 21, 2010, 01:01:06 PM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/28/amateur-astronomer-spies-on-spy-satellites/

Ralf Vandeberg is paid by NASA. Do a search for his name on these forums.

Another fallacy. 

Quote from: markjo on July 21, 2010, 01:01:06 PM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/28/amateur-astronomer-spies-on-spy-satellites/

Ralf Vandeberg is paid by NASA. Do a search for his name on these forums.

Im paid by my board of directors, doesn't stop me from producing accurate financials to the IRS.  That is the same old tired fallacy that the anti-vaccine people use.

Im paid by my board of directors, doesn't stop me from producing accurate financials to the IRS.  That is the same old tired fallacy that the anti-vaccine people use.

Well if you're going to tell us that NASA is a legitimate organization, your evidence will have to come from somewhere better than from a NASA employee or from Neil Armstrong's lips.

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 21, 2010, 03:37:22 PM

Im paid by my board of directors, doesn't stop me from producing accurate financials to the IRS.  That is the same old tired fallacy that the anti-vaccine people use.

Well if you're going to tell us that NASA is a legitimate organization, your evidence will have to come from somewhere better than from a NASA employee or from Neil Armstrong's lips.

False. NASA is a legitimate organization. Its evidence is published, predictive, peer-reviewed, public, and ubiquitous.

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 21, 2010, 03:37:22 PM

Im paid by my board of directors, doesn't stop me from producing accurate financials to the IRS.  That is the same old tired fallacy that the anti-vaccine people use.

Well if you're going to tell us that NASA is a legitimate organization, your evidence will have to come from somewhere better than from a NASA employee or from Neil Armstrong's lips.

Why? You have yet to show why they would lie, untill you do NASA is a perfect source. Also, you still haven't explained how I am observing irridium flares with my very own two eyes. In the FET (even if they were stratelites and not satelites) the angle between the sun, the s(tr)atelite and earth, that is needed to cause said observations, can not occur. The RE explains this perfectly.

Quote from: markjo on July 21, 2010, 01:01:06 PM

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/28/amateur-astronomer-spies-on-spy-satellites/

Ralf Vandeberg is paid by NASA. Do a search for his name on these forums.

Something tells me that NASA is not in the business of paying foreigners to photograph secret U.S. spy satellites.

The beliefs of the website have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Just because one of the links suggests "that there are mysterious alien space machines in space" does not mean the same websites claim that satellites can be seen from earth is false. That is a fallacy. 

Where did he claim that? As far as I can tell, you've pulled this out of thin air. Here is the original quote in its entirety:

And it actually says so in the video! Hortensius, have you at least checked your sources?
EDIT: Oh, and another website from your list suggests that there are mysterious alien space machines in space, which can be seen from Earth.

This statement is entirely accurate, and nowhere does he commit the fallacy you suggest. Please do not fling the word fallacy around with abandon just because you read a wikipedia article on them the other day.

Where did he claim that? As far as I can tell, you've pulled this out of thin air. Here is the original quote in its entirety:

Right here, still.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2010, 08:51:52 PM

Your second link is a CGI animation which demonstrates how easy it is to fake these things.

And it actually says so in the video! Hortensius, have you at least checked your sources?
EDIT: Oh, and another website from your list suggests that there are mysterious alien space machines in space, which can be seen from Earth.

Here pizza edited his post to add more information.  So unless you think the edit is just random, he is making the claim that one of the sources is bad.
Furthermore he also said I was wrong and said he meant the following.

Ah, but you misunderstood me. I didn't say "It's impossible to see a stratellite/satellite from Earth". I said "check your sources before posting them or you might end up looking dumb".

Pizzaplanet once again confirmed that he is making the claim that one of the links "suggests that there are mysterious alien space machines in space", which means the source is bad. Unless, like I said, his edit was random.  But I don't believe it was random as it pertained to what he quoted.   
The real matter is even bigger though.  Pizzaplanet does not know how to check sources.  Unless of course, he was only referring to the CGI video.
 

This statement is entirely accurate, and nowhere does he commit the fallacy you suggest. Please do not fling the word fallacy around with abandon just because you read a wikipedia article on them the other day.

Please don't attack me because you think you know what someone else meant.  The only way he didn't post a fallacy is if his edit was no more random then had his edit said his shoe was untied. 
BTW I have seen fallacies in school. 

Quote from: Lord Wilmore

Where did he claim that? As far as I can tell, you've pulled this out of thin air. Here is the original quote in its entirety:

Right here, still.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 18, 2010, 09:38:24 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 18, 2010, 08:51:52 PM

Your second link is a CGI animation which demonstrates how easy it is to fake these things.

And it actually says so in the video! Hortensius, have you at least checked your sources?
EDIT: Oh, and another website from your list suggests that there are mysterious alien space machines in space, which can be seen from Earth.

Here pizza edited his post to add more information.  So unless you think the edit is just random, he is making the claim that one of the sources is bad.

He doesn't claim that anywhere. If you think he does, then I suggest you visit www.rif.org

Furthermore he also said I was wrong and said he meant the following.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 20, 2010, 10:10:10 PM

Ah, but you misunderstood me. I didn't say "It's impossible to see a stratellite/satellite from Earth". I said "check your sources before posting them or you might end up looking dumb".

Pizzaplanet once again confirmed that he is making the claim that one of the links "suggests that there are mysterious alien space machines in space", which means the source is bad. Unless, like I said, his edit was random.  But I don't believe it was random as it pertained to what he quoted. 

No, it means that the source "suggests that there are mysterious alien space machines in space", which it does. He is not making a claim, but stating a fact, as the source does indeed suggest this. What you infer as a consequence is your own business.

Quote

This statement is entirely accurate, and nowhere does he commit the fallacy you suggest. Please do not fling the word fallacy around with abandon just because you read a wikipedia article on them the other day.

Please don't attack me because you think you know what someone else meant.  The only way he didn't post a fallacy is if his edit was no more random then had his edit said his shoe was untied. 
BTW I have seen fallacies in school. 

This issue is not whether I know what PizzaPlanet 'meant'. The issue is that you are accusing him of fallacies which he did not commit. He has made statements which are factual, and because these statements created a certain fallacious impression in your mind regarding the source, you have accused Pizza of committing a fallacy. However, he is only responsible for the statements he makes, not the inferences you draw from them. His statement is entirely factual in nature, and thus is in no way fallacial.

Quote from: Hortensius on July 19, 2010, 12:48:27 AM

Thanks for noting. It's obvously easy to fake these observations, I have to agree. But that doesn't mean all are fake! I actually know a bunch of amateur astronomers who spot satellites... And they do.

Actually satellites generally cannot be seen, the average communication satellite being smaller than a car.

The only man-made "satellite" which is visible from the ground is the ISS, being allegedly larger than a soccer field. Irradium flares may also be seen on occasion when they occur.

Anyone who claims to look up at the night sky and see dozens or hundreds of satellites whizzing by overhead is a liar.

This one is so interesting... Someone who lies about having a top of the line Orion telescope, which suddenly becomes a Celestron top of the line telescope (or was it the other way around?) and sees frisbees with his telescope at 30 miles away, but then suddenly has no telescope, calls the satellite observers liars.

The only man-made satellite which can be seen with no telescope is, most probably, the ISS. Most satellites will only be seen under specific circumstances, while the Sun is in the right place, for example, and you will probably see just a bright spot unless it is a big satellite and a good telescope.

But those who put their effort to finding the satellites tell plausible accounts of their searches. Guess who is more believable?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 19, 2010, 12:52:15 AM

Quote from: Hortensius on July 19, 2010, 12:48:27 AM

Thanks for noting. It's obvously easy to fake these observations, I have to agree. But that doesn't mean all are fake! I actually know a bunch of amateur astronomers who spot satellites... And they do.

Actually satellites generally cannot be seen, the average communication satellite being smaller than a car.

The only man-made "satellite" which is visible from the ground is the ISS, being allegedly larger than a soccer field. Irradium flares may also be seen on occasion when they occur.

Anyone who claims to look up at the night sky and see dozens or hundreds of satellites whizzing by overhead is a liar.

This one is so interesting... Someone who lies about having a top of the line Orion telescope, which suddenly becomes a Celestron top of the line telescope (or was it the other way around?) and sees frisbees with his telescope at 30 miles away, but then suddenly has no telescope, calls the satellite observers liars.

The only man-made satellite which can be seen with no telescope is, most probably, the ISS. Most satellites will only be seen under specific circumstances, while the Sun is in the right place, for example, and you will probably see just a bright spot unless it is a big satellite and a good telescope.

But those who put their effort to finding the satellites tell plausible accounts of their searches. Guess who is more believable?

In dark skies, I've seen over a dozen (while watching a meteor storm) in about five hours.

In dark skies, I've seen over a dozen (while watching a meteor storm) in about five hours.

Exactly, they're easy to spot with the naked eye...

Tom clearly does not care about the truth. There are obviously other visible satellites in the sky at night. Sure, they aren't visible every moment of the night, but there are definitely MANY of them that you can see if you just tried.

Quote

If your "society" have enough real members (i doubt it), you can buy a good telescope and see that the satellites are not ballons.

Aside from the ISS which is larger than a soccer field, no satellites/stratellites are visible in the night sky.

Have you ever scanned the night sky in search of one of the hundreds of communication satellites supposedly in orbit? They cannot be seen.

A list of over 50 satellites that I can see make a pass over my area tonight:

http://www.heavens-above.com/allsats.asp?Mag=3.5&lat=43.367&lng=-80.983&loc=Stratford&alt=359&tz=EST

And these are just the brightest ones.

And, yes, I have actually used this site to successfully observe satellites pass over. And so can you, if you have the intellectual courage to truly challenge your beliefs.

As long as the light pollution in your area isn't that bad, and the Moon isn't full, you can observe several dozen satellites on a nightly basis.

With regard to the ISS, I have observed it using my telescope and clearly saw the basic structure of the station. It goes fairly quick across the night sky, but manually tracking and observing it with the telescope is rather easily done.

Obviously ISS pics are faked.

Look one this high resoltion one:

http://origin.arstechnica.com/journals/science.media/issHiRes.jpg

Shadows are not ok. and ISS itself looks like poor crap of shit. Just watch it!

P.S.: uhm, and the main thing, look how cheaply they faked edge of the earth. just cut and circled the land and even not had curved the earth-based objects.

Or some will say that it is just fish-eye lens... ?