Green screen disinfo.

Quote from: Goth on November 05, 2014, 05:55:03 AM

Unbelieva-bull- bull shit!!!!

What do you see that's fake in it?

I doubt you will get any commentary out of Goth, he communicates only via shitty youtube links.

This one is especially bad.  They are talking over satellite communications, yet, they are in the same parking lot. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CNN Anchors Fake Satellite Interview in the Same Parking Lot !

This one is especially bad.  They are talking over satellite communications, yet, they are in the same parking lot. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CNN Anchors Fake Satellite Interview in the Same Parking Lot !

And your point is? Maybe technically easier that way, ask CNN.

Quote from: jroa on November 05, 2014, 08:50:14 AM

This one is especially bad.  They are talking over satellite communications, yet, they are in the same parking lot. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CNN Anchors Fake Satellite Interview in the Same Parking Lot !

And your point is? Maybe technically easier that way, ask CNN.

lol, it is easier to fake talking over satellite communications than it is to turn your head and actually talk to someone? 

This one is especially bad.  They are talking over satellite communications

How do you know?

Quote from: jroa on November 05, 2014, 08:50:14 AM

This one is especially bad.  They are talking over satellite communications

How do you know?

Oh, I am sorry.  Maybe they are pushing the fake ear buds into their ears for another reason? 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 05, 2014, 11:27:22 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 05, 2014, 08:50:14 AM

This one is especially bad.  They are talking over satellite communications

How do you know?

Oh, I am sorry.  Maybe they are pushing the fake ear buds into their ears for another reason?

Many broadcasters use satellite links to connect back to the studio.  Have you seen the trucks?

Quote from: jroa on November 05, 2014, 11:34:19 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 05, 2014, 11:27:22 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 05, 2014, 08:50:14 AM

This one is especially bad.  They are talking over satellite communications

How do you know?

Oh, I am sorry.  Maybe they are pushing the fake ear buds into their ears for another reason?

Many broadcasters use satellite links to connect back to the studio.  Have you seen the trucks?

Did you see that they were only feet apart and in the same parking lot? 

It is pretty common for reporters to claim to be on location when in fact green screen is being used from wherever the anchor desk is located.

It is pretty common for reporters to claim to be on location when in fact green screen is being used from wherever the anchor desk is located.

Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?

Quote from: Rama Set on November 05, 2014, 01:16:59 PM

It is pretty common for reporters to claim to be on location when in fact green screen is being used from wherever the anchor desk is located.

Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?

Mmm... not really for me, but if that is where it takes you then fine.

Quote from: legion on November 05, 2014, 01:47:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 05, 2014, 01:16:59 PM

It is pretty common for reporters to claim to be on location when in fact green screen is being used from wherever the anchor desk is located.

Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?

Mmm... not really for me, but if that is where it takes you then fine.

So, you are backing out when cornered.  I see. 

The two videos above are excellent examples of what I'm talking about. This is the bullshit we get every single day in bits and every week or so in large doses at any one time.
It's amazing how people refuse to see this shit.

Oh dear... again we have our resident liar accusing everybody else of posting "bullshit" LOL.  It's actually quite funny how naive, illogical people such as sceptimatic see a mere one or two obvious examples of green screening, and use that as "evidence" that every single piece of news footage from all over the world is faked.  I sometimes wonder if sceptimatic ever doubts the veracity of the images he captures professionally from one of his twelve cameras.

It's also of note that despite allegedly being a professional photographer with all those multi-thousand-dollar cameras, he's never once provided a single image of his own taken with any of them.  He's never posted his own images of the night sky, or the sun, or moon despite supposedly having the skills and equipment to do so.

So... can I suggest sceptimatic—to prove me out of order—that you set up one of your cameras tonight and take some star track shots of the sky where you live, and post them here?  And please leave the EXIF data intact.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 05, 2014, 06:23:11 AM

The two videos above are excellent examples of what I'm talking about. This is the bullshit we get every single day in bits and every week or so in large doses at any one time.
It's amazing how people refuse to see this shit.

Oh dear... again we have our resident liar accusing everybody else of posting "bullshit" LOL.  It's actually quite funny how naive, illogical people such as sceptimatic see a mere one or two obvious examples of green screening, and use that as "evidence" that every single piece of news footage from all over the world is faked.  I sometimes wonder if sceptimatic ever doubts the veracity of the images he captures professionally from one of his twelve cameras.

It's also of note that despite allegedly being a professional photographer with all those multi-thousand-dollar cameras, he's never once provided a single image of his own taken with any of them.  He's never posted his own images of the night sky, or the sun, or moon despite supposedly having the skills and equipment to do so.

So... can I suggest sceptimatic—to prove me out of order—that you set up one of your cameras tonight and take some star track shots of the sky where you live, and post them here?  And please leave the EXIF data intact.

I've got nothing to prove to you or your shill friends, Geoffrey. All I'll do is add to the forum by posting relevant info for ordinary people who possess common sense and logic to see just how much their heads are being filled with nonsense. Nonsense that you are trying your damnest to pass off as legitimate by using attempted ridicule in every post to see that more people don't see the shit for what it is.

You're just not important, Geoffrey.

A guide to arguing Scepti style:
1) Make outlandish claims
2) Never substantiate claims
3) When pressured for evidence, claim to not have any incentive
4) Derail conversation
5) Repeat

I've got nothing to prove to you or your shill friends, Geoffrey. All I'll do is add to the forum by posting relevant info for ordinary people who possess common sense and logic to see just how much their heads are being filled with nonsense. Nonsense that you are trying your damnest to pass off as legitimate by using attempted ridicule in every post to see that more people don't see the shit for what it is.

Why did I just know that sceptimatic wouldn't have the balls to take me up on my suggestion of a few star track pics of his own LOL.  Well, the most obvious reason is that his claims about being a "professional" photographer and using "twelve" high-end cameras was nothing more than yet another of his endless streams of lies.

This is just another example of sceptimatic's failure to repeatedly provide any viable evidence for any of his outrageous claims.  All I ask for is one single picture of his night sky, and he can't even do that simple task.  I wonder why?

You're just not important, Geoffrey.

Is that why you follow me around responding to nearly every one of my posts?  I thought that you'd put me on your IGNORE list months ago? 

Apparently not.   

A guide to arguing Scepti style:
1) Make outlandish claims
2) Never substantiate claims
3) When pressured for evidence, claim to not have any incentive
4) Derail conversation
5) Repeat

It's a common formulation for inveterate liars on these sorts of forums.  I'd like to add something more to your list if I may...

6)Include several ad hominem attacks on your opponents in every response.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 06, 2014, 02:06:04 AM

I've got nothing to prove to you or your shill friends, Geoffrey. All I'll do is add to the forum by posting relevant info for ordinary people who possess common sense and logic to see just how much their heads are being filled with nonsense. Nonsense that you are trying your damnest to pass off as legitimate by using attempted ridicule in every post to see that more people don't see the shit for what it is.

Why did I just know that sceptimatic wouldn't have the balls to take me up on my suggestion of a few star track pics of his own LOL.  Well, the most obvious reason is that his claims about being a "professional" photographer and using "twelve" high-end cameras was nothing more than yet another of his endless streams of lies.

This is just another example of sceptimatic's failure to repeatedly provide any viable evidence for any of his outrageous claims.  All I ask for is one single picture of his night sky, and he can't even do that simple task.  I wonder why?

Quote

You're just not important, Geoffrey.

Is that why you follow me around responding to nearly every one of my posts?  I thought that you'd put me on your IGNORE list months ago? 

Apparently not.   

Hahahahaha. Sorry about the low content, mods, I couldn't help it and I apologise.

Added a couple.

A guide to arguing Scepti style:
1) Make outlandish claims
2) Never substantiate claims
3) When pressured for evidence, claim to not have any incentive
4) Derail conversation
4.5) Delete posts when he realises his massive fuck up
5) Repeat
6) Lie about the entire thing.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 05, 2014, 01:54:08 PM

Quote from: legion on November 05, 2014, 01:47:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 05, 2014, 01:16:59 PM

It is pretty common for reporters to claim to be on location when in fact green screen is being used from wherever the anchor desk is located.

Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?

Mmm... not really for me, but if that is where it takes you then fine.

So, you are backing out when cornered.  I see.

No, I just think that it is not a logical leap to go from, "reporters pose in front of green screens instead of actually being on location" to "they must be lying about other things" and/or "satellites likely do not exist".  I would first explore that they use these green screens because it is cheaper and safer to do that than have reporters all over the world often reporting live from military theatres.

As an aside Jroa, your comment is pretty funny considering how much lingual tap-dancing you do to pose you  vague and irrelevant rhetorical questions.

Quote from: jroa on November 05, 2014, 06:53:41 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 05, 2014, 01:54:08 PM

Quote from: legion on November 05, 2014, 01:47:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 05, 2014, 01:16:59 PM

It is pretty common for reporters to claim to be on location when in fact green screen is being used from wherever the anchor desk is located.

Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?

Mmm... not really for me, but if that is where it takes you then fine.

So, you are backing out when cornered.  I see.

No, I just think that it is not a logical leap to go from, "reporters pose in front of green screens instead of actually being on location" to "they must be lying about other things" and/or "satellites likely do not exist".  I would first explore that they use these green screens because it is cheaper and safer to do that than have reporters all over the world often reporting live from military theatres.

As an aside Jroa, your comment is pretty funny considering how much lingual tap-dancing you do to pose you  vague and irrelevant rhetorical questions.

So, your answer to the question "what else are they lying about?", is: maybe they had a good reason to lie, so therefore, everything else they say afterwards is either honest, or a lie told for a good reason?

No wonder I don't watch the news any more!

No wonder I don't watch the news any more!

At least that explains why you're so ignorant of current affairs LOL.

I concur with Rama Set who said:  "I just think that it is not a logical leap to go from, "reporters pose in front of green screens instead of actually being on location" to "they must be lying about other things".

Apparently this is precisely the form that legion's argument takes.  Non causa pro causa?

Quote from: legion on November 06, 2014, 02:33:37 PM

No wonder I don't watch the news any more!

At least that explains why you're so ignorant of current affairs LOL.

I concur with Rama Set who said:  "I just think that it is not a logical leap to go from, "reporters pose in front of green screens instead of actually being on location" to "they must be lying about other things".

Apparently this is precisely the form that legion's argument takes.  Non causa pro causa?

1. What current affairs am I ignorant of?
2. When did I write "they must be lying about other things"?

When did I write "they must be lying about other things"?

Reply #69...  "Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?"

Whoops.  Sprung again LOL.

Quote from: legion on November 07, 2014, 08:27:47 AM

When did I write "they must be lying about other things"?

Reply #69...  "Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?"

Whoops.  Sprung again LOL.

You complete idiot, geoffrey.

"Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?"

 is not equivalent to

"they must be lying".

 

You complete idiot, geoffrey.

"Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?"

is not equivalent to

"they must be lying".

Why is it that whenever flat earthers are caught out contradicting themselves, they inevitably turn to semantics as a defence?

This sort of evasive behaviour happens all too often on these forums when flat earthers are backed into a corner LOL.

—Not to mention their charming little ad homs they slip in.

Quote from: legion on November 07, 2014, 09:14:46 AM

You complete idiot, geoffrey.

"Which raises the question: what else are they lying about?"

is not equivalent to

"they must be lying".

Why is it that whenever flat earthers are caught out contradicting themselves, they inevitably turn to semantics as a defence?

This sort of evasive behaviour happens all too often on these forums when flat earthers are backed into a corner LOL.

—Not to mention their charming little ad homs they slip in.

contradiction
kɒntrəˈdɪkʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: contradiction; plural noun: contradictions

    a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.

geoffrey, when did I contradict myself?

legion, asking "what else are they lying about?"
1)Implies that they are lying to begin with
2)Are lying about other things.

It really isn't the most open minded way of seeking answers.

legion, asking "what else are they lying about?"
1)Implies that they are lying to begin with
2)Are lying about other things.

Derailing threads with semantics is one of the favourite tricks of the flat earthers when their confusion becomes overwhelming, and they've run out of any/all answers.

Your response exposes legion's poor debating skills perfectly.

And their ad homs (you complete idiot geoffrey) are notoriously common... if you can't tackle the ball, then tackle the man LOL.

legion, asking "what else are they lying about?"
1)Implies that they are lying to begin with
2)Are lying about other things.

It really isn't the most open minded way of seeking answers.

Maybe you weren't following the thread:

It is pretty common for reporters to claim to be on location when in fact green screen is being used from wherever the anchor desk is located.

To claim to be on location when you are not, is a lie. That throws the whole report in to question, in my mind. You are free to take everything you are told as factual. Each to their own.