/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

>>164845
>>164865
This.
Essentially how I go about things.
>>164852
>If one's ideas don't withstand opposition
The question is not whether they withstand opposition or not. But rather, how much importance you want to grant to some random aspie. It's just like Jordan Peterstein said:

<"You don't have to put up with children's bullshit"
You can just opt out and say: "Well, feel free to make the last post ITT, you fucking manchild..."

>>164881
>You can just opt out and say: "Well, feel free to make the last post ITT, you fucking manchild..."
This.
A baller gang came to shit this bread and they are getting frustrated and making a fuzz because OP won't take them seriously.

>>164882
you know, this is observably, demonstrably false. I grew up in Florida and once or twice a year my old man would take me up to watch shuttle launches. They went up but they sure didn't come down for a few days.

>>164883
>you know, this is observably, demonstrably false
I guess your old man took you with him in day time. The photograph is a night time capture with a very long exposure to capture the rocket's real trajectory.

>>164884
>very long exposure
Perhaps ISO 3200.

>>164884
actually I'm going to say with almost certainty that I was there for STS-84's launch, the time of year feels right and I remember we had to get up REALLY early to go catch it

Launched: May 15, 1997 4:07:48 a.m. EDT
Landing Site: Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Landing: May 24, 1997, 9:27:44 a.m. EDT

>>164886
and to answer your next cope:
6:32 AM
Thursday, May 15, 1997 (EDT)
Sunrise in Daytona Beach, FL

>>164886
>>164887
Checking your NASA charts?

>>164881
Would that it were so simple.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, but the flat earth psyop is as subversive to objective reality as the transgender craze, just targeting a different demographic.

>>164889
>sheer dishonesty
Flat Earth is based on demonstrable and reproducible experiments, not to mention wide inconsistencies in the heliocentric model.
Transgender craze is based on political correctness which by definition is deliberated distortion of language, when not suppression of inconvenient facts.

>>164891
Splitting hairs, they both involve a denial of objective reality with spurious ideas brought about by ignorant and stupid people
https://youtu.be/ww47bR86wSc

>>164892
Ahem, even if the video at first glance looks sound, jew propaganda is not welcome.

>>164889
I could see this. Making up wacky shit and associating it with your enemies they do all the time

I cringe when it's mentioned by people like Sven or Mike, even though they're usually good. I've also seen a few sites make articles about Nazi flat-earthers

>>164892
Literal jewTube propaganda, what are you doing?

The stupid people are the one's that watch propaganda for entertainment or think it's a good thing to post

Like I get videos can make good points (though they're not a replacement for you saying something yourself), but these kinds of videos are tailor-made propaganda, even has the whole literal atrocity propaganda at the start

The whole thing is masturbating redditor types because they watch it and go
>"haha, yes, those dummy dumbos are so dumb, good thing I am better than them and believe mr youtube man, haha, I'm smart"

None of it makes sense, it's just presented as if it does and implies, obviously, that if you don't follow it you are one of the dumbos
>You can fight against malice but not idiocy because you can use violence against malicious people
Like this. What is it supposed to mean? It's stated like it's profound but you can obviously punch a dumb person exactly as much as an evil person, every sentence in these is some kind of "if you kill your enemies, they win" stupid bullshit that's just meant to sound like it makes sense

I dare you to take a sentence out of that video that makes a concrete and useful point that you can actually back up. What's the point of the video? What is the point you're trying to make? Why post it? Stupid people are stupid and bad and don't think right? Why do you need to make this point? Why do you feel as if you can't make it yourself?

What's /Flat Earth General/'s Opinion on The Holocaust?

>>164888
yes, I googled scheduled STS launches because I was a child at the time. I'm sorry, is my objective, personal experience not good enough for you retard? KSFS launches are public for the most part, go watch one if you can scrape together enough allowance for a bus ticket to Florida

>>164898
Based

>>164891
>wide inconsistencies
Dozens of inconsistencies have been pointed out with the flat-earth model as well, many of which you've refused to reply to in this thread. I can't even count all the times the things you've asserted have been either refuted logically, or directly contradicted with more substantial evidence. Most of the time you just scroll past them and pretend they don't exist, because they obviously pointed out gaping inconsistencies in what you just said.
>>164891
>based on demonstrable and reproducible experiments
Even more have been done confirming that the earth is flat, but you've dismissed every single one of them as "NASA shills" without actually disputing their studies for their material.
You've set an impossible standard for any scientist or witness that could have refuted your worldview through ad hominem alone, because apparently everyone who proves you wrong is a "NASA/Freemason shill", even when they have no apparent connection to either organization. You claim that actors like NASA have absurd amounts of far-reaching influence on every continent, without any evidence to support it, let alone why or how; if you asked any other /pol/ack how or why the Jews control the global media and politics, you'd get a mountain of evidence in minutes, but you keep dodging those same questions about NASA. You lump all of them together as part of some grand conspiracy that has supposedly gotten all those separate parties to agree with seamless efficiency. You refuse to answer to anyone who makes an evidence-backed argument as a "shill" (ad hominem), without even trying to refute their arguments. You claim, without evidence, that any video or photograph that challenges your worldview is "photoshopped" without providing evidence or even trying to pursue evidence (such as checking noise patterns).
Not only that, preemptively excluding anyone who might have a connection to aerospace, geography or astrology organizations (in ALL countries, apparently) effectively excludes all scientists in that field, leaving only sketchy YouTubers as an excuse for a source.

What kind of argument would actually convince you? What kind of scientific source would you even consider acceptable if it proved the earth was round? What's your actual standard of evidence? Who would you accept that kind of evidence from? What kind of evidence would you consider to meet your standards of proof? Do you seriously only accept evidence that reaffirms your worldview?

How is anyone supposed to take you seriously like this? Is this how you intend to convince people that the world is flat?

And ffs, why doesn't this thread have IDs? It's impossible to have a consistent argument like this.

>>164896
That the theory of idiocy was derived in Nazi Germany in concentration camps has no bearing on the phenomenon, and I postrd it cuz OP is precisely the sort of idiot that is described in the video, since you're so quick on the uptake

>>164901
Wanna see him lose his shit?
Not a freemason, but I AM a Senior DeMolay; the youth version of freemasonry.
That oughta give him all the paranoid rope he'll need.
>>164902
Almost like OP didnt want to have a legitimate discussion

>>164882
>meme
>no meme or rationale to explain the curving phenomena
To answer the question, the rocket curves *because* the world is round: because the world isn't flat, gravity doesn't pull straight 'down', but towards the center of the earth, which is why a long-range rocket's path is a segment of an ellipse.
And, in a hypothetical circumstance that we lived on a flat 'realm' where 'gravity' represented a single-direction force, the rocket would still curve, because the rocket would travel both horizontally and vertically, but only it's vertical travel would be affected by said one-dimensional gravity: the difference is that for flat earth the rocket would be a sharper parabola, rather than an elliptical segment, and long-range rockets would be less of a pain to aim.
>>164883
I'm a Florida Man too. I don't go that often though. Too much driving, and I'm not fond of crowds.
>>164888
He doesn't need a chart to tell you if it was day or night.
What are you trying to argue here?

>>164906
I was one of those "I wanna be an astronaut" kids so when the old man had enough gas to take me up I went, just like Disney

>>164968
Bruh

1000 year old Flat Earth map.

>>165088
>shard earth image at the beginning
Now you're talking. Oh wait, nevermind. Nice claims, be even mocer if there was anything to vet, like someone alive in this century, or anything more than unverifiable claims

>>165089
>unverifiable claims
Such as like this realm is a ball?

>>165090
There are plenty of clues and hard experiments debunking the planet baloney, for example >>149637

>>165090
Only if you're willfully ignorant
>>165091
Still thinking that a bunch of guys on a boat cant produce enough error and variance in angle/calculation to produce those results eh?

>>165092
>guys on a boat
Incorrect. It is guys on the shore pointing at the distance. According to the paid "honorable and trustworthy scientists", the curvature would make the laser beam impossible to see. But because of the laser can be seen, their lies are busted.

Speaking of lasers, remember the time they spent $20k to buy a laser gyroscope to prove there was no actual planetary rotation, and accidentally proved there was rotation? Cuz, ya know, its not flat?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.triplem.com.au/story/flat-earthers-spend-20-000-trying-to-prove-earth-is-flat-accidentally-prove-it-s-round-129953
"What we found is, when we turned on that gyroscope, we found that we were picking up a drift," Knodel explains. "A 15-degree per hour drift.

"Now, obviously we were taken aback by that - 'Wow, that's kind of a problem.'

"We obviously were not willing to accept that, and so we started looking for easy to disprove it was actually registering the motion of the Earth."

You know what they say: If your experiment proves you wrong, just disregard the results!

"We don't want to blow this, you know?" Knodel then says to another Flat Earther. "When you've got $20,000 in this freaking gyro.

"If we dumped what we found right now, it would be bad? It would be bad.

"What I just told you was confidential."

Thanks Bob

>>165094
>You know what they say: If your experiment proves you wrong, just disregard the results!
This is exactly what the "respectable scientists" do all the time. Their experiment fails and they ask for more money to reach the result wanted by the establishment, and if not experiment can match the answer they want, they pull deliriant theories from their asses and promote them as truth. It is fucking preposterous.

>>165096
Oh, noticed this:
No wonder you lot like to use that calculator to 'debunk' the curve; it's wrong

>>165098
No idea what you're going for, the earth is NOT a sphere, plain and simple
>hurrr, cuz its flat
Its an oblate sphereoid. The curvature is different depending on where you ARE on the planet. Theres no simplified calculation that can give you accurate results that do not account for first calculating the exact curvature a specific area will show.
>it wouldnt be that significant tho!
Wont know until the correct calculations are done then. Something you fags stll need to work on, correct calculations. But that would get in the way wouldnt it?
See, when a person is convicted to an idea, they tend to strawman the opposition's argument in their haste to try and debunk it. This manifests as a lack of due diligence when attempting to present the opposition's position. Such as using a simplified version of the model and then debunking that simplified (read: inaccurate) model.
>but but, thats what you're doing
No, Im mot trying to debunk your/their model. Im pointing to the untenable elements of the equation, which would give rise to the skewed results one is seeing.
If you can find evidence that dozens of holes CAN'T be poked in, Ill be the first to admit it.
Still waiting tho

As you can see indicated in the previous citation and this one from their sourcepage, no allowance was made for the sphereoid natureof the planet, they are calculating it as though the planet is a theoretical (read: perfect) sphere.
Thats the problem.

>>165100
>Thats the problem.
None when the equation is translated to real life measurements. This bread has plenty of info and REPRODUCIBLE experiments (as the Scientific Method demands) to make your shilling improper as best, dishonest at worst.

>>165099
>Its an oblate sphereoid.
And how you know?

>>165101
You see that R figure on the image? That stands for RADIUS. with a SPHEREOID, the radius is NEVER EQUAL. Therefore, any equation that tries to use them AS equal, is FLAWED. Moving on
>>165102
Because people who can conduct proper experiments and equations have been doing so for millennia. Moron

Correction: if you're willing to crunch the numbers and illustrate how the variance is/would-be negligable, that would be a credible counterpoint. Its plausible, given the localized environment of the experiment.
Having said, the radius from the earth's core to the equator is longest, and the radius from the north pole to the core is the shortest.

>>165103
I think Eratosthenes was the first to do a real experiment proving that the Earth is round so I think technically only one millennium

People have been sailing on ships for millennia though, and people even before Eratosthenes saw how boats sink below the horizon instead of shrinking forever, but idk if that counts as an experiment

Also this
>During lunar eclipses, Aristotle observed that earth casts a curved shadow onto the surface of the moon
https://thecreationclub.com/the-shape-of-the-earth-aristotle-and-the-scientific-method/

>Aristotle was not the first person to argue that Earth is round – earlier arguments date back to the 6th century B.C. But Aristotle seems to be the first to offer observational evidence using the earth’s-shadow method.

According to this also only one millennium. Also apparently I was wrong about Eratosthenes since this is saying 6th century BC and Eratosthenes was like 1-2nd or something

IIRC, the flat-earth explanation for it is that it's a random undetected, unseeable, second moon or sister planet that causes the eclipse, and that one is round for some reason

>>165112
This is pure nonsense. Light and images aren't beams. You should be able to see the moon and it's reflection from multiple angles.

>>165112
Kinda fun to make but I wish the meme didn't use such a dumb model since it's hard to get a nice trail reflection like in the image with these relative scales, though I also think I made my waves too high, and it's BSDF instead of a glass shader for actually reflective water since that would take way too long to render

>>165122
*actually refractive water

>>165122
Youre not taking that meme seriously, are you? Like, the image is so ridiculously modified that its absurd. Especially funny, givrn how flat earthers are all up in arms about "NASA edits" n shit. Like seriously, has one never seen a r3flection of the moon? Its not prominent, in fact the reflection of the moon is proportionate to its size in the night's sky, and such memes are disingenuous on their face.
But its quite obvious when it happens.

The flat earth thread is homosexual.
Every so often a new meme is posted, insulting people who know the earth is round. Flatties can't prove their world is flat, they just imitate a liberal's idea of conservative talking points like AI.
Speaking of AI...
Wouldn't it be funny to turn an AI racist like Tay?
https://youtu.be/hUQNiy4K7VU

>>165125
Not exactly mistaken, but still off-topic.

>>>/ub/5774 →

>>165126
More like >>>/cyb/

>>165130
>Polaris stays put
It just stays northish due to it's relative position to the pole of the northern hemisphere, tracing out a small circle. It still moves vaguely, it's just that you could only tell the significant distance if you were at the north pole. The night sky changes overtime anyway. It even changes with the seasons; that's why we can see different parts of the stars at different times of the year, and why people come up with horoscopes or whatever based on what stars are most visible on a particular month.
>19.2 billion miles
A mere inch in the vastness of space. The galaxy is absolutely enormous, and the void between galaxies is even bigger.
>Galaxy is moving
Polaris is part of the milky way Galaxy, so how far the galaxy is moving isn't isn't significantly relevant because Polaris would be moving at the same speed as our sun relative to all the other stars in the galaxy.

>>165130
https://www.quora.com/Has-an-amateur-astronomer-measured-a-stellar-parallax?share=1
This data was generated by Dennis di Cicco, impressively using mass produced 11 and then 16 inch Schmidt Cassegrain telescopes. The sine-like pattern is consistent with the expected parallax associated with Barnard's 1.833 parsec distance. It is worth noting that each of those points is derived from hundreds or thousands of digital images which were stacked, analyzed, and averaged to compensate for the disruptive effects of Earth's atmosphere, the greatest single hindrance to ground-based astrometry.

>>165130
>>165135
>>165136
>ITT: OP shares an unsourced meme he found on Reddit/Facebook without even bothering to research the claims it makes for even one minute
Many such cases.

>>165135
>It just stays northish due to it's relative position to the pole of the northern hemisphere, tracing out a small circle.
Sorry, not good enough.
That star is fixed and no amount of shilling can deny it. The heliocentric theory is bullocks,

>>165135
>It still moves vaguely
I strongly disagree. When sailing, a sextant is used to know the current position, that's done pointing at Polaris and it is more than accurate. If the star moves, even slightly, the errors in the charts would be evident as they won't match with IRL coordinates.

>>165150
>>165147
It's movement is only visible in the middle of the Arctic circle. It is just barely off-center.
But that aside, how would that prove that the earth were flat?

Oh, as I went back over the thread I found this post: >>149123
It went through that arguement on how ships sink at horizon. How these ships reappear when you zoom in, meaning it the ship isn't hidden behind any curvature.
The only explanation to prove otherwise would be that those videos are fake, unlikely imo.

The second vid in this post shows and series of photos of a man walking away from a camera on football field. His lower body sinks below the horizon line. I can still not wrap my head around how this visual phenomena happens but clearly the football field is to small of a distance to experince any curvature.

I'm gonna try to recreate this as an experiment for myself. I'll lay with my cheek against hte ground of at the goalposts of a football field and then try to see the bottom of the bag I dropped at the other end.

If the bag's bottom is gone, this doesn't necessarily prove the earth is flat but it does prove that black man scientist is using faulty reasoning in his proofs in the last vid in this post. That alone speaks volumes to me.

>>165152
>But that aside, how would that prove that the earth were flat?
Pretty evident Sherlock, the supposedly ball is jumping non stop and therefore the stars on the dome should also move accordingly, but they don't because Earth is fixed and unmovable.
See >>165130 and plenty of posts above.

>>165154
The stars are part of the same galaxy, so they're moving with relative relation to the earth as well.
The sky changes over time, but it takes thousands of years because there's so much distance to travel.
This doesn't prove anything.

>>165155
>The sky changes over time, but it takes thousands of years because there's so much distance to travel.
>but it takes thousands of years
Exactly, nobody was there thousands of years ago. Just trust us. /s

>>165156
>Implying if you don't personally see it, it can't possibly be true
Well, you could refer to ancient Egyptians who built a pyramid at exactly 30 degrees longitude and latitude in their time based on the stars above them, while the stars above them shifted to change those coordinates since then.

The sky changes over time. It has in human history.
And tbh, the sky changing slightly over time doesn't even necessitate the world being round. It could happen in flat earth too.

>>165157
>Implying if you don't personally see it, it can't possibly be true
The Scientific Method demands that observations and experiments to be reproducible. If only a selected priest caste has the means to do it, more yet, their sponsors forbid anyone to build and fly airships without their consent and regulation, then the Scientific Method is violated and what is left are just myths based on faith.

>>165158
>observations and experiments to be reproducible
I I go through all the work to find the data for this and explain it step by step how they came to that conclusion, are you actually going to take it seriously, or are you going to just dismiss immediately because astronomers were the ones who did it?

>>165157
>And tbh, the sky changing slightly over time doesn't even necessitate the world being round. It could happen in flat earth too.
There is a theory about it, precisely the one suspecting that there is a lot more land beyond the Antarctic wall.

>>165158
>has the means to do it
Okay, I know science is often controlled by corporate greed, but how do you expect the means for scientific experiments to be distributed evenly? Science has always been done by those with means: the equipment to do so isn't free.
Not denying the obvious corruption or conflicts of interest in the scientific communities or their sponsors, but I'm just curious about how you think scientific institutions should be run/funded.

>>165159
>I I go through all the work to find the data for this and explain it step by step how they came to that conclusion, are you actually going to take it seriously
I don't think so, your train of thought is about to pick "space", "cosmos", "gravitational forces" and alike up. All of them are demonstrable non-sense and a hoax.

>>165162
So, no, you wouldn't take it from astronomers then, even if they wrote their steps out entirely.
What kind of source would you even accept to prove it then? What is your standard of evidence?
Idk how anything is supposed to be proved if people go about dismissing those who dedicated their lives to studying the topics without reading them.

>>165162
Forgot to call him Le Mason while you're at it.

>>165163
>What kind of source would you even accept to prove it then?
A faceberg meme, of course.

>>165162
>demonstrable
These have been demonstrably reaffirmed by scientists all over the world who publish their results step-by-step. You're quick to dismiss those refutations as "NASA shilling" though.

>>165160
Do you seriously not think there's any land in Antarctica? You think all those photos are fake?

>>165166
>These have been demonstrably reaffirmed by scientists all over the world who publish their results step-by-step.
There is something very wrong with their science. No curve ---> no planet ---> no space ---> no cosmos ---> no gravity
Just not finding the curve makes the whole "science" fall down like a house of cards.

>>165167
What is beyond the Antarctic wall is unknown, pictures and video only show a few kilometers from the shore, exploration is forbidden under threats of violence.

>>165168
>curve
The curve has been shown evidently by hundreds of sources. You've been selectively choosing results that reaffirm your worldview.
But of course, anyone who isn't a shady YouTuber or a Facebook memer is a NASA shill, right?
>space
Holy shit, the world doesn't even need to be round for that. It is a fact of life that the air gets thinner with higher altitude. Go hiking in the mountains after spending a year at sea level and you'll know.
Can you not even imagine a "realm" where the air is so thin that there's basically nothing at all?
That aside, there's hundreds of different forms of evidence that space exists, but I'm not even going to bother listing them this time because all of the other times I did you called them "NASA shills".
>no cosmos
The "cosmos" are whatever you see in the sky above you: something you can literally see.
>no gravity
Again, has been confirmed and reaffirmed in so many different ways, but you wouldn't accept even a single source that contradicts your worldview. So now we're just contradicting each other to no end.

>>165169
>We'd totally prove our worldview, but the scary NASAmasons would kill us!
They can't stop Japs from hunting whale to extinction there, but they can somehow track every individual who sets foot on the ice and have caught everyone who's tried to see past it?
What utter bullshit. For a group of people who claim to be rebelling against the new world order, you lot come off as awfully cowardly. Imagine being afraid of blue helmets.

>>165170
PewDiePie knows.

>>165169
>exploration is forbidden
You know scientists go to Antarctica for research all of the time, right? It's not that hard to get approved. I had a professor who went there.

>>165174
>You know scientists go to Antarctica for research all of the time, right?
Not sure if you think people are stupid or your IQ is below 60.

>>165175
I don't expect you to believe it. You're probably just going to call them fakes/shills.

>>165176
Well, we have already millions of nurses and doctors who denied reality by going along with a non-existent epidemic, because of the money. And this is a glaring example of how corrupt humanity has become.

>>165171
>>165172
Welcome to the flat earth thread, where all your carefully constructed arguments will be summarily ignored, and OP will insist that his boomer-tier memes make sense

>>165218
>8:06 - The genesis of the modern Flat Earth Society
You are being way too dishonest, it is well known that the Flat Earth Society is controlled opposition used to ridicule Flat Earth.
Either you demonstrate the curvature or you have no case.

>>165219
>posting a video is dishonest
Sure thing bud. What is it when you've been presented with dozens of resources that display curvature, but refuse to even acknowledge the post (presumably to avoid illustraying that you cant contest the points, other than to maybe claim nasa/mason/wtfe shill)?
Hint, it's related to the word 'ignore'

>>165220
>What is it when you've been presented with dozens of resources that display curvature
Which has been debunked over and over again in the bread.
>Hint, it's related to the word 'ignore'
I agree. Projecting much?

>>165221
>saying mason or nasa once and then never adding anything is 'debunking'
>also you're the one who's ignorant
Right? All those equations and calcularions and historic citations, the moon, the tides, all 'debunked' cuz Eric Dubay cant into actual science, and OP cant into critical thinking.

>>165222
>All those equations and calcularions and historic citations, the moon, the tides, all 'debunked' cuz Eric Dubay
Nope, all debunked by IRL experiments and observations.
At this point you are not even pretending with your shilling.

>>165223
>debunked by IRL experiments and observations from people performing irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence due to alack of controls
Ftfy

>>165223
>all debunked by IRL experiments and observations.
None of that met generally accepted standards of quality or precision for experiments.
>shilling
Do you actually think that, or are you just talking out of your ass? You think Anons here argue with you because they're paid to do it, and not just because you keep shoving absurdist nonsense in their faces?
So long as this crap keeps coming up on the overboard, idiots are still going to take the bait and reply to it. There is no shilling, because they do it for free.

>>165226
Ridiculous notions demand ridicule; it's flat-shaming.

>>165341
No, THIS is flat-shaming.

>>165341
>>165344
>flat-shaming
Amateurs.

>>165347
>Mark Twain
All that ad homenim, and you just quoted a literal, open, known Freemason.
Which is not to discredit the quote; it's a decent quote, but an example how something can make sense despite who says it, so long as it's substantial.
Think of that next time you dismiss/discredit a scientific study because people in the business of studying space might be affiliated with NASA, and judge the arguments on the substance and not the speaker.

Give up already globeheads