There is no dark side of the moon

[Nobby]

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

Personally I find it a little odd some of you are so fixated on Scotty and see him as some sort of representative of 'truthers' or just people who research and write about so called 'conspiracy theories'  (another astonishingly stupid and lazy phrase used continuously in a completely unthinking manner).

Do you want to know where Scotty gets all his 'conspiracy' stuff? Alex Mellonhead Jones.

I ask you would you bother your arse to tune into Alex Jones? over and over again... So why do you keep coming back to Scotty over and over, trying to have reasoned arguments or provoke a eureka moment? Seriously if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result then you lads are off your fucking nut. He believes in a Flat Earth... that should have been enough.

If you spent the time looking into quality researchers on non mental subjects you'd realize some things are really not as they are presented. If someone is not paying Scotty to invoke ridicule and scorn they should be as he does a great job of it. And you guys are like a moth to that nutty light... a weird and nutty symbiotic relationship. 

 

Ive engaged with Scotty over the years and one thing i've learned is that he is firmly fixed in his beliefs, some of which I admit i find a tad off the wall. Overall however i dont think it can be argued that hes not a polite and caring individual and i believe he's done an awful lot of charity work for less advantaged individuals. Everyone has their moments on here when they probably should've put the drink down and gone to bed but some of the offensive name calling is bad form.  

Scotty adds a level of colour to this place that would be sorely missed should he ever decide to quit the place .

in essence, crack on with it Scotty  

[Scotty CTA]

On 4/7/2020 at 2:52 AM, biffer said:

If you’re not prepared to properly study and understand theoretical physics, why should I bother to engage with things with unsourced, biased videos?

The questions are fair and balanced.

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

These 'conspiracy' conversations always seems to follow the same pattern wherever I come across them.

'Truther' who has absolutely no knowledge of how (using our example here) dust might behave in a low gravity, ultra-thin atmosphere finds a YouTube video documentary & immediately purports to understand it brings questions to the table.

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

Someone comes along who has studied theoretical Physics or similar & tries to explain that actually, this is highly complex & because of factors A, B, & C,  the established theories stand up to scrutiny. 

They absolutely don't.

(Why are you scared to look?)

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

Truther, preferring to deal in Janet & John standards of 'evidence' don't understand, but take the complications as proof that their questions can't be answered.

Nope. The questions are simple.

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

Inconvenient truths, flight timetables for example in flat Earth discussions, or the literally tens of thousands of people who would have had to be 'in' on a Moon landing fraud, are treated as part of a global conspiracy. 

Nope. Once again.... compartmentalisation.

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

Meanwhile, the truthers refuse to listen to any alternative story than their own...

Nope, I listen to everything.

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

...whilst convincing themselves that those who actually HAVE looked at all possibilities...

Seriously? 

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

...are sheeple.

You're definitely sheeple.

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

Numerous posters have suggested simple experimental proof on the shape of the Earth & these always get dodged...

There's no such thing.

I had planned to look into your suggestion when I was retired (but goodness knows when, and if, that will be now).

In the meantime, you could watch the documentary 'American Moon' (and answer the questions) over on 'Scotty's Picks'.

(Two way street, and all that.)

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

...so we get stuck in Groundhog Day. 

Apologies. Time isn't on my side.

[Scotty CTA]

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

It's nothing more than a bit of fun on a football message board, but the sad thing is that I know people in the real world who, to all intents & purposes, are sinking into a quite serious mental illness...

People can have a completely different worldview without being mentally ill.

Truth can definitely weigh heavy, but ultimately it frees.

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

... whereby their self-perception is that they are the only ones who are intelligent enough to know the truth.

Or perhaps honest enough.

Most on this board will go looking for a 'truth' where God doesn't exist thereby tripping at the very first hurdle.

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

Where that takes you, of course, is that you need a conspiracy for EVERYTHING...

'The Great Conspiracy' pretty much covers everything.

You've posted as if I've come up with explanations for loads and loads of different subjects when everything is already connected to everything else.

On 4/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

...or at least will automatically believe that everything has an alternative explanation involving illumnati, aliens or whatever their chosen 'they are hiding this from us' is.

I'll make it simple for you.

1. If the God of The Holy Bible exists, then I'm right on almost everything, and you're wrong on almost everything.

2. The God of The Holy Bible exists. 

[Scotty CTA]

16 hours ago, biffer said:

A very good summary.  

He didn't get anything correct.

16 hours ago, biffer said:

Particularly the bit about needing a conspiracy for everything. 

I just need the one conspiracy.

16 hours ago, biffer said:

I personally think we might be evolutionarily predisposed...

See, see? What did I tell you?

17 hours ago, biffer said:

 ...to believe in things that aren’t true to a certain extent. We benefit massively as a species from inquisitiveness and a drive to look for reasons, but spending too much time on them wouldn’t have been beneficial when we were hunter gatherers. So getting an explanation that was good enough for our every day purposes was what we needed most of the time. Match that up with pattern recognition and you get to this concept of belief. Sometimes it can be beneficial to believe things that aren’t true, e.g. there are always lions down that path, when they’re only there one out of a hundred times. It’s beneficial to believe that and avoid the path until need drives you to determine when the lions are actually there. Determinative method trumping belief. Stick society and civilisation on top of that lot and it brings a need to organise belief in order to act together. Hence religion. 

My goodness, that was quite the leap.

(I'm not religious btw.)

17 hours ago, biffer said:

So we have belief systems and are predisposed to them, which with the collapse of religion in western societies in particular leads to a need for something else to believe in, and conspiracy theories have filled some of that gap.

And how would you go about applying that to me... a Christian Truther.

Conspiracies are nothing new.

The word 'conspiracy' appears (from memory) eleven time in the Bible.

'Conspiracy' hasn't replaced 'religion', but ironically 'atheism' is a 'religion'.

[Scotty CTA]

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

Personally I find it a little odd some of you are so fixated on Scotty and see him as some sort of representative of 'truthers' or just people who research and write about so called 'conspiracy theories'  (another astonishingly stupid and lazy phrase used continuously in a completely unthinking manner).

I'm definitely representative of 'Christian Truthers'.

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

Do you want to know where Scotty gets all his 'conspiracy' stuff? 

Yes, absolutely. Tell me.

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

Alex Mellonhead Jones.

My goodness, you do jump in with both feet, don't you?

I haven't listened to Alex Jones in (7-8?) years.

He's someone that 'truthers' almost unavoidably go through on their journey and someone who they hopefully outgrow (like I did).

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

I ask you would you bother your arse to tune into Alex Jones? over and over again... 

No.

Someone at his level should know about the major role that the Mossad played in 9/11 and that the earth is flat.

The trick is to tell folk 90% of the truth to get them on board, while guarding the other 10%.

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

So why do you keep coming back to Scotty over and over, trying to have reasoned arguments or provoke a eureka moment?

Probably because I'm polite, and caring, and that I add colour. 

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

He believes in a Flat Earth... 

I acknowledge flat earth.

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

...that should have been enough.

You'd think.

 

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

If you spent the time looking into quality researchers on non mental subjects you'd realize some things are really not as they are presented.

Yeah, JFK and 9/11 weren't really not as they were presented.

(Thank you for that wee nugget.)

15 hours ago, thplinth said:

If someone is not paying Scotty to invoke ridicule and scorn they should be as he does a great job of it. 

No, the reality of hearing the truth after having already been immersed in the deception does that all by itself.

[Scotty CTA]

15 hours ago, phart said:

Exactly it's all a distraction. If we're going to psychoanalyse from our armchairs it's a comfort blanket. If folk can disprove this then they can extrapolate that to mean all the other nasty stuff isn't real too and the world is a safe space with no malign subterfuge at play and their inaction to rectify that isn't really a damning indictment of their path of least resistance existence.

Who are you speaking about here?

[Scotty CTA]

14 hours ago, Nobby said:

Ive engaged with Scotty over the years and one thing i've learned is that he is firmly fixed in his beliefs, some of which I admit i find a tad off the wall. Overall however i dont think it can be argued that hes not a polite and caring individual and i believe he's done an awful lot of charity work for less advantaged individuals. Everyone has their moments on here when they probably should've put the drink down and gone to bed but some of the offensive name calling is bad form.  

Scotty adds a level of colour to this place that would be sorely missed should he ever decide to quit the place .

in essence, crack on with it Scotty  

Hi Nobby, 

Hope you, your wife, and your two boys are all doing well.

God Bless.

Scotty

[biffer]

6 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The questions are fair and balanced.

They absolutely don't.

(Why are you scared to look?)

Nope. The questions are simple.

Nope. Once again.... compartmentalisation.

Nope, I listen to everything.

Seriously? 

You're definitely sheeple.

There's no such thing.

I had planned to look into your suggestion when I was retired (but goodness knows when, and if, that will be now).

In the meantime, you could watch the documentary 'American Moon' (and answer the questions) over on 'Scotty's Picks'.

(Two way street, and all that.)

Apologies. Time isn't on my side.

I've not just studied theoretical physics Scott, I've studied practical and experimental physics as well. But this is just you reframing it so that you can maintain your faith driven beliefs. 

And the rest of your post is similarly a reframing to align with your faith based ideas. 

Conspiracy theories are for people who want to be intellectuals (which I'm not) but aren't prepared to do the hard work. 

[exile]

There's nothing wrong with healthy debate and exploring alternative views (science depends on it). But some debates are more illuminating than others.

On a thread about space/astronomy, there's no harm in the mental exercise of showing how simple observations / demonstrations can disprove ideology and ignorance.

 

[phart]

6 minutes ago, exile said:

There's nothing wrong with healthy debate and exploring alternative views (science depends on it). But some debates are more illuminating than others.

On a thread about space/astronomy, there's no harm in the mental exercise of showing how simple observations / demonstrations can disprove ideology and ignorance.

 

Depends on how many times you've had them though. Once I reach a dozen i just bow out of them.

[Scotty CTA]

4 hours ago, biffer said:

I've not just studied theoretical physics Scott.. 

Theoretical 'anything' isn't science.

4 hours ago, biffer said:

I've studied practical and experimental physics as well.

No problem.

4 hours ago, biffer said:

 But this is just you reframing it so that you can maintain your faith driven beliefs. 

Donald... ALL of your beliefs are faith driven, too.

Have you been back far enough to see the shape of the earth?

Have you seen a satellite in orbit around the earth?

Have you been to the moon?

Have you looked through the Hubble telescope?

You have faith in what a handful of freemasons have told you about what they have seen or done, and the false information and false images they present. 

You add theory to their lies, and hey, you're sold.

4 hours ago, biffer said:

And the rest of your post is similarly a reframing to align with your faith based ideas. 

Can you see that that's what you do?

You are an evolutionary, atheistic, theoretical physicist. 

You will only entertain 'answers' that fall within that window.

I, on the other hand, want to know the truth, regardless of where it falls.

4 hours ago, biffer said:

 Conspiracy theories are for people who want to be intellectuals...

A terrible generalisation.

4 hours ago, biffer said:

(which I'm not) 

You're not shy about your 'theories' though, are you?

You take your 'facts', and then add your 'theories' to those 'fact's, then, hey, your 'theories' might as well be facts, too.

Isn't that right?

4 hours ago, biffer said:

 ...but aren't prepared to do the hard work. 

Again, a terribly unfair generalisation.

You are intelligent and hardworking, and if only those that disagreed with you would just follow suit, then they'd see it your way. Correct?

[Scotty CTA]

3 hours ago, exile said:

There's nothing wrong with healthy debate and exploring alternative views (science depends on it). But some debates are more illuminating than others.

I see what you did there.

3 hours ago, exile said:

On a thread about space/astronomy, there's no harm in the mental exercise of showing how simple observations / demonstrations can disprove ideology and ignorance.

OK...

1. I observe that the earth is flat and motionless.

2. I can demonstrate that I see beyond the supposed curve according to the maths provided by the 'globeheads'.

[Scotty CTA]

3 hours ago, phart said:

Depends on how many times you've had them though. Once I reach a dozen i just bow out of them.

Glad you looked into 9/11, though.

Some can 'unlearn', but most struggle. (I understand that.)

All I'm asking is that you look.

Put on the 'glasses'...

 

[biffer]

17 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Theoretical 'anything' isn't science.

No problem.

Donald... ALL of your beliefs are faith driven, too.

Have you been back far enough to see the shape of the earth?

Have you seen a satellite in orbit around the earth?

Have you been to the moon?

Have you looked through the Hubble telescope?

You have faith in what a handful of freemasons have told you about what they have seen or done, and the false information and false images they present. 

You add theory to their lies, and hey, you're sold.

Can you see that that's what you do?

You are an evolutionary, atheistic, theoretical physicist. 

You will only entertain 'answers' that fall within that window.

I, on the other hand, want to know the truth, regardless of where it falls.

A terrible generalisation.

You're not shy about your 'theories' though, are you?

You take your 'facts', and then add your 'theories' to those 'fact's, then, hey, your 'theories' might as well be facts, too.

Isn't that right?

Again, a terribly unfair generalisation.

You are intelligent and hardworking, and if only those that disagreed with you would just follow suit, then they'd see it your way. Correct?

You've spent time going through people's posts changing what they said so it suits your argument. That's dishonest. Over and over again. You're a lying false prophet. 

If I explain anything, you'll just go through it and change the language again, so it suits your ideas. So what's the point in talking to you? Other than if I stop, you'll take it as a victory. 

[exile]

19 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

1. I observe that the earth is flat and motionless.

2. I can demonstrate that I see beyond the supposed curve according to the maths provided by the 'globeheads'.

But those don't provide explanations. They are phenomena needing explanation.

Similarly, saying "I observe the moon is a shining light in the sky" is an observation but does not provide an explanation. 

On reflection, these debates always seem to boil down to natural versus supernatural explanation at which point it becomes pointless, because if you're going to invoke a supernatual explanation there's no point in attempting to debate science in the first place: you may as well just have a religious thread with one textbook.

[Grim Jim]

20 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

I see what you did there.

OK...

1. I observe that the earth is flat and motionless.

2. I can demonstrate that I see beyond the supposed curve according to the maths provided by the 'globeheads'.

Last time you tried, it was demonstrated that you were wrong.

[Scotty CTA]

7 hours ago, biffer said:

You've spent time going through people's posts changing what they said so it suits your argument. That's dishonest. Over and over again. You're a lying false prophet.  

Can you please give examples?

7 hours ago, biffer said:

If I explain anything...

If need be, I'll challenge it.

7 hours ago, biffer said:

So what's the point in talking to you? Other than if I stop, you'll take it as a victory. 

Isn't that your territory?

On 4/2/2020 at 5:55 PM, biffer said:

He’ll be gone for a while now...

Yet, I'm here, and have been for the better part of 22(?) years.

[Scotty CTA]

5 hours ago, exile said:

But those don't provide explanations. 

You said 'simple'.

How about the earth is 'flat' and motionless'?

5 hours ago, exile said:

They are phenomena needing explanation.

Only if you believe that we are on a spinning globe.

I'd hardly describe that not feeling the earth move and being able to see a great distance as 'phenomena'.

5 hours ago, exile said:

Similarly, saying "I observe the moon is a shining light in the sky" is an observation but does not provide an explanation. 

The moon is its' own light source.

5 hours ago, exile said:

On reflection, these debates always seem to boil down to natural versus supernatural explanation at which point it becomes pointless, because if you're going to invoke a supernatual explanation there's no point in attempting to debate science in the first place: you may as well just have a religious thread with one textbook.

Nope.

An uncivilised tribe, without ever attending school or knowing the bible would think that the earth was flat and motionless.

[Scotty CTA]

4 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Last time you tried, it was demonstrated that you were wrong.

I very much doubt that. Can you remind me?

Here's a short (just over 4 minutes) video that contains many examples of us being able to see a lot, lot further than we should be able to on a supposed 24,800 mile circumference 'ball' earth... 

 

[Scotty CTA]

If you disagree with the maths, then kindly please provide the 'real' formula and state how far we should be able to see before objects disappear behind the curve.

[Huddersfield]

Scotty, out of interest, if the Moon is its own light source, what do you think actually makes it shine? What is the energy source?

[Grim Jim]

40 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

I very much doubt that. Can you remind me?

Here's a short (just over 4 minutes) video that contains many examples of us being able to see a lot, lot further than we should be able to on a supposed 24,800 mile circumference 'ball' earth... 

 

If you can remember where you posted that video before you will see.   (Not this thread, I think.)   You also had the photo of the ships bobbing up and down in the swell.

[exile]

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

You said 'simple'.

How about the earth is 'flat' and motionless'?

Only if you believe that we are on a spinning globe.

I'd hardly describe that not feeling the earth move and being able to see a great distance as 'phenomena'.

The moon is its' own light source.

Nope.

An uncivilised tribe, without ever attending school or knowing the bible would think that the earth was flat and motionless.

There's no point in discussing this if you are going to deliberately miss the point.

The point about the moon is that anyone can make an 'simple observation' that it's a shiny thing in the sky, but that isn't an explanation of what it is or how it got there or why it seems to shine. In an earlier thread I seem to recall you didn't claim to know what the moon was or how it behaved (waxing/ waning and ecplises) - just that it wasn't what scientists say it is. Saying that it is its own light source does not explain anything. The argument always boils down to one side offering an supernatural explanation. When you finally admit that, at that point, (as I said earlier), there's no point in having a 'scientific' discussion about it.

Having said all that, for an Easter weekend challenge, I'd invite you to take on my previously posted question on the Lunar Eclipse thread (last page), about a ship heading due east. I would be genuinely interested in your answer. You don't need any scientific background, texbook, or any videos; just a common sense answer that fits with your own world view.

Edited April 10, 2020 by exile

[Scotty CTA]

1 hour ago, Huddersfield said:

Scotty, out of interest, if the Moon is its own light source, what do you think actually makes it shine? What is the energy source?

Not surprisingly, I subscribe to the Biblical explanation,  however, if you were to search 'the moon doesn't reflect the sun' you'll get loads of information that challenges that the moon reflects sunlight.

Here's just one take...

 

[Scotty CTA]

44 minutes ago, exile said:

There's no point in discussing this if you are going to deliberately miss the point.

The point about the moon is that anyone can make an 'simple observation' that it's a shiny thing in the sky...

But we both AGREE that the moon is 'a shiny thing in the sky'.

What we disagree on is the earth being flat and motionless.

(All I've done is apply 'Occam's Razor' to my example whereas there's no need to apply it to yours.)

44 minutes ago, exile said:

In an earlier thread I seem to recall you didn't claim to know what the moon was or how it behaved (waxing/ waning and ecplises) - just that it wasn't what scientists say it is. Saying that it is its own light source does not explain anything. The argument always boils down to one side offering an supernatural explanation. When you finally admit that, at that point, (as I said earlier), there's no point in having a 'scientific' discussion about it.

Correct.

'God' is my God, and 'science' (appears to be) your god.

Your worldview holds 'science' above God, whereas I hold an omnipotent God above what you believe passes for science.

It's my belief that the answers you are looking for can't truthfully be found within what you are willing to accept.

44 minutes ago, exile said:

Having said all that, for an Easter weekend challenge, I'd invite you to take on my previously posted question on the Lunar Eclipse thread (last page), about a ship heading due east. I would be genuinely interested in your answer. You don't need any scientific background, texbook, or any videos; just a common sense answer that fits with your own world view.

Circumnavigation would be the same on a flat earth as it would be on a globe.

One would just (generally speaking) follow the lines of latitude.

If you're thinking that I'd hit Antarctica on a flat earth, then that could only occur if I were heading South, and not East.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Scotty CTA