The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Skeptek on June 18, 2009, 09:15:41 AM
-
Using the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) or any other completely unscientific argument is worthless and admitting complete failure. The very use of the word as an argument invalidates one's entire position.
I have linked here, evidence known to and accepted by the masses, that sustained orbit is commonplace. I challenge anyone to disprove all of this evidence. Disprove does not mean "cast doubt" or "suggest imperfection" or "show as questionable to some." It means to show beyond all doubt that this evidence is not just mistaken or misinterpreted, but actually FAKED.
NASA TV. (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html)
Video of Earth from orbit. (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&channel=s&hs=6Ez&q=%22earth+from+orbit%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=M106SqKLGMqMtgfI3JTbDA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title#)
To be clear, the challenge is:
Prove beyond all doubt that every video of Earth from orbit, and long-term Micro-G activity, has actually been faked and not just misinterpreted.
If Tom Bishop comes in here and says "photographic evidence is not admissible in this form", I think I might pee myself. I might laugh some too.
-
I think that a direct personal attack on a moderator is reasonable grounds for a probationary ban, and I am about to act on this belief.
-
I think that a direct personal attack on a moderator is reasonable grounds for a probationary ban, and I am about to act on this belief.
Not wishing to appear sarcastic (this is a genuine question):
Isn't it incredibly hard to ban people in a virtual world like this?
Can't they just re-register under another pseudonym?
Or can you block IP addresses?
Even then, they could just go down to the cyber-cafe down the street.
Who'd be a moderator, eh?
-
So that we can continue to engage in the discussion once you get back after your week's holiday (and perhaps some of your friends will discuss the non-inflammatory elements of your post in your absence), let me just say that pointing out a conspiracy where one actually exists cannot be regarded as a fallacy.
Take, for example, the case of the Watergate scandal. Asking somebody to reasonably explain the event without reference to the notion of conspiracy is absurd, and so is asking somebody to explain NASA's product without reference to a conspiracy. Round Earthers who refuse to accept explanations which involve the conspiracy hold an unfair standard to the other side of the debate. What do you want us to do, just make up some excuse instead of calling it like it is? If there is actually a conspiracy, then saying so cannot be considered fallacious.
-
Not wishing to appear sarcastic (this is a genuine question):
Isn't it incredibly hard to ban people in a virtual world like this?
Can't they just re-register under another pseudonym?
Or can you block IP addresses?
Even then, they could just go down to the cyber-cafe down the street.
Who'd be a moderator, eh?
Kind of off topic, but yes, we can block IP addresses. Sure, banned users can create new accounts from different computers, but our staff will gladly ban alt accounts (which are strictly prohibited), as and when they are discovered, until the cows come home.
-
I think that a direct personal attack on a moderator is reasonable grounds for a probationary ban, and I am about to act on this belief.
Neh. It's fine. We got in a heated argument and he was referring to SCG when he said my mother. She's the forum mom and all.
-
that went off-topic fast.
to OP-im expecting a "well it could be faked, you can't prove it real" type response.
-
Using the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) or any other completely unscientific argument is worthless and admitting complete failure. The very use of the word as an argument invalidates one's entire position.
I have linked here, evidence known to and accepted by the masses, that sustained orbit is commonplace. I challenge anyone to disprove all of this evidence. Disprove does not mean "cast doubt" or "suggest imperfection" or "show as questionable to some." It means to show beyond all doubt that this evidence is not just mistaken or misinterpreted, but actually FAKED.
NASA TV. (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html)
Video of Earth from orbit. (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&channel=s&hs=6Ez&q=%22earth+from+orbit%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=M106SqKLGMqMtgfI3JTbDA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title#)
To be clear, the challenge is:
Prove beyond all doubt that every video of Earth from orbit, and long-term Micro-G activity, has actually been faked and not just misinterpreted.
If Tom Bishop comes in here and says "photographic evidence is not admissible in this form", I think I might pee myself. I might laugh some too.
The only thing this post proves is that you have missed the point entirely. Good day to you, sir.
-
To be honest I don't know why anyone would go to such lengths to hide a huge ring of ice surrounding our planet, but people can be pretty fucked up.
-
Robosteve would you please care to elaborate? Just answering something around the lines of "no your're wrong" is very brief and undescriptive. Enlighten us. How did we miss the point?
With all due respect, this thread is doomed to go off-topic and die... Whenever FEers bring up the all mighty TGC, the thread dies. Why? There's no way to prove or disprove the presesnce of a conspiracy, and therefore the thread becomes an endless tug-o-war where nobody can win. The entire FET revolves around the presence of a conspiracy, and if that conspiracy wasn't part of their theory, the FET would have been torn to shreds a long time ago. It's this conspiracy that halts all logical debate in this forum... The problem with the OP is that, like I said, the entire FET would obliterated by videos like these if it weren't for the conspiracy argument. Not wonder there hasn't been any good responses yet, they CAN'T give a response, because there is absolutely no evidence that these videos are faked unless it were for the conspiracy. Strip that from them and then they have nothing to say...
-
Robosteve would you please care to elaborate? Just answering something around the lines of "no your're wrong" is very brief and undescriptive. Enlighten us. How did we miss the point?
I'm sorry, any sort of detailed answer to that would constitute a spoiler. The best I can give you is "lurk moar".
-
That's EXACTLY what I was talking about in my last post... Perhaps you would also like to try to prove that those videos are faked and not just misinterpreted WITHOUT bringing up the argument of a conspiracy? If you can manage that of course...
-
Isn't it incredibly hard to ban people in a virtual world like this?
"Skeptek" says:
"Any chance I could get you to tell folks that I've been banned for a week?"
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:58:31 -0400
Done.
-
Are The B.B.C. part of "The Conspiracy"?
(He said, expecting the answer 'yes'.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8110001.stm
-
Skeptek was banned!? WTF What for? I just posted in the forum concerns thread, hopefully I'll get an answer...
-
I smell Nazis.
-
Using the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) or any other completely unscientific argument is worthless and admitting complete failure. The very use of the word as an argument invalidates one's entire position.
I have linked here, evidence known to and accepted by the masses, that sustained orbit is commonplace. I challenge anyone to disprove all of this evidence. Disprove does not mean "cast doubt" or "suggest imperfection" or "show as questionable to some." It means to show beyond all doubt that this evidence is not just mistaken or misinterpreted, but actually FAKED.
NASA TV. (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html)
Video of Earth from orbit. (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&channel=s&hs=6Ez&q=%22earth+from+orbit%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=M106SqKLGMqMtgfI3JTbDA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title#)
To be clear, the challenge is:
Prove beyond all doubt that every video of Earth from orbit, and long-term Micro-G activity, has actually been faked and not just misinterpreted.
If Tom Bishop comes in here and says "photographic evidence is not admissible in this form", I think I might pee myself. I might laugh some too.
-
The answer to the OP is simple. These videos cannot be proved fake becouse they are not fake.
-
That's sort of the message Skeptek was trying to pass...
-
Meh, an IP banked user could just go to proxy.org and use one of the 15 000 or so proxies avalible. You can technically never really ban someone for good...
-
No, but you can try to make it more effort than it's worth.
-
True that. Anyways sorry for going off-topic. Let's go back to the original purpose of this thread.
-
Meh, an IP banked user could just go to proxy.org and use one of the 15 000 or so proxies avalible. You can technically never really ban someone for good...
There are more ways than IP bans.
-
The answer to the OP is simple. These videos cannot be proved fake becouse they are not fake.
Do you have any proof that they are not fake?
-
The answer to the OP is simple. These videos cannot be proved fake becouse they are not fake.
Do you have any proof that they are not fake?
How is he supposed to prove a negative?
-
How is he supposed to prove a negative?
It's not a negative. He made the claim:
they are not fake.
I expect him to provide supporting evidence, or admit that it is just speculation.
-
Meh, an IP banked user could just go to proxy.org and use one of the 15 000 or so proxies avalible. You can technically never really ban someone for good...
There are more ways than IP bans.
Proxy servers...
-
Meh, an IP banked user could just go to proxy.org and use one of the 15 000 or so proxies avalible. You can technically never really ban someone for good...
There are more ways than IP bans.
Proxy servers...
I said there are other ways to ban people than by their IP.
-
Meh, an IP banked user could just go to proxy.org and use one of the 15 000 or so proxies avalible. You can technically never really ban someone for good...
There are more ways than IP bans.
Proxy servers...
I said there are other ways to ban people than by their IP.
ISP, e-mail and username.. what else? I've been a mod on pretty many large forums and I'm quite confident that there arent any other ways to ban that someone with your intelligence could ban with.
-
How is he supposed to prove a negative?
It's not a negative. He made the claim:
Do you have any proof that they are not fake?
Looks like a negative to me. Perhaps you should have said something like "Do you have any proof that they are real?".
-
Looks like a negative to me. Perhaps you should have said something like "Do you have any proof that they are real?".
No, he made a positive claim which happened to include a negative adverb.
-
Meh, an IP banked user could just go to proxy.org and use one of the 15 000 or so proxies avalible. You can technically never really ban someone for good...
There are more ways than IP bans.
Proxy servers...
I said there are other ways to ban people than by their IP.
ISP, e-mail and username.. what else? I've been a mod on pretty many large forums and I'm quite confident that there arent any other ways to ban that someone with your intelligence could ban with.
Well I have more intelligence than someone that says "pretty many large forums." Your forums were obviously not tech related. You can use cookies to ban someone, and a few other methods, but that has nothing to do with my intelligence but the person writing the script for the site.
Congrats on being pretentious while still failing.
-
This is a Flat Earth forum. It is the visitor's job to display proof of a round earth, not the other way around. If you want us to prove to you the Earth is flat, go start a Round Earth forum. Until then, the burden of proof is on the REers.
-
Another victory for FE!
-
If you want us to prove to you the Earth is flat, go start a Round Earth forum.
Someone already did that, remember? It failed miserably. Although that may have had more to do with the fact that it was Sven who made the forum than it being a Round Earth forum.
-
I kinda think it was because of both. Karma, anyone?
-
Another victory for FE!
YAY! FE wins because REers couldn't prove the video was not fake...or disprove it or something.....oh well, doesn't matter! FE +1!!!
-
This is a Flat Earth forum. It is the visitor's job to display proof of a round earth, not the other way around. If you want us to prove to you the Earth is flat, go start a Round Earth forum. Until then, the burden of proof is on the REers.
I already did that, but guys don't want to come over and show us some evidence.
Chickens!
-
If you want us to prove to you the Earth is flat, go start a Round Earth forum.
Someone already did that, remember? It failed miserably. Although that may have had more to do with the fact that it was Sven who made the forum than it being a Round Earth forum.
It has not failed.
-
Back to topic: how do you explain the following video if there are no space stations / satellites orbiting the Eart?
Typical day at the International Space Station (http://)
("the music sucks" isn't a valid argument)
-
Proof of space travel
http://www.spike.com/video/wallace-gromit-grand/2681102
-
I'd have to agree with Nemiades.
The answer to the OP is simple. These videos cannot be proved fake becouse they are not fake.
Do you have any proof that they are not fake?
This is PRICELESS, Robosteve. I can't thank you enough. All I can think of to respond with is:
Please define "proof."
Within the parameters of this topic, it has already been proved many times by countless people. I just need to know which proof pleases you. Now if you reply that no proof is possible, well that would just mean that your request was a passive-aggressive attack that avoids direct confrontation, and I just don't see that in you, steviebot.
Pick your proof and you'll have it on a silver platter - as it were.
-
The videos are the proof robosteve.
You have to disproove the video, which you cannot do as they are real.
-
Take, for example, the case of the Watergate scandal. Asking somebody to reasonably explain the event without reference to the notion of conspiracy is absurd, and so is asking somebody to explain NASA's product without reference to a conspiracy. Round Earthers who refuse to accept explanations which involve the conspiracy hold an unfair standard to the other side of the debate. What do you want us to do, just make up some excuse instead of calling it like it is? If there is actually a conspiracy, then saying so cannot be considered fallacious.
Wow! That's down right comical. Until I started lurking in this forum a couple months ago I had never once ever heard of a conspiracy that NASA was in beyond Fake moon landings. The moon landing fakes have been debunked so many times that the people who still believe it should be ashamed of themselves.
Your last sentence is like saying "it's not paranoia if they are really out to get you." or I'm not wrong if I'm right"
REers refuse to accept conspiracy ideas because they are just stuff plucked out of the air. Even the conspiracy compendium thread that FEers like to link to is full of made up of barely plausible ideas. Until someone can post a copy of some actual FACTS and hard evidence of any cover-up activity (in regards to the shape of the earth) , FE conspiracy theory will continue to be uniformly dismissed.
This does not present a double standard as you would like to believe. There are constant links to scientific websites, Historical data, videos, pictures, witnesses, people who have done conclusive evidence themselves, and all other manner of evidence. All of it is thrown out by FEers with a simple "its part of the conspiracy". Which I might add is a fine defense for anyone who does not have any method to counter such an overwhelming amount of evidence. Conspiracy is too easy to argue, and is undefeatable because it can be anything at any time and never needs proof. How anyone can ever claim ground in a conspiracy debate is beyond me.
This is a FE forum and the burden of proof is on the shoulders of RE. However FE cannot take the grand conspiracy, and pseudoscience, standpoint without ever going after the conventional hard evidence presented by the other side. This is why most people who visit think FE is a joke, and also why most members who post are trolls.
-
This is why most people who visit think FE is a joke, and also why most members who post are trolls.
This site wouldn't be much without REers. I think it would just die out quite quickly if they all upped and left.
For me the saddest thing about FET is the lack of an even half decent map. No-one has even bothered to try and make one with an island/continent of Antarctica (which you can circumnavigate on a cruise ffs) stuck in somewhere for example. Oh, and who ran the Great Conspiracy before NASA? The Girl Guides?
-
Well I have more intelligence than someone that says "pretty many large forums." Your forums were obviously not tech related. You can use cookies to ban someone, and a few other methods, but that has nothing to do with my intelligence but the person writing the script for the site.
Congrats on being pretentious while still failing.
Any tech person would know how to delete a cookie. It would be much easier than configuring a proxy. You can't rely on cookies for security, though I suppose it couldn't hurt to try.
-
Back to topic: how do you explain the following video if there are no space stations / satellites orbiting the Eart?
Typical day at the International Space Station (http://)
It's fake, it's fake, it's fake! And it's conspiracy! No more arguments needed from FE side. You know, NASA has all this wonderful technology and can fake easily zero gravitation and whatever they wish. But they just can't actually go out of earths atmosphere.
-
The flat earthers have shut up again.
Maybe we have converted them already?
-
For me the saddest thing about FET is the lack of an even half decent map. No-one has even bothered to try and make one with an island/continent of Antarctica (which you can circumnavigate on a cruise ffs) stuck in somewhere for example.
They also don't have any coherent view of near universe. As like where the sun, moon, other planets are, how they move and why some planets pass the sun being between earth and sun, how come the comets and meteor showers come periodically.
-
The also disagree on weather the sun and moon are flat disks or spheres.
Considering they look round from all over the earth, mind you then they talk about light bending! double roflcopter!
-
I think that a direct personal attack on a moderator is reasonable grounds for a probationary ban, and I am about to act on this belief.
Tom Bishop's a moderator?