The Conspiracy is ridiculous.

Quote from: Johannes on July 21, 2010, 11:37:30 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 21, 2010, 10:32:04 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 21, 2010, 10:18:16 PM

A bubble emerged in "space" and accelerated upwards, just like an air-bubble accelerating to the top of a pool of water. What part of this evidence do you not understand?

In a vacuum, an object would not away like in the video.

Do tell us how you determined that it was a bubble. Do tell us how you eliminated other forms of acceleration. Do tell us how you measured the acceleration and whether it's in line with your hypothesis.

Then don't forget you still have to show the intent to defraud. You haven't demonstrated that the Chinese Government even posted this video. You're not even in the ballpark to show that this is, in your words, "Conclusive proof the chinese [sic] space agency has faked spacewalks".

As usual, FET has only half-baked ideas and evidence. Another FET epic fail. It's just like Carpenter's proof that world is flat because the HMS Challenger's entire voyage including to and from England and over-wintering in South America over three years means that the distance around Antarctica must be too great for the Earth to be a sphere. What's next? Maybe we'll hear how the fairies build the nexus rings? We've already heard that some consider the phases of the Moon to be caused by, oh get this!, biology. The Moon plants grow and die off producing the Moon's phase.  

I measured the distance the bubble travelled from frame to frame.

The bubble came out of the "astroNOTs" helmet. What could have come out of a helmet?

Again, you have not provided your evidence. What was the measure from frame to frame. How do you know it's a bubble?

Why couldn't it have been a liquid, or even a piece of tape that moved off the helmet?

And remember, you've yet to show that the Chinese Government even published this video as an actual spacewalk and then you'd still have to show intention. Heck, we've seen dozens of sophomoric mistakes by FEers here in the forum just this week, such as misapplying Occam's Razor and the Equivalence Principle. Why would you attribute such an alleged  posting problem to malice instead to human error?

China Central Television showed the spacewalk.

Why would a piece of tape start accelerating upwards off an astronauts helmet in a vacuum???

Quote from: ClockTower on July 22, 2010, 12:09:21 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 21, 2010, 11:37:30 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on July 21, 2010, 10:32:04 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 21, 2010, 10:18:16 PM

A bubble emerged in "space" and accelerated upwards, just like an air-bubble accelerating to the top of a pool of water. What part of this evidence do you not understand?

In a vacuum, an object would not away like in the video.

Do tell us how you determined that it was a bubble. Do tell us how you eliminated other forms of acceleration. Do tell us how you measured the acceleration and whether it's in line with your hypothesis.

Then don't forget you still have to show the intent to defraud. You haven't demonstrated that the Chinese Government even posted this video. You're not even in the ballpark to show that this is, in your words, "Conclusive proof the chinese [sic] space agency has faked spacewalks".

As usual, FET has only half-baked ideas and evidence. Another FET epic fail. It's just like Carpenter's proof that world is flat because the HMS Challenger's entire voyage including to and from England and over-wintering in South America over three years means that the distance around Antarctica must be too great for the Earth to be a sphere. What's next? Maybe we'll hear how the fairies build the nexus rings? We've already heard that some consider the phases of the Moon to be caused by, oh get this!, biology. The Moon plants grow and die off producing the Moon's phase.  

I measured the distance the bubble travelled from frame to frame.

The bubble came out of the "astroNOTs" helmet. What could have come out of a helmet?

Again, you have not provided your evidence. What was the measure from frame to frame. How do you know it's a bubble?

Why couldn't it have been a liquid, or even a piece of tape that moved off the helmet?

And remember, you've yet to show that the Chinese Government even published this video as an actual spacewalk and then you'd still have to show intention. Heck, we've seen dozens of sophomoric mistakes by FEers here in the forum just this week, such as misapplying Occam's Razor and the Equivalence Principle. Why would you attribute such an alleged  posting problem to malice instead to human error?

China Central Television showed the spacewalk.

Why would a piece of tape start accelerating upwards off an astronauts helmet in a vacuum???

Again, you've not shown an acceleration. You are aware of the odd behavior of liquids in zero-g and vacuum, right? How can you tell the difference between that and an 'underwater fake'?

If you don't understand the physics involved in de-pressurizing a vessel in zero-g, then you should go study that. The video is perfectly consistent with a real spacewalk. You're just seeing what you want to see and not doing the objective science needed. Everything that moves is not a bubble. Everything that moves 'upward' isn't a bubble accelerating for the surface.

So the material in the vessel held some liquids and gases that boiled out through the hatch as the craft de-pressurized, and you want to conclude that it's a air "bubble" moving in a huge tank of water. That's just lame.

FINALLY!!!! Conclusive proof......of anomaly hunting.  It doesnt look much like a bubble to me, but more like a piece of insulation or other debris that came loose off of the craft.

I'm not going to spoon feed you the answers to your questions. Open up virtual dub and step through the youtube video if you are not convinced of the acceleration.

I'm not going to spoon feed you the answers to your questions. Open up virtual dub and step through the youtube video if you are not convinced of the acceleration.

Just as we thought, you never measured the acceleration as you claimed. You still have presented no convincing, let alone conclusive, evidence. We see here yet another FET failure. Bubbles, indeed. When will FEers learn to think critically?

Moved to Flat Earth General.

It's not a bubble, it's debris.

It's been debunked far and wide across the interwebs, yet Tom some how seems to put his hand in and pull out a crackpot. Funny how that happens.

The purpose of the conspiracy is not to hide the shape of the earth.

The purpose of the conspiracy is to fake the concept of space travel for military and, perhaps, patriotic purposes.

That could be true.It is one possibilty.The entire military complex surely benefits from the tax money going into "SPACE PROGRAMS"[sic] and it has been good for keeping the masses amused.Every"live broadcast from space" should have a ticker at the bottom that reads FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2010, 12:28:53 PM

The purpose of the conspiracy is not to hide the shape of the earth.

The purpose of the conspiracy is to fake the concept of space travel for military and, perhaps, patriotic purposes.

That could be true.It is one possibilty.The entire military complex surely benefits from the tax money going into "SPACE PROGRAMS"[sic] and it has been good for keeping the masses amused.Every"live broadcast from space" should have a ticker at the bottom that reads FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. 

The military complex benefits far more from a real shooting wars and occupation of other countries (just look at all the money pouring into Iraq and Afghanistan) than from any fake space program.

Isn't NASA one of the smallest departments?

Quote from: clovis2 on July 22, 2010, 04:47:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2010, 12:28:53 PM

The purpose of the conspiracy is not to hide the shape of the earth.

The purpose of the conspiracy is to fake the concept of space travel for military and, perhaps, patriotic purposes.

That could be true.It is one possibilty.The entire military complex surely benefits from the tax money going into "SPACE PROGRAMS"[sic] and it has been good for keeping the masses amused.Every"live broadcast from space" should have a ticker at the bottom that reads FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. 

The military complex benefits far more from a real shooting wars and occupation of other countries (just look at all the money pouring into Iraq and Afghanistan) than from any fake space program.

A fake program is much safer than very real wars. And do you have any evidence that there is more profit margin in war vs faux-space-exploration

Well, all you have to do is look at the size of the budgets.

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2010, 05:02:55 PM

Quote from: clovis2 on July 22, 2010, 04:47:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2010, 12:28:53 PM

The purpose of the conspiracy is not to hide the shape of the earth.

The purpose of the conspiracy is to fake the concept of space travel for military and, perhaps, patriotic purposes.

That could be true.It is one possibilty.The entire military complex surely benefits from the tax money going into "SPACE PROGRAMS"[sic] and it has been good for keeping the masses amused.Every"live broadcast from space" should have a ticker at the bottom that reads FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. 

The military complex benefits far more from a real shooting wars and occupation of other countries (just look at all the money pouring into Iraq and Afghanistan) than from any fake space program.

A fake program is much safer than very real wars. And do you have any evidence that there is more profit margin in war vs faux-space-exploration

Real wars are perfectly safe as long as somebody else is fighting it with your equipment.   As for profit margins...  Have you seen the national debt lately?  It ain't all going to NASA, that's for damned sure.

Well, all you have to do is look at the size of the budgets.

Revenue != profit

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 22, 2010, 09:15:21 PM

Well, all you have to do is look at the size of the budgets.

Revenue != profit

So how again does the GAO miss the draw down of the profits by the Conspiracy? How do you know there are any profits?

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 22, 2010, 09:15:21 PM

Well, all you have to do is look at the size of the budgets.

Revenue != profit

Wow, an economic genius!  Actually, Profit= Revenue-Total Expenses.  The expenses part always seems to be forgotten by socialist demagogues.

Can we all accept that people long ago also believed that the Earth was spherical? If we can accept that, then what purpose would the conspiracy serve back in those times? Why would the Greeks in 4th century BC have needed to create a conspiracy? And finally, what reason would every single culture since then have to perpetuate this conspiracy?

If someone says that the 4th century BC greeks wanted money from NASA funding, I'll punch a bunny in the face.

The Greeks were just mistaken.  Like when they said that flies were generated spontaneously in spoiled meat.

Quote from: oogabubchub on July 23, 2010, 05:32:11 PM

Can we all accept that people long ago also believed that the Earth was spherical? If we can accept that, then what purpose would the conspiracy serve back in those times? Why would the Greeks in 4th century BC have needed to create a conspiracy? And finally, what reason would every single culture since then have to perpetuate this conspiracy?

If someone says that the 4th century BC greeks wanted money from NASA funding, I'll punch a bunny in the face.

The Greeks were just mistaken.  Like when they said that flies were generated spontaneously in spoiled meat.

Fallacy

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 23, 2010, 05:41:57 PM

Quote from: oogabubchub on July 23, 2010, 05:32:11 PM

Can we all accept that people long ago also believed that the Earth was spherical? If we can accept that, then what purpose would the conspiracy serve back in those times? Why would the Greeks in 4th century BC have needed to create a conspiracy? And finally, what reason would every single culture since then have to perpetuate this conspiracy?

If someone says that the 4th century BC greeks wanted money from NASA funding, I'll punch a bunny in the face.

The Greeks were just mistaken.  Like when they said that flies were generated spontaneously in spoiled meat.

Fallacy

No it's not.  I'm not using the fact that the Greeks were wrong about so many other things as proof that they were wrong about the shape of the Earth.  I was providing an example showing that such a mistake has precedent agreed on even by REers.

If you are using the fact that they were mistaken about the origin of flies as evidence that they were mistaken about the shape of the Earth, that is indeed a logical fallacy and such a conclusion can not be drawn. What evidence can you provide that the Greeks were mistaken, considering that it has not been proven that the Earth is flat.

See above; I was doing no such thing.  Misrepresenting my position is a fallacy, though.

Granted

Actually, it is in fact a logical fallacy. I suggest you educate yourself on the definition and types of fallacy. You are linking the premise that the world is round to the Greek's belief about the origin of flies. This is argumentum ad hominum, a classical logical fallacy.

No it's not.

Quote from: Johannes on July 22, 2010, 10:26:25 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 22, 2010, 09:15:21 PM

Well, all you have to do is look at the size of the budgets.

Revenue != profit

Wow, an economic genius!  Actually, Profit= Revenue-Total Expenses.  The expenses part always seems to be forgotten by socialist demagogues.

So you admit your "budget" statement was utter nonsense?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 23, 2010, 06:17:46 PM

Quote from: oogabubchub on July 23, 2010, 06:10:23 PM

Actually, it is in fact a logical fallacy. I suggest you educate yourself on the definition and types of fallacy. You are linking the premise that the world is round to the Greek's belief about the origin of flies. This is argumentum ad hominum, a classical logical fallacy.

No it's not.

Yes it is. That's how the words are defined. Are you now challenging the English language because the roundness of the Earth was just not enough?

EDIT: If it's not, then please give the definition of Fallacy and Argumentum ad hominum.

Certainly.  Let's look at the definition of the word "fallacy" as that's the one that's relevant here.  From wikipedia:

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.

Since I never used incorrect reasoning in argumentation, I'm not guilty of committing a fallacy.  QED.

Just because the Greeks were wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything.

Ah, this is where you're wrong, since I never made that claim or even implied it.

As a sidenote, I'd like to point out that I've taken entire classes and written papers about logical fallacies, so I'm quite familiar with ad hominem and the fact that your reasoning is classified as such.

How interesting.  You'd think you'd have known how to spell it.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 23, 2010, 06:36:56 PM

Quote from: oogabubchub on July 23, 2010, 06:35:33 PM

Just because the Greeks were wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything.

Ah, this is where you're wrong, since I never made that claim or even implied it.

So how can you imply that they were wrong about the shape of the Earth just because they were wrong about flies?

That's exactly what I never implied.

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 23, 2010, 01:16:33 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 22, 2010, 10:26:25 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 22, 2010, 09:15:21 PM

Well, all you have to do is look at the size of the budgets.

Revenue != profit

Wow, an economic genius!  Actually, Profit= Revenue-Total Expenses.  The expenses part always seems to be forgotten by socialist demagogues.

So you admit your "budget" statement was utter nonsense?

Hardly Joe. Total outlays is a perfect measure of just how much can be "embezzled" by such a conspiracy.  The money has to come from somewhere.

In that case, if you are not using the fact that the Greeks were wrong about other things to support your argument, why would you bring up something completely irrelevant?

Well, I was using the statement to support my argument, but only in an indirect way.  I didn't mean to demonstrate that they were always wrong in matters of science, just that they weren't always right.  The statement was perfectly relevant to that point.

A lot of people seem to come here thinking that the Greeks were infallible.  I don't think that's the case with you (not anymore, anyway; I'm sure that if you have a background in philosophy you recognize just how wrong they were about just how many things), but just the same, you seemed to have been suggesting in your post that because the Greeks believed the Earth to be spherical in the absence of an obvious conspiracy, the Earth must be spherical, since they had nothing to hide.  Actually I think there's a fallacy inherent in your argument; appeal to authority, perhaps, but I'm no expert. 

But that's why I don't feel that I'm guilty of a fallacy.  I used the statement about spontaneous generation to point out that they weren't always right about the theories they came up with, so it would be wrong to assume that they were right about the shape of the Earth (in fact, they never proved that the Earth was spherical; that's another popular misconception).  The two statements were meant to be independent (but admittedly connected) responses to your post: the first stating that the Greeks were wrong about the shape of the Earth, and the second demonstrating that they weren't always right in their scientific theories... which does support the notion that they could have been wrong about the shape of the Earth. 

Sometimes I'm too brief in my responses and I may have been a little unclear here in what I was trying to get across.  I did not intend to suggest that because they were wrong about the generation of life they must have also been wrong about the shape of the Earth.  I can see where the juxtaposition might have led you to that assumption, but if you look back at what I posted you'll see that I never even suggested any such thing; I think it's clear enough that I was just citing an example showing that the Greeks weren't always right and were therefore not necessarily right about the shape of the Earth.  Still, I felt the error was egregious enough to warrant giving you this rather long-winded response justifying my post.

I didn't mention the Greeks for the purpose of authority. I merely mentioned their names because they were referenced in the source that I was reading. My point was that people believed in a spherical Earth long before NASA and taxes for space flight. Making money through a fake space flight program seems to be a common reasoning for the conspiracy. Asked another way, do the reasons given for the conspiracy today apply to all the generations of the past when we've believed in a round earth for a long time now? And if not, what were the reasons back then?

No.  The earliest I've seen a FEer suggest the Conspiracy goes back is the Bavarian Globe Maker's Guild c. the 13th century.  Others feel it started with the Royal Astronomical Society in the 19th century.  There is, indeed, a school of thought that the Conspiracy has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth except accidental association, and that NASA is just as ignorant about the true shape of the Earth as most REers.

I'm pretty sure that the general consensus among FEers is that the ancient Greeks were, as previously stated, simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth.

Quote from: Johannes on July 22, 2010, 10:56:24 AM

I'm not going to spoon feed you the answers to your questions. Open up virtual dub and step through the youtube video if you are not convinced of the acceleration.

Just as we thought, you never measured the acceleration as you claimed. You still have presented no convincing, let alone conclusive, evidence. We see here yet another FET failure. Bubbles, indeed. When will FEers learn to think critically?

I did, I didn't save the data, and quite frankly you are about the last person I would want to share it with.

Quote from: Johannes on July 23, 2010, 06:19:22 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 23, 2010, 01:16:33 AM

Quote from: Johannes on July 22, 2010, 10:26:25 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on July 22, 2010, 09:15:21 PM

Well, all you have to do is look at the size of the budgets.

Revenue != profit

Wow, an economic genius!  Actually, Profit= Revenue-Total Expenses.  The expenses part always seems to be forgotten by socialist demagogues.

So you admit your "budget" statement was utter nonsense?

Hardly Joe. Total outlays is a perfect measure of just how much can be "embezzled" by such a conspiracy.  The money has to come from somewhere.

Yeah, but there is the problem that the people in Washington can easily peer review if a missile works. It is much harder to test if the ISS is real.

NASA doesn't provide actual services beyond advanced video editing... The military industrial complex needs to satisfy hundreds of thousands of civilians who enlist in the military. You can't enlist to be an aeronaut.