Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Mar 05, 2016 5:30 pm  

What I don't understand is why you are busting a nut trying to make these people understand.

I can't say that I've ever really looked at this question (not least because it's not something that I'm particularly interested in). But even if I did I wouldn't waste a great deal of energy on most of the people in this thread who likely wake up each morning with a chalk outline drawn around them.

If you are happy with your understanding of the concept - demonstrate your faith in it. The fact that you are quite literally p!ssing away your non-refundable existence on people who I wouldn't trust to put one leg infront of the other without screwing up suggests that you perhaps aren't as certain as you would like to be.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:09 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

What I don't understand is why you are busting a nut trying to make these people understand.

I can't say that I've ever really looked at this question (not least because it's not something that I'm particularly interested in). But even if I did I wouldn't waste a great deal of energy on most of the people in this thread who likely wake up each morning with a chalk outline drawn around them.

If you are happy with your understanding of the concept - demonstrate your faith in it. The fact that you are quite literally p!ssing away your non-refundable existence on people who I wouldn't trust to put one leg infront of the other without screwing up suggests that you perhaps aren't as certain as you would like to be.

Fair comments, You're 100% right on the matter. To be honest i prefer not to talk about my beliefs and have voiced this umpteen times saying i don't wish to have a shape of the earth squabble, but i get drawn in by the same two posters everytime. Yes i may have a tendency to retaliate to which is my downfall admittedly. So from now on Can posters please refrain from the shape of the Earth debates from now on please. If you have a genuine inquiry or question feel free to private message me and i'll answer genuine questions.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:01 pm  

It used to be that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Facts don't seem to matter anymore. Perception is everything.

Mugwump used the phrase 'demonstrate your faith in it.' Faith by definition is strong belief without evidence. It seems to me that it does nobody any good to have faith in anything if using that definition. It's probably better to hold on to a reality that is shown to hold up to close examination no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.

Francis Collins, who was a leader in the human genome project showed exactly the mindset that people should adopt when thinking critically. He said, regarding his work:

'The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily want that to be so, as a bible-believing christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to deny that.'

The problem with discussion on such subjects as this thread is that those with 'alternate views' provide no evidence or flawed evidence. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. When someone points out problems with the evidence, rather than do what Francis Collins would do and rethink the evidence, they become snarky and personal. Then everyone gets snarky and personal and nothing is gained. One look at the weird science thread, which is just an advert for a single RLFans member under threat of deletion to those that may question anything, is a perfect example of how not to think critically while believing that you are.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:05 pm  

I've largely given up trying to get people to understand because it is a waste of effort. It has to be through their own efforts or not at all and no amount of facts or arguments will get them to change their minds.

It's easy to prove this by asking them - before the debate begins - "What would it take for you to - at the very least - reconsider your position?"

I've NEVER YET encountered anyone who has been prepared to provide testable criteria in response to this question (usually you just get abuse - or meaningless responses such as "A lot more than you have provided". Which is odd given that they are implicitly claiming to only ever be persuaded by reason and facts.

The truth is people don't use facts to shape their understanding of how the world works. People use their understanding of how the world works to shape their facts.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:53 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

Mugwump used the phrase 'demonstrate your faith in it.' Faith by definition is strong belief without evidence.

You see here is a CLASSIC example of cherry picking the facts to suit your argument.

You have provided the ONE definition which is in accordance with YOUR beliefs and completely IGNORED every other defintion such as:

"confidence or trust in a person or thing:"

What did I say about chalk outlines?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:57 am  

So it's agreed then - only Mugwump and Stan are allowed on to massage each other "intellectually". Enjoy! You deserve each other. and It was all getting a bit anyway!

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:57 am  

FLAT STANLEY wrote: ..So from now on Can posters please refrain from the shape of the Earth debates from now on please It's not compulsory to post replies, Stan. My aim is just to get you to THINK about it, so you can see where you are in error. It is very hard, as you refuse to consider alternatives, but I'm reasonably patient. If you can't handle the truth, then walk away. FLAT STANLEY wrote: ... Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today....regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such. Whilst they could predict LUNAR eclipses with some degree of accuracy, they struggled with SOLAr eclipses, and to say that they could predict either with equal accuracy to modern astronomy is, simply put, completely wrong, so why make that claim up? FLAT STANLEY wrote: Furthermore, If the Moon is a globular sphere, and it is simply a reflector of the Sun's light, then where is the "hot spot" reflection that would be present if it were indeed a sphere. Any fool can see that the Moon is a globe by observing it nightly, in particular the shadows cast on the moon, and the terminator area. It only takes a second to consider a view like this (which you can do with your own eyes, binoculars or telescope) to KNOW that the Moon is a globe: You could only think that it is not a globe, once you consider for a minute what you can see, if you were spectacularly stupid. FLAT STANLEY wrote: Supermoons prove a stationary plane. Sorry but it is not legitimate to simply make such a bold "statement of fact" without explaining in what way they "prove" this. So-called supermoons (meaning the moon looks a bit bigger than at most other times) mean simply that. They occur at full moons when the Moon is at its closest approach to Earth, and occur because the orbit is not perfectly circular. FLAT STANLEY wrote: How many times do you need telling about this Australia bullcrap.. This is what we experience on our plane. If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and stand on one side of it and mark the top with your pen, if you go to the other side and look at it you will find your "top" marking on the bottom. So it is possible to apparently turn things upside down. just by changing the direction you look at them. The reason I have asked you this dozens of times is to make you THINK about it. But as I have already debunked your simplistic and frankly childish "explanation", you clearly refuse to think. If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and mark the top with your pen, you will have performed a miracle. Once you have blu-tacked it to the ceiling you obviously cannot mark the top. You'd need to remove it from the ceiling again, before you could mark the top. What you are doing is repeating the same fundamental logical error that I already pointed out . Why? What you seem to think is that by writing "TOP" on the bottom of the plate, this miraculously makes the point where you write "the top of the plate". It doesn't. Once the plate is blu-tacked to your ceiling, you can only ever see the BOTTOM of the plate! Writing "TOP" on it does not alter this simple and obvious fact, any more than writing "CAT" on a dog would make it a cat. You should consider having a globe model of the moon suspended from your ceiling. Walk around that, and see what the effect is. It's exactly the same as if you hang a person from the ceiling, their "top" (head) will always look to be at the top. Their feet will always be at the bottom. Writing "TOP" on the soles of their shoes will not magically make them upside down. You are failing to understand an extremely basic point. The effect seen from Australia would be that a hypothetical giant plate stuck to the "bottom" of the Moon as seen from the UK would to an Australian look to be stuck to the "top" of the Moon. That is the effect you need to explain. A "TOP becomes BOTTOM" effect. Like this Moon as viewed from Australia. From the UK, it's the "other way up". (You'll love this pic Stan since as luck would have it, it also shows the silhouette of the ISS) This image, incidentally is by an amateur Australian astrophotographer, Dylan O'Donnell, who appears to have no known connection with NASA or any other space agency, but just enjoys taking photos and putting them in the public domain. You can see more of his work here: http://deography.com/ FLAT STANLEY wrote: If we take the moon as an example and it is above the equator. On the Geocentric model the people inside the equator (the Northern Hemisphere) would see the Moon one way and those on the other side of the equator ( Southern Hemisphere ) would still see the same "face" of the Moon but it would appear to be upside down...It's really that simple. Isn't it.Get it now. Good lad....[/i][/b] No Stan, you don't get it - not at all. I am trying to help, but you do need to think about it for a moment. If the Earth is flat, and the moon is flat, then you have a huge problem. Imagine I am looking at the Moon as it is very low in the South. You say it is a flat plane. Yet I see it as a perfect circle. that must mean it was not parallel to the ground I stand on, it must be almost at right angles to the ground. Right? Otherwise, it wouldn't look perfectly round. This here Moon is, from my perspective, in the direction of Australia. If it looks flat to me, than nobody from Australia will be able to see it at all, now will they? Because they would only be able to see the OTHER side of that flat disc. The other simple debunk of a "flat Moon" model is that except if the Moon were directly above your head, it would NEVER look round, I would look increasingly oval the further away from it you walked. Just like that plate stuck to your ceiling. I fact, if the Moon were a flat plate, then it would only ever appear totally round to one person on Earth, and that is the person directly opposite where the plate was facing. To everyone else, it would be an oval, and if they were so far away that the Moon was near the horizon, then it would be a very elongated thin oval. The full moon never looks like an oval from any point on Earth, ever. Now all I ask is you THINK about these things. If you do, you will inevitably see the hopeless fallacy of your "explanation" and that it cannot be squared with the facts as you actually observe them.

FLAT STANLEY wrote: ..So from now on Can posters please refrain from the shape of the Earth debates from now on please It's not compulsory to post replies, Stan. My aim is just to get you to THINK about it, so you can see where you are in error. It is very hard, as you refuse to consider alternatives, but I'm reasonably patient. If you can't handle the truth, then walk away. FLAT STANLEY wrote: ... Ptolemy in the 1st century A.D. accurately predicted eclipses for six hundred years on the basis of a flat, stationary Earth with equal precision as anyone living today....regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or globe Earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated independent of such. Whilst they could predict LUNAR eclipses with some degree of accuracy, they struggled with SOLAr eclipses, and to say that they could predict either with equal accuracy to modern astronomy is, simply put, completely wrong, so why make that claim up? FLAT STANLEY wrote: Furthermore, If the Moon is a globular sphere, and it is simply a reflector of the Sun's light, then where is the "hot spot" reflection that would be present if it were indeed a sphere. Any fool can see that the Moon is a globe by observing it nightly, in particular the shadows cast on the moon, and the terminator area. It only takes a second to consider a view like this (which you can do with your own eyes, binoculars or telescope) to KNOW that the Moon is a globe: You could only think that it is not a globe, once you consider for a minute what you can see, if you were spectacularly stupid. FLAT STANLEY wrote: Supermoons prove a stationary plane. Sorry but it is not legitimate to simply make such a bold "statement of fact" without explaining in what way they "prove" this. So-called supermoons (meaning the moon looks a bit bigger than at most other times) mean simply that. They occur at full moons when the Moon is at its closest approach to Earth, and occur because the orbit is not perfectly circular. FLAT STANLEY wrote: How many times do you need telling about this Australia bullcrap.. This is what we experience on our plane. If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and stand on one side of it and mark the top with your pen, if you go to the other side and look at it you will find your "top" marking on the bottom. So it is possible to apparently turn things upside down. just by changing the direction you look at them. The reason I have asked you this dozens of times is to make you THINK about it. But as I have already debunked your simplistic and frankly childish "explanation", you clearly refuse to think. If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and mark the top with your pen, you will have performed a miracle. Once you have blu-tacked it to the ceiling you obviously cannot mark the top. You'd need to remove it from the ceiling again, before you could mark the top. What you are doing is repeating the same fundamental logical error that I already pointed out . Why? What you seem to think is that by writing "TOP" on the bottom of the plate, this miraculously makes the point where you write "the top of the plate". It doesn't. Once the plate is blu-tacked to your ceiling, you can only ever see the BOTTOM of the plate! Writing "TOP" on it does not alter this simple and obvious fact, any more than writing "CAT" on a dog would make it a cat. You should consider having a globe model of the moon suspended from your ceiling. Walk around that, and see what the effect is. It's exactly the same as if you hang a person from the ceiling, their "top" (head) will always look to be at the top. Their feet will always be at the bottom. Writing "TOP" on the soles of their shoes will not magically make them upside down. You are failing to understand an extremely basic point. The effect seen from Australia would be that a hypothetical giant plate stuck to the "bottom" of the Moon as seen from the UK would to an Australian look to be stuck to the "top" of the Moon. That is the effect you need to explain. A "TOP becomes BOTTOM" effect. Like this Moon as viewed from Australia. From the UK, it's the "other way up". (You'll love this pic Stan since as luck would have it, it also shows the silhouette of the ISS) This image, incidentally is by an amateur Australian astrophotographer, Dylan O'Donnell, who appears to have no known connection with NASA or any other space agency, but just enjoys taking photos and putting them in the public domain. You can see more of his work here: http://deography.com/ FLAT STANLEY wrote: If we take the moon as an example and it is above the equator. On the Geocentric model the people inside the equator (the Northern Hemisphere) would see the Moon one way and those on the other side of the equator ( Southern Hemisphere ) would still see the same "face" of the Moon but it would appear to be upside down...It's really that simple. Isn't it.Get it now. Good lad....[/i][/b] No Stan, you don't get it - not at all. I am trying to help, but you do need to think about it for a moment. If the Earth is flat, and the moon is flat, then you have a huge problem. Imagine I am looking at the Moon as it is very low in the South. You say it is a flat plane. Yet I see it as a perfect circle. that must mean it was not parallel to the ground I stand on, it must be almost at right angles to the ground. Right? Otherwise, it wouldn't look perfectly round. This here Moon is, from my perspective, in the direction of Australia. If it looks flat to me, than nobody from Australia will be able to see it at all, now will they? Because they would only be able to see the OTHER side of that flat disc. The other simple debunk of a "flat Moon" model is that except if the Moon were directly above your head, it would NEVER look round, I would look increasingly oval the further away from it you walked. Just like that plate stuck to your ceiling. I fact, if the Moon were a flat plate, then it would only ever appear totally round to one person on Earth, and that is the person directly opposite where the plate was facing. To everyone else, it would be an oval, and if they were so far away that the Moon was near the horizon, then it would be a very elongated thin oval. The full moon never looks like an oval from any point on Earth, ever. Now all I ask is you THINK about these things. If you do, you will inevitably see the hopeless fallacy of your "explanation" and that it cannot be squared with the facts as you actually observe them.

[Wanderer]

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:45 am  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

How many times do you need telling about this Australia bullcrap.. This is what we experience on our plane. If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and stand on one side of it and mark the top with your pen, if you go to the other side and look at it you will find your "top" marking on the bottom. So it is possible to apparently turn things upside down. just by changing the direction you look at them.

So, you're not totally convinced? Possible, apparently ... somewhat unconvincing.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:16 pm  

I think this thread has reached the end of its useful life.