why we cannot trust scientists

  • 731 Replies
  • 215615 Views
*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • +0/-0
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #570 on: March 24, 2015, 03:40:51 PM »
I can see satellites and the ISS pass overhead, I have used satellites for comunication and navigation, commercial space travel exists, and I believe that space agencies are innocent until proven guilty.

How do you know they are not stratellites?

Because stratellites don't move 17,000 miles per hour.


You can determine this simply by viewing them through a telescope? That's news to me.
Read the FAQS.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #571 on: March 24, 2015, 03:41:26 PM »

so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.
I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
Quote
aether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.
Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.

Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter  I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box.  Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.


i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • +0/-0
  • Literally a dog
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #572 on: March 24, 2015, 03:48:32 PM »
like many here, i have noticed on several occasions the blind obedience with which round earthers view scientists. this is bs. we cannot trust scientists, and there are several reasons for this, all of which may be verified with some simple, common sense.

they want money
scientists are paid to do experiments. oil companies pay then, and climate change stops existing. sugar companies pay them, and there's no link between sugar and obesity. you can look up all of those examples, and that's just the ones they'll admit to. scientists don't care about honesty, they care about the cash.
how do you trust what they say when they aren't after the truth? they'll find what they're asked to find. when they make up new fantasies every day to explain holes (dark energy, gravity, spacetime, string theory) with nothing except "but we can't be wrong!" as evidence, they have long since stopped being anything other than crooks and liars after your money.

they are wrong about gravity
if the earth is stationary, gravity does not exist as we should be moving. if the earth is moving, it would not have formed a sphere as we would be pushed along until we're flat, and then gravity would have torn the earth apart. gravity is obviously impossible. if it existed, the earth should be crushed to diamond by now and yet, not only isn't it, but round earther scientists want you to believe that there is liquid inside the earth, despite the combined weight of the world's entire outer surface coming down and crushing it.
this is complete and utter bs, clearly.

- This is not even remotely true, and frankly disrespectful. We pour 5-6 years of my life into learning how the natural world works, performing real experiments that yield real results, performing rigorous calculations to piece together how the universe works, all in the pursuit of truth and exploration. And then you have the nerve to say this? What the hell?
Btw, If we wanted money why don't we just go into business?

- When did hundreds of thousands of research papers, each detailing exactly how they reached their conclusion and peer reviewed by dozens of outsiders, become "but we can't be wrong!" ?

- Your blind assumptions about gravity are incorrect. The tried and true, peer-reviewed, observed model of gravity doesn't match with your assumptions either.
Please detail exactly how you came to your misguided conclusions about gravity.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
  • +0/-0
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #573 on: March 24, 2015, 09:03:03 PM »
How do you know they are not stratellites?

Because stratellites don't move 17,000 miles per hour.

You can determine this simply by viewing them through a telescope? That's news to me.

LOL... it would seem that everything is news to you Vauxhall.    ;D

Stratellites aren't yet in commercial production, so if you think you've seen one, then you're mistaking some other celestial object for a non-existent stratellite.  Sorry.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #574 on: March 25, 2015, 01:26:12 AM »
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.


also, vauxhall, though that photo is clearly fake and i see your point, they plainly do exist so that isn't the best example. it'd be better to use a unicorn or some such.

Back up there JRowe. Could you please clarify this point?

i think i have made myself quite clear.

No, you really haven't. Are you saying fairies exist?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

?

LogicalKiller

  • 626
  • +0/-0
  • Atheist, Re'er and happy doctor of physics
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #575 on: March 25, 2015, 07:50:04 AM »
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.


also, vauxhall, though that photo is clearly fake and i see your point, they plainly do exist so that isn't the best example. it'd be better to use a unicorn or some such.

Back up there JRowe. Could you please clarify this point?

i think i have made myself quite clear.

No, you really haven't. Are you saying fairies exist?

BJ (what a shortcut, hah), could you please rewrite it to JRowe, because I'm blocked.

Man, aether doesn't exist. In one of my last topics I've shown that up. 4 pages of topic, only a few posts of FE'ers, which haven't contained any evidence.
"I hadn't known there are so many idiots on the world until I launched the Internet." ~ Stanisław Lem
personally i think fairies share a common ancestor with humans

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #576 on: March 25, 2015, 07:55:31 AM »
Here is a real corpse of a dead fairy. This is indisputable proof that fairies exist.


also, vauxhall, though that photo is clearly fake and i see your point, they plainly do exist so that isn't the best example. it'd be better to use a unicorn or some such.

Back up there JRowe. Could you please clarify this point?

i think i have made myself quite clear.

No, you really haven't. Are you saying fairies exist?

there is a great deal of evidence, but you are getting off topic. try to stay focused.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #577 on: March 25, 2015, 09:20:48 AM »

so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.
I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
Quote
aether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.
Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.

Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter  I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box.  Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.


i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.
You keep saying there is no evidence when it's oresented to you. How does hydrogen and platinum remove aether and make water? Why do compounds like nickel sulfide reacts with air? Why can we see analytically that oxides were the product of the reaction?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #578 on: March 25, 2015, 09:30:53 AM »

so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.
I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
Quote
aether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.
Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.

Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter  I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box.  Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.


i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.
You keep saying there is no evidence when it's oresented to you. How does hydrogen and platinum remove aether and make water? Why do compounds like nickel sulfide reacts with air? Why can we see analytically that oxides were the product of the reaction?
i haven't moved the goalposts at all, you're the one refusing to accept an answer.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #579 on: March 25, 2015, 09:50:23 AM »

so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.
I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
Quote
aether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.
Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.

Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter  I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box.  Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.


i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.
You keep saying there is no evidence when it's oresented to you. How does hydrogen and platinum remove aether and make water? Why do compounds like nickel sulfide reacts with air? Why can we see analytically that oxides were the product of the reaction?
i haven't moved the goalposts at all, you're the one refusing to accept an answer.
Did you notice how you were unable to answer any of my claims?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #580 on: March 25, 2015, 09:54:34 AM »

so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.
I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
Quote
aether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.
Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.

Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter  I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box.  Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.


i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.
You keep saying there is no evidence when it's oresented to you. How does hydrogen and platinum remove aether and make water? Why do compounds like nickel sulfide reacts with air? Why can we see analytically that oxides were the product of the reaction?
i haven't moved the goalposts at all, you're the one refusing to accept an answer.
Did you notice how you were unable to answer any of my claims?

did you notice the many times i did and how you ignored it to keep making your bs point?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #581 on: March 25, 2015, 10:02:18 AM »

so now you realize you can't respond and you reject the very basis for any kind of conversation.
I have respoded to everyone of your claims and showed them to be wrong.
Quote
aether is everywhere. i have never denied that, it simple exists in varying densities. clearly something exposed will take in more aether.
Then why isn't it in nitrogen gas cylinder? They run zero on one of the oxygen meters I use.

Here is a picture of a third oxygen meter  I use. This meter is in an anaerobic glove box.  Explain how a glove box can be opened to the atmosphere and max out the reading on the oxygen meter. I can then bring up the hydrogen reading to 4% and slowly watch the oxygen reading drop to zero. After awhile I have to change the desiccant because it fills up with water. You see there is also a platinum catalyst in there to react oxygen with hydrogen to make water. When no oxygen is present it is safe to handle compounds that would normally react with the oxygen in the air. You should probably explain those too. Here is the picture.


i have recently refined my theory on aether. i will get back to you when i understand it further.
however, you cannot assume what you detect thanks to 'air' is indeed oxygen. when aether is given a chance to fully enter a location, of course concentrations will change. you are detecting whatever is universal, and assuming it is a gas before you draw conclusions. if it is not a gas, your conclusions are flawed. just because it has an effect similar to gas, does not mean it is a gas. i've had a nosebleed, that doesn't mean i've had a brain tumor: many things may give the same result.
So you are moving the goal post even thought that's what you claim I did. Nice job.
You keep saying there is no evidence when it's oresented to you. How does hydrogen and platinum remove aether and make water? Why do compounds like nickel sulfide reacts with air? Why can we see analytically that oxides were the product of the reaction?
i haven't moved the goalposts at all, you're the one refusing to accept an answer.
This was your post. See how you addressed zero claims in it!
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #582 on: March 25, 2015, 10:05:50 AM »
Could everyone please stop making quote trees, especially ones with large pictures?  It is against the rules and very annoying.  Thanks. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #583 on: March 25, 2015, 11:01:32 AM »
Are you saying fairies exist?

there is a great deal of evidence

I honestly don't know what to say.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #584 on: March 25, 2015, 03:27:09 PM »
Are you saying fairies exist?

there is a great deal of evidence

I honestly don't know what to say.

your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #585 on: March 25, 2015, 03:28:04 PM »
your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.

What would you have me respond to?
You believe in fairies.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #586 on: March 25, 2015, 03:32:45 PM »
your inability to respond says it all. you reject, not based on evidence, but based on arrogance.

What would you have me respond to?
You believe in fairies.

there is much evidence for doing so. not only are they a universal concept, but you have photos like these:





they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle, and existed long before photoshop or any manipulative tools, and were recorded in such old journals, confirming that fact. this is a genuine image, too old to be questionable. they are very clear in what they show.
you accept photographic evidence from people who have photoshop, of a fantasy round earth. you should accept this.

closed mindedness is not an argument.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #587 on: March 25, 2015, 03:38:53 PM »
I can't believe I'm having this conversation...


From a cursory glance, this seems fake. The moving waterfall in the background is blurred, while the presumably also-moving fairies are clear as anything. Suspicious, at the very least.

Quote
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle
...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
Actually at this point I'm honestly not sure if you do. But trust me, it's not real. ACD is an author.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #588 on: March 25, 2015, 03:45:32 PM »
I can't believe I'm having this conversation...


From a cursory glance, this seems fake. The moving waterfall in the background is blurred, while the presumably also-moving fairies are clear as anything. Suspicious, at the very least.

Quote
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle
...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
Actually at this point I'm honestly not sure if you do. But trust me, it's not real. ACD is an author.

of course the background isn't clear. it's the background.
to write a detective, you need to think like one. arthur conan doyle has several stories of intellectual feats and investigation attached to him.

at this point, everyone can see your desperation. it has nothing to do with your round earth fantasy yet you still persist in claiming they're not real.

denial much?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • +0/-0
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #589 on: March 25, 2015, 03:47:43 PM »
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:



This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.
Read the FAQS.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #590 on: March 25, 2015, 03:51:14 PM »
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:



This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.

thank you vauxhall, i haven't seen that photo before. it does seem to be quite clear evidence.
i prefer to use older photos that predate image editing software so round earthers won't go off on meaningless changes of topic trying to falsely compare such images with those from space agencies, but that is certainly a better photo than any they've provided.

it says a lot about their hypocrisy that they'll accept the least believable.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

FlatBrainer

  • 66
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the Truth
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #591 on: March 25, 2015, 03:51:54 PM »
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:



This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation...


From a cursory glance, this seems fake. The moving waterfall in the background is blurred, while the presumably also-moving fairies are clear as anything. Suspicious, at the very least.

Quote
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle
...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
Actually at this point I'm honestly not sure if you do. But trust me, it's not real. ACD is an author.

of course the background isn't clear. it's the background.
to write a detective, you need to think like one. arthur conan doyle has several stories of intellectual feats and investigation attached to him.

at this point, everyone can see your desperation. it has nothing to do with your round earth fantasy yet you still persist in claiming they're not real.

denial much?

omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.
"I hadn't known there are so many idiots on the world until I launched the Internet." ~ Stanislaw Lem
personally i think fairies share a common ancestor with humans

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #592 on: March 25, 2015, 03:53:06 PM »
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.

Don't get involved with these two. Just... don't.
I don't even know what to say.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • +0/-0
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #593 on: March 25, 2015, 03:54:26 PM »
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.

I am willing to hear you out provided you have sound reasons for why these photos are fake.
Read the FAQS.

?

FlatBrainer

  • 66
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the Truth
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #594 on: March 25, 2015, 03:56:22 PM »
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.

I am willing to hear you out provided you have sound reasons for why these photos are fake.

But first you must provide reasons why NASA photos are fake.
"I hadn't known there are so many idiots on the world until I launched the Internet." ~ Stanislaw Lem
personally i think fairies share a common ancestor with humans

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #595 on: March 25, 2015, 03:56:31 PM »
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:



This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation...


From a cursory glance, this seems fake. The moving waterfall in the background is blurred, while the presumably also-moving fairies are clear as anything. Suspicious, at the very least.

Quote
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle
...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
Actually at this point I'm honestly not sure if you do. But trust me, it's not real. ACD is an author.

of course the background isn't clear. it's the background.
to write a detective, you need to think like one. arthur conan doyle has several stories of intellectual feats and investigation attached to him.

at this point, everyone can see your desperation. it has nothing to do with your round earth fantasy yet you still persist in claiming they're not real.

denial much?

omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.

do you have more than assertion?

the first predates photoshop, the second features something nearly impossible to fake.
they will look odd to you if you reject their contents, but you cannot simply decide something is untrue because you don't want to believe. 
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • +0/-0
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #596 on: March 25, 2015, 03:57:24 PM »
omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.

I am willing to hear you out provided you have sound reasons for why these photos are fake.

But first you must provide reasons why NASA photos are fake.

I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion at hand.
Read the FAQS.

?

FlatBrainer

  • 66
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the Truth
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #597 on: March 25, 2015, 03:58:28 PM »
The most convicing photograpic evidence for faries that I have found is the following:



This picture seems genuine to me. The blur effects are hard to replicate in photo editing software.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation...


From a cursory glance, this seems fake. The moving waterfall in the background is blurred, while the presumably also-moving fairies are clear as anything. Suspicious, at the very least.

Quote
they convinced no less an investigator than arthur conan doyle
...You know Sherlock Holmes is fiction, right?
Actually at this point I'm honestly not sure if you do. But trust me, it's not real. ACD is an author.

of course the background isn't clear. it's the background.
to write a detective, you need to think like one. arthur conan doyle has several stories of intellectual feats and investigation attached to him.

at this point, everyone can see your desperation. it has nothing to do with your round earth fantasy yet you still persist in claiming they're not real.

denial much?

omg, these pictures look so fake. they look even more fake than the NASA ones, which are 100% real.

do you have more than assertion?

the first predates photoshop, the second features something nearly impossible to fake.
they will look odd to you if you reject their contents, but you cannot simply decide something is untrue because you don't want to believe.

do you have more than assertion in case of NASA's photos?

by the way" i'm going to bed
"I hadn't known there are so many idiots on the world until I launched the Internet." ~ Stanislaw Lem
personally i think fairies share a common ancestor with humans

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • +0/-0
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #598 on: March 25, 2015, 04:10:35 PM »
There are numerous articles written about Mr. Hyatt (the man who took the recent photograph).

Here's one. It's a very interesting read.
Read the FAQS.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • +0/-0
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: why we cannot trust scientists
« Reply #599 on: March 25, 2015, 05:25:10 PM »
What the hell happened in here? We can't trust scientists but you believe in fairies?

This is amazing.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur