Apparently your lives are boring so you came up with this crackpot theory.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 14, 2010, 05:41:29 PM

Quote from: Catchpa on May 14, 2010, 05:15:02 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 14, 2010, 02:03:51 PM

Hold on a sec....

Isn't FET FILLED with wild speculation?
I am pretty sure it is.

Noooo! There is plenty of evidence for the anti-moon, dangerous moon rays, lunar animals, attack birds, the conspiracy, the ice wall, (bendy light), dinosaurs 5.000 years old, a flat moon, space flight etc.

There is evidence for all of these things.  You just have to view the problem zetetically to see that, something you refuse to do.

So you admit that FET is not science then.

It is science.  It just follows a different line of reasoning than the so-called scientific method.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 14, 2010, 05:15:02 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 14, 2010, 02:03:51 PM

Hold on a sec....

Isn't FET FILLED with wild speculation?
I am pretty sure it is.

Noooo! There is plenty of evidence for the anti-moon, dangerous moon rays, lunar animals, attack birds, the conspiracy, the ice wall, (bendy light), dinosaurs 5.000 years old, a flat moon, space flight etc.

There is evidence for all of these things.  You just have to view the problem zetetically to see that, something you refuse to do.

I've heard many different definitions of zetetic science. Please tell me what the real definition is.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 14, 2010, 05:41:29 PM

Quote from: Catchpa on May 14, 2010, 05:15:02 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 14, 2010, 02:03:51 PM

Hold on a sec....

Isn't FET FILLED with wild speculation?
I am pretty sure it is.

Noooo! There is plenty of evidence for the anti-moon, dangerous moon rays, lunar animals, attack birds, the conspiracy, the ice wall, (bendy light), dinosaurs 5.000 years old, a flat moon, space flight etc.

There is evidence for all of these things.  You just have to view the problem zetetically to see that, something you refuse to do.

I've heard many different definitions of zetetic science. Please tell me what the real definition is.

I hate to say it, because I know how much derision it causes, but read Earth Not a Globe.  The word is defined in the very beginning.  The wiki also covers this.

I hate to say it, because I know how much derision it causes, but read Earth Not a Globe.  The word is defined in the very beginning.  The wiki also covers this.

Maybe it wouldn't cause so much pain if you at least provided a link to the appropriate reference.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 14, 2010, 05:50:10 PM

I hate to say it, because I know how much derision it causes, but read Earth Not a Globe.  The word is defined in the very beginning.  The wiki also covers this.

Maybe it wouldn't cause so much pain if you at least provided a link to the appropriate reference.

I'm sure Catchpa knows how to find both.

A Quick Introduction to Zetetics and Zeteticism
The term 'Zetetic' is formally defined as "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker." In modern usage, the term 'inquiry' is understood as 'critical inquiry,' and the zetetic is therefore best considered a 'skeptical seeker.'

Zeteticism, then, is the principle and practice of being a zetetic, a skeptical seeker. In plainer terms, it is an open-minded yet realistic approach to matters of truth, philosophy, and religion. It is based in critical thinking.

In that Zeteticism is a skeptical worldview, it is generally humanistic in its approach. This is to say that since traditional mythologies and ideas are examined critically, the zetetic worldview tends toward secular humanism.

Zeteticism is not dogmatic, nor does it eschew concepts such as spirituality and numinous experience. It is generally open-minded toward most ideas, but it encourages discernment based on logic, reason, and critical thought.

Zetetica is an online discussion community featuring topics of interest to zetetics. For intelligent discussion with like-minded friends, visit us today.

Hope that helps anyone who doesn't feel like looking through that Earth Not a Globe garbage.

By the way, James, you're one hell of a nutcase for thinking you'll get taken away by this imaginary "Conspiracy".  I truly hope one day you get hit in the head so hard, you finally realize the truth.  I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Quote

A Quick Introduction to Zetetics and Zeteticism
The term 'Zetetic' is formally defined as "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker." In modern usage, the term 'inquiry' is understood as 'critical inquiry,' and the zetetic is therefore best considered a 'skeptical seeker.'

Zeteticism, then, is the principle and practice of being a zetetic, a skeptical seeker. In plainer terms, it is an open-minded yet realistic approach to matters of truth, philosophy, and religion. It is based in critical thinking.

In that Zeteticism is a skeptical worldview, it is generally humanistic in its approach. This is to say that since traditional mythologies and ideas are examined critically, the zetetic worldview tends toward secular humanism.

Zeteticism is not dogmatic, nor does it eschew concepts such as spirituality and numinous experience. It is generally open-minded toward most ideas, but it encourages discernment based on logic, reason, and critical thought.

Zetetica is an online discussion community featuring topics of interest to zetetics. For intelligent discussion with like-minded friends, visit us today.

Hope that helps anyone who doesn't feel like looking through that Earth Not a Globe garbage.

By the way, James, you're one hell of a nutcase for thinking you'll get taken away by this imaginary "Conspiracy".  I truly hope one day you get hit in the head so hard, you finally realize the truth.  I mean that in the nicest way possible.

I didn't see anything about experimentation or modeling in there. So... I guess it really is just a dumbed down version of natural philosophy. Makes sense, being that drugs, meditation, and the like are all acceptable methods of inquiry. Hardly repeatable or confirmable 

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 14, 2010, 07:31:16 PM

Quote

A Quick Introduction to Zetetics and Zeteticism
The term 'Zetetic' is formally defined as "one who proceeds by inquiry; a seeker." In modern usage, the term 'inquiry' is understood as 'critical inquiry,' and the zetetic is therefore best considered a 'skeptical seeker.'

Zeteticism, then, is the principle and practice of being a zetetic, a skeptical seeker. In plainer terms, it is an open-minded yet realistic approach to matters of truth, philosophy, and religion. It is based in critical thinking.

In that Zeteticism is a skeptical worldview, it is generally humanistic in its approach. This is to say that since traditional mythologies and ideas are examined critically, the zetetic worldview tends toward secular humanism.

Zeteticism is not dogmatic, nor does it eschew concepts such as spirituality and numinous experience. It is generally open-minded toward most ideas, but it encourages discernment based on logic, reason, and critical thought.

Zetetica is an online discussion community featuring topics of interest to zetetics. For intelligent discussion with like-minded friends, visit us today.

Hope that helps anyone who doesn't feel like looking through that Earth Not a Globe garbage.

By the way, James, you're one hell of a nutcase for thinking you'll get taken away by this imaginary "Conspiracy".  I truly hope one day you get hit in the head so hard, you finally realize the truth.  I mean that in the nicest way possible.

I didn't see anything about experimentation or modeling in there. So... I guess it really is just a dumbed down version of natural philosophy. Makes sense, being that drugs, meditation, and the like are all acceptable methods of inquiry. Hardly repeatable or confirmable 

The way I see it, you can argue ANYTHING by Zeteticsm's standards.  The best part about it is, you don't need any f*cking proof about what you're saying. 
Which is why Zetetics are terrible arguers. 

Quote from: Catchpa on May 14, 2010, 05:15:02 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 14, 2010, 02:03:51 PM

Hold on a sec....

Isn't FET FILLED with wild speculation?
I am pretty sure it is.

Noooo! There is plenty of evidence for the anti-moon, dangerous moon rays, lunar animals, attack birds, the conspiracy, the ice wall, (bendy light), dinosaurs 5.000 years old, a flat moon, space flight etc.

There is evidence for all of these things.  You just have to view the problem zetetically to see that, something you refuse to do.

How are attack bird and lunar animals provable by looking it at a zetetic point of view?

As for the zetetic method(courtesy of Thermal Detonator:

From Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe:
"Collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom."
Lunar animals are not and undeniable fact,nor is the dangers of lunar rays(which may i remind you,millions of people in places like times square do each day.

Again, from ENAG Chapter 1:
"Assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers! [i.e. non-zetetic people]"
Selection of evidence to corroborate with assumptions,sound familiar?

"Until the practice of theorising is universally relinquished, philosophy will continue to be looked upon... as a vain and mumbling pretension... Let there be adopted a true and practical free thought method, with sequence as the only test of truth and consistency. Let the practice of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers."

In other words, don't theorize that lunar animals inhabit a the moon,or that a worldwide conspiracy trains attack bird to kill people who will expose the truth about an ice wall.
[/quote]

Quote from: buka001 on May 14, 2010, 03:00:47 AM

Quote from: James on May 13, 2010, 07:20:51 PM

I'm sorry, but as a scientist I do not truck in possibilities.

As a scientist, you should be well aware of the term "scientific method". Therefore please detail your proof of the claim of something called an antimoon.

It is used as a critical element in a theory that is used to prove the FE model. You claim to be a scientist who believes in the FE model. Therefore as a scientist detail in a scientific manner all proof and evidence you have for this claim.

If no evidence is provided this claim will be removed and ignored. You will then have to come up with an alternate explanation of this effect, using once again the scientific method.

Just a refresher in case it has been a while since you studied what ever you studied, here is a definition of the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

P.S. What did you study at university? What type of scientist are you? Where did you study?

You should read the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe, entitled "Zetetic and Theoretic Compared and Defined" which outlines the time-honoured methodological tradition in which I work as a zetetic scientist. The so-called scientific method is a conceit of globularism, they have obviously been successful in brainwashing you into thinking that it is the only way to do science. In fact, within Philosophy of Science, there is widespread disagreement on method (consider the theses of Popper, Kuhn and Quine as examples of incommensurable philosophies of science - have you read any of those)?

Flat Earth scientists generally use what is known as the Zetetic Method, a system specifically designed to eliminate the tendency towards wild speculation which most globular theorists succumb to.

I am afraid I must also reject your demand for my personal details. Since I have been harrassed by the globularist Conspiracy in the past, I do not wish to divulge information which might lead to my capture by the agents of globularism.

Oh Ok I see what you are saying.

The scientific method that was used to develope all the technology that you use everyday is actually inferior. The real method which only you and some FE believers use is the superior one.

The method you use can offer NO explanation on the type of map the earth actaully uses. Can offer no explanation as to how bendy-light works. Can offer no explanation to UA and how it affects the earth but not my glass of milk. How other planets have gravity but we dont.  Offers NO explanation to how geostationary orbit works. No explanation as to how GPS works. No explanation to the coriolis effect and so forth.

The method we use can offer explantions with proof and MEASURABLE RESULTS to all the phenomenen observed.

Coincidently the method we use was used to develop the concrete floors you walk on everyday. So if you don't believe in the scientific method I suggest you go live in a forrest somewhere and stay away from any structures. Since these structures were designed based on theories developed using scientific method. So in your opinion all structures on earth are inferior.

Anti-moon is once again rejected as a theory. Try again.

The ability to construct was around far longer than the scientific method >.>

The ability to construct was around far longer than the scientific method >.>

yes but any thing built in say the last 100 years uses advanced methods

so if you want to live in a hut be my guest

i like my internets and computers im an Electrical Engineer by trade
i challenge any one to use any other method to come up with a modern microprocessor with your better method

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 14, 2010, 05:42:51 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 14, 2010, 05:41:29 PM

Quote from: Catchpa on May 14, 2010, 05:15:02 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 14, 2010, 02:03:51 PM

Hold on a sec....

Isn't FET FILLED with wild speculation?
I am pretty sure it is.

Noooo! There is plenty of evidence for the anti-moon, dangerous moon rays, lunar animals, attack birds, the conspiracy, the ice wall, (bendy light), dinosaurs 5.000 years old, a flat moon, space flight etc.

There is evidence for all of these things.  You just have to view the problem zetetically to see that, something you refuse to do.

So you admit that FET is not science then.

It is science.  It just follows a different line of reasoning than the so-called scientific method.

Lolno, it isn't. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
science uses the scientific method. yours my friend is a philosophy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy

key word scientific method

The ability to construct was around far longer than the scientific method >.>

Scientific method has refined the methods of construction, allowing us to construct things like the channel tunnel, tall buildings, buildings in earthquake zones, bridges like the Milau Viaduct and so forth.

I am a civil engineer. I know very well how the scientific method is applied to structural mechanics, hydraulics and so forth.

The Zetetic method has no place in the modern world.

Here is a challenge. You design a building using zetetic principles and I shall use scientific method. We will then see which building comes out more cost effective, safer and durable.

Or just provide real proof to this anti-moon of yours. Until that point anti-moon is excluded as a theory.

P.S. James telling us which university you studied at and what you studied will not impact on your privacy. Unless you studied at a university that only offered one course for one person ...

I studied at the University of Cape Town. I studied Civil Engineering. No one could get my details based on that information alone. So no one could get your details based on similar information. So be honest now what did you study and where?

So be honest now what did you study and where?

The internetz.  In my loungeroom.

It should be obvious to anyone with half a wit that if said pictures were faked the methods were obviously not created by Adobe or even compare.  A two-bit graphic designer is hardly suited to say anything of what a team of the best computer scientists and photo-manipulation experts, the wealth of knowledge that would be known to such a worldwide conspiracy, and a nearly unlimited budget can accomplish.  

It should be obvious to anyone with half a wit that if said pictures were faked the methods were obviously not created by Adobe or even compare.  A two-bit graphic designer is hardly suited to say anything of what a team of the best computer scientists and photo-manipulation experts, the wealth of knowledge that would be known to such a worldwide conspiracy, and a nearly unlimited budget can accomplish.  

You're talking rubbish again. You think that any problem can be solved if you throw enough money at it?

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 03:38:07 AM

It should be obvious to anyone with half a wit that if said pictures were faked the methods were obviously not created by Adobe or even compare.  A two-bit graphic designer is hardly suited to say anything of what a team of the best computer scientists and photo-manipulation experts, the wealth of knowledge that would be known to such a worldwide conspiracy, and a nearly unlimited budget can accomplish.  

You're talking rubbish again. You think that any problem can be solved if you throw enough money at it?

No of course not. Do you think no problems can be solved by throwing money, a team of some of the smartest humans alive, and the will for power at it?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 03:53:31 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 03:38:07 AM

It should be obvious to anyone with half a wit that if said pictures were faked the methods were obviously not created by Adobe or even compare.  A two-bit graphic designer is hardly suited to say anything of what a team of the best computer scientists and photo-manipulation experts, the wealth of knowledge that would be known to such a worldwide conspiracy, and a nearly unlimited budget can accomplish.  

You're talking rubbish again. You think that any problem can be solved if you throw enough money at it?

No of course not. Do you think no problems can be solved by throwing money, a team of some of the smartest humans alive, and the will for power at it?

Funny how you seem to think ALL the best people work for Teh Konsipracy. How do you know the graphic artists you claim work for the conspiracy are any better than the best graphic artists elsewhere? You don't. The best photo manipulation experts in the 60's, 70's and 80's used techniques which were not some sort of secret mystery but which were available to anyone skilled in the darkroom arts. And all of those techniques had limitations, limitations which are not seen in early space imaging.
Being clever doesn't always mean you can get what you want. Imagine a dolphin 200 times cleverer than the smartest human, and it owns a Swiss bank account with $40 billion in it. It still can't do anything with its intelligence or its money because it's a dolphin and is stuck in the water with flippers instead of hands. However clever the conspiracy might be, in the days before Photoshop and the like were invented, they suffered from limits on how much they could fake a photo.

The method you use can offer NO explanation on the type of map the earth actaully uses.

We have provided plenty of maps on this very website!

Can offer no explanation as to how bendy-light works.

I think Steve would like a word with you - I think he may disagree with your assement. As far as I can tell, he can, and does, offer extensive explanation for how it works.

Can offer no explanation to UA and how it affects the earth but not my glass of milk.

I actually tried to work through this with you personally. I assure you, most other globularists have no trouble understanding the theory of Universal Acceleration, even though they disagree with it. The fact that you funamentally can't understand it is a reflection of your own intellectual ability, not the explanatory power of Zeteticism.

How other planets have gravity but we dont.

Nothing has gravity. Gravity does not exist.

Offers NO explanation to how geostationary orbit works. No explanation as to how GPS works.

Satellite signals are broadcast from high-altitude aircraft, as I have explained many times.

The method we use can offer explantions with proof and MEASURABLE RESULTS to all the phenomenen observed.

Can it offer explanations, proof and measurable results for the existence of gravitons? Gravitons are one of the major explanatory devices of globularism. Where are the proofs and measurable results which show their existence?

Coincidently the method we use was used to develop the concrete floors you walk on everyday. So if you don't believe in the scientific method I suggest you go live in a forrest somewhere and stay away from any structures. Since these structures were designed based on theories developed using scientific method. So in your opinion all structures on earth are inferior.

That's complete nonsense. The production and development of concrete, and the facts which are involved in understanding such processes, are accessible to zetetic enquiry.

Anti-moon is once again rejected as a theory. Try again.

It is rejected by you. However, whether you reject or accept a theory has little bearing on what anyone else does.

Quote from: buka001 on May 14, 2010, 10:07:55 PM

The method you use can offer NO explanation on the type of map the earth actaully uses.

We have provided plenty of maps on this very website!

So which of those maps are accurate?

Quote from: buka001 on May 14, 2010, 10:07:55 PM

How other planets have gravity but we dont.

Nothing has gravity. Gravity does not exist.

Quote from: buka001 on May 14, 2010, 10:07:55 PM

Offers NO explanation to how geostationary orbit works. No explanation as to how GPS works.

Satellite signals are broadcast from high-altitude aircraft, as I have explained many times.

ok
1. gravitational lensing this is how Relativity was proven
2. really what about iridium flares? http://www.heavens-above.com/iridium.asp?Dur=7&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET

also i can see some LEO birds with a good telescope

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 04:01:35 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 03:53:31 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 03:38:07 AM

It should be obvious to anyone with half a wit that if said pictures were faked the methods were obviously not created by Adobe or even compare.  A two-bit graphic designer is hardly suited to say anything of what a team of the best computer scientists and photo-manipulation experts, the wealth of knowledge that would be known to such a worldwide conspiracy, and a nearly unlimited budget can accomplish.  

You're talking rubbish again. You think that any problem can be solved if you throw enough money at it?

No of course not. Do you think no problems can be solved by throwing money, a team of some of the smartest humans alive, and the will for power at it?

Funny how you seem to think ALL the best people work for Teh Konsipracy.

Could you please remind me where I said that all the best people work of the conspiracy? 

How do you know the graphic artists you claim work for the conspiracy are any better than the best graphic artists elsewhere?

You don't. The best photo manipulation experts in the 60's, 70's and 80's used techniques which were not some sort of secret mystery but which were available to anyone skilled in the darkroom arts. And all of those techniques had limitations, limitations which are not seen in early space imaging.
Being clever doesn't always mean you can get what you want. Imagine a dolphin 200 times cleverer than the smartest human, and it owns a Swiss bank account with $40 billion in it. It still can't do anything with its intelligence or its money because it's a dolphin and is stuck in the water with flippers instead of hands. However clever the conspiracy might be, in the days before Photoshop and the like were invented, they suffered from limits on how much they could fake a photo.

The best photo man. experts didn't have an near infinite budget, a team of computer scientists, a team of scientists, and pretty much any resource they could ask for.  Is it unreasonable to assume that with such obvious advantages they would have gone beyond simple dark room tricks?

I could easily come up with a mechanical computer that could fake these images using only technology available at the time and I'm not even remotely close to a team of experts.   Granted, it would take me a while, but then again, as I said, I'm not a team.

Two children in England took a series of photos in 1917 puporting to show actual fairies, and the images were not shown to be fake until 1978 (or 1982 if you're strict about it). Now, if a couple of kids could do that, then I don't see how it's so implausible that top minds and high budgets could do better in the 1960s and 70s.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 06:00:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 04:01:35 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 03:53:31 AM

Quote from: John Davis on May 15, 2010, 03:38:07 AM

It should be obvious to anyone with half a wit that if said pictures were faked the methods were obviously not created by Adobe or even compare.  A two-bit graphic designer is hardly suited to say anything of what a team of the best computer scientists and photo-manipulation experts, the wealth of knowledge that would be known to such a worldwide conspiracy, and a nearly unlimited budget can accomplish.  

You're talking rubbish again. You think that any problem can be solved if you throw enough money at it?

No of course not. Do you think no problems can be solved by throwing money, a team of some of the smartest humans alive, and the will for power at it?

Funny how you seem to think ALL the best people work for Teh Konsipracy.

Could you please remind me where I said that all the best people work of the conspiracy? 

Quote

How do you know the graphic artists you claim work for the conspiracy are any better than the best graphic artists elsewhere?

You don't. The best photo manipulation experts in the 60's, 70's and 80's used techniques which were not some sort of secret mystery but which were available to anyone skilled in the darkroom arts. And all of those techniques had limitations, limitations which are not seen in early space imaging.
Being clever doesn't always mean you can get what you want. Imagine a dolphin 200 times cleverer than the smartest human, and it owns a Swiss bank account with $40 billion in it. It still can't do anything with its intelligence or its money because it's a dolphin and is stuck in the water with flippers instead of hands. However clever the conspiracy might be, in the days before Photoshop and the like were invented, they suffered from limits on how much they could fake a photo.

The best photo man. experts didn't have an near infinite budget, a team of computer scientists, a team of scientists, and pretty much any resource they could ask for.  Is it unreasonable to assume that with such obvious advantages they would have gone beyond simple dark room tricks?

I could easily come up with a mechanical computerthat could fake these images using only technology available at the time and I'm not even remotely close to a team of experts.   Granted, it would take me a while, but then again, as I said, I'm not a team.

in the 50s to 70 NO WAY IN HELL now sure but it wouldnt hold up long to any one that really knows how sniff out a shoped image
the 60s were barely better then the 50s the best computer in the world was barely better then a calculator
a cell phone has orders of magnitude more power

I could easily come up with a mechanical computer

prove it lets see it

Two children in England took a series of photos in 1917 puporting to show actual fairies, and the images were not shown to be fake until 1978 (or 1982 if you're strict about it). Now, if a couple of kids could do that, then I don't see how it's so implausible that top minds and high budgets could do better in the 1960s and 70s.

Some things are easier to fake than others. One of the reasons the photos weren't shown to be fake was also the people trying to determine if they were real or not were idiots. There are features in the photos which should point out to even an amateur photographer that something fishy was going on, especially the pin sharp fairies dancing while other things in the photo suffer from movement blur.

And Davis, when you said "the best people" that is essentially the same as "all the best people" - adding "all" as I did is something of a tautology.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 15, 2010, 01:18:43 PM

Two children in England took a series of photos in 1917 puporting to show actual fairies, and the images were not shown to be fake until 1978 (or 1982 if you're strict about it). Now, if a couple of kids could do that, then I don't see how it's so implausible that top minds and high budgets could do better in the 1960s and 70s.

Some things are easier to fake than others. One of the reasons the photos weren't shown to be fake was also the people trying to determine if they were real or not were idiots. There are features in the photos which should point out to even an amateur photographer that something fishy was going on, especially the pin sharp fairies dancing while other things in the photo suffer from movement blur.

If that were true, it would not have taken so long for people to conclusively prove the images weren't real. However, the point is that it clearly isn't that hard to make something which can hold up to scrutiny.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 15, 2010, 01:32:08 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 15, 2010, 01:18:43 PM

Two children in England took a series of photos in 1917 puporting to show actual fairies, and the images were not shown to be fake until 1978 (or 1982 if you're strict about it). Now, if a couple of kids could do that, then I don't see how it's so implausible that top minds and high budgets could do better in the 1960s and 70s.

Some things are easier to fake than others. One of the reasons the photos weren't shown to be fake was also the people trying to determine if they were real or not were idiots. There are features in the photos which should point out to even an amateur photographer that something fishy was going on, especially the pin sharp fairies dancing while other things in the photo suffer from movement blur.

If that were true, it would not have taken so long for people to conclusively prove the images weren't real. However, the point is that it clearly isn't that hard to make something which can hold up to scrutiny.

Er, if the people doing the looking are idiots, then yes it can take that long. You are ignoring that and assuming the people examining the pictures had their brains switched on. They didn't. When someone who was sensible and clever looked at the pictures in later years, they spotted flaws and confronted the old crones about it, who fessed up.

Er, if the people doing the looking are idiots, then yes it can take that long. You are ignoring that and assuming the people examining the pictures had their brains switched on. They didn't. When someone who was sensible and clever looked at the pictures in later years, they spotted flaws and confronted the old crones about it, who fessed up.

Actually, if I recall it was James Randi who first proved them to be fake, and did so with computer technology which did not exist until then. Lots of experts thought they were fake, simply because they didn't believe fairies could exist, but they couldn't conclusively prove it.