Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Space is fake and gαy  (Read 98632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2022, 12:42:40 PM »
I'd rather stick to the empirically observable and measurable reality, thanks.

Quote
confirmation bias (aka bad will)
I know that flat earthers don't like to stick to common definitions, but this is just ridiculous.

Quote
I've done that repeatedly.  I do this all the time, with lots of issues, a thought experiment where I pretend that I believe the earth is a globe and want to prove it to a flat earther.  I've tried to come up with solid proofs, and I come up totally empty.
Did you find the measurements for the shape of the earth?


If you need help with that, I have a whole library of sources.

Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2022, 12:43:56 PM »
Ever wondered what specific parts of the Apollo missions looked like?

Here you go: https://apolloinrealtime.org/

Thousands of photos, hundreds of hours of video.

Also, couldn't be faked in the 1960ies.



Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2022, 01:09:17 PM »
Also, couldn't be faked in the 1960ies.

Kubrick is flattered.

OK, I can see not buying into Flat Earth (took me about a year and a half), but to believe that the Moon Landings were real?  I have a bridge in New York for sale.

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2022, 01:10:07 PM »


Nasa pulling strings. Truly embarrassing but so fun to watch. You'd think the debate would be over.  

    

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Space is fake and gαy
« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2022, 01:14:12 PM »
I know that flat earthers don't like to stick to common definitions, but this is just ridiculous.

Not at all.  You've repeatedly presented some of the shoddiest "evidence" out there, simple pictures without any context (where, when, what, how, who, no measurements or facts) and which could easily entail varous atmospheric phenomena, but you present them as proof, while at the same time you simply and gratuitously declare "refraction" for the images which show things that shouldn't be seen given the distances involved ... without any evidence.  You feel as if you merely need to say the word "refraction" and you've won the argument.  So "refraction" only applies to FE evidence but never to the ones that appear to support GE?  In every case, the FEs give all the facts and measurements while there's never any context given to the GE ones.  You've already decided that the earth must be a globe and are begging the question rather than openly considering the subject.  That is textbook confirmation bias, where you cling to things that do not prove your position as if they were proof and dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary.  I started a lengthy thread where I went through both sides of the argument thoroughly and explained how I arrived at my conclusion.  You have never once given any serious consideration to the FE arguments and evidence but simply dismiss them out of hand.  Confirmation bias and bad will.