Are Hardcore Conspiracy Theorists Retarded?

[JudasAnthony]

So the camera that close to earth is able to capture its whole beauty, yet a camera from past the moon shows 1/8th of it lol

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Not to not pick but you just told me there are hundreds of photographs of this spherical earth. Can you produce even one?

I didn't say that. I said there are hundreds of launching satellites.

As for pictures of spherical Earth, I prefer the STS missions because it's literally just astronauts taking pictures out a window. No enhanced coloring, no piecing strips together to form an image. Of course, we'll get the whole Eddie Bravo "Looks fake to me" argument which gets us nowhere.

 

[JudasAnthony]

inb4 "CGI"

Edit: Well fuck. He's quick with his Eddie Bravo delusions.

Well this isn't me or Eddie Bravo this is Robert Simmon the man employed by NASA to create these images.

If you can't be bothered to watch it at 2:12 you hear him say "The pictures of earth are all photo shopped because they have to be.
Interesting enough one of the reasons he claims that the image needs to be photoshopped is because "the earths surface looks flat"

 

[Canned Tuna]

Why did building seven fall?????????

 

[JudasAnthony]

I didn't say that. I said there are hundreds of launching satellites.

As for pictures of spherical Earth, I prefer the STS missions because it's literally just astronauts taking pictures out a window. No enhanced coloring, no piecing strips together to form an image. Of course, we'll get the whole Eddie Bravo "Looks fake to me" argument which gets us nowhere.

Great photoshop
Love how this isn't a curved sphere at all.. and this your proof?
I thought the curve was impossible to detect? How is it seen so clearly here

 

[faustian]

Interesting theory. I'm not sure I agree, but I see the point you're trying to make, and perhaps you're correct in making it. Good post.

However, is it smart to give oneself over completely to a system that controls you as though you're no better than sheep? How is that practical, overall? It may be on an individual level, in some regards, for a short time, but I don't see how it's universally practical when speaking of the collective.

Those that buck the system often inspire change, at their own detriment. Those that willingly follow unquestionably, are easily used as tools to continue control mechanisms, bolster coverup efforts, and contribute to their perpetuation via their blind support.

Think of all the CTs that turned out being true, or all the daring ideas, seemingly extremely CTish at the time, that were condemned as heresy (Galileo comes to mind). The blind masses made it much harder for the breakthroughs to occur - as they act as buffers between those perpetrating the coverups and old ways of thinking, and those that would wish to see them torn down to make way for furthering the truth.

I think I stand by my original viewpoint that both extremes are equally "retarded". And I might even argue that it's the opposite of what you're saying in some regards. Either way, I don't think 99/100 is a fair assessment.

You're always a thoughtful poster so I'll always give thoughtful consideration to your posts. That said, I just simply disagree here

You're basing your entire argument on the premise that the system is corrupt and controlling:

However, is it smart to give oneself over completely to a system that controls you as though you're no better than sheep?

This has never been established or even reasonably evidenced as fact. It's possible, maybe even plausible, but at this point it's not probable. And so that's where we diverge

You're correct that in such hypothetical systems, those common men that buck ingrained acquiescence are noble precursors of change. But, again, the US does not qualify as such a system. There's no sufficient evidence of it. In fact, the evidence points contrary

I will say that on a long enough timeline there will be a point where corruption overtakes. Any cursory review of the history of government reveals this to be an inevitability. But we're not there yet. Not in our lifetimes, I contend. So we're still afforded the luxury of being granted the personal choice of devoting our time/energy to our own lives occurring right before us, or dwelling on the remote potential of ill-intended conspiracy which we are entirely helpless to affect. I choose the former, and it's my genuine belief that it's the intelligent choice

 

[BEER]

Well this isn't me or Eddie Bravo this is Robert Simmon the man employed by NASA to create these images.

If you can't be bothered to watch it at 2:12 you hear him say "The pictures of earth are all photo shopped because they have to be.
Interesting enough one of the reasons he claims that the image needs to be photoshopped is because "the earths surface looks flat"

Would you like to ask him specifically what he meant by that?

As in "pictures of spherical objects lack depth from far distances", as opposed to the troll theory you've tricked yourself into believing?

 

[JudasAnthony]

Would you like to ask him specifically what he meant by that?

As in "pictures of spherical objects lack depth from far distances", as opposed to the troll theory you've tricked yourself into believing?

No the man simply said he was paid by NASA to anaylize data and translate such data into an image.

There are no pictures of earth.

 

[BEER]

No the man simply said he was paid by NASA to anaylize data and translate such data into an image.

There are no pictures of earth.

Literally zero? Really?

Like this or any of countless pictures taken from high-altitude aircraft?

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Do you realize what he means by Photoshop? Pictures from space are almost always black and white due to being able to capture more light. The satellites are also within Earth orbit as well and moving. You're not going to capture a full Earth picture in one shot.

It would be like standing in-front of a skyscraper and taking a picture. Are you going to capture everything in one frame? You're either going to have to move far enough back to capture the entire building OR you are going to have to make a panorama and stitch the picture together. Does that make it fake to you or is that just what simply has to be done?

Yes, since it is black and white, they do have to color the pictures. There is a color chart used for reference but there is also artistry involved to highlight certain areas. If you want to call that fake, that's certainly a perspective you can take but how that is evidence that the Earth is flat is absurd.

It's taking words like "Photoshop" and running with them because people like Eddie Bravo instantly assume Photoshop means you are making a fake picture. No, it means they are using Photoshop to stitch together massive photographs to make one picture which we couldn't have otherwise.

 

[JudasAnthony]

Literally zero? Really?

Like this or any of countless pictures taken from high-altitude aircraft?

yes there are literally no pictures of a spherical earth.

However you did just post a legit picture of earth which shows a flat expanding surface

 

[BEER]

yes there are literally no pictures of a spherical earth.

However you did just post a legit picture of earth which shows a flat expanding surface

lmao in what world is that "flat"?

How about this one:

Was the Red Bull space jump a hoax?

 

[JudasAnthony]

Do you realize what he means by Photoshop? Pictures from space are almost always black and white due to being able to capture more light. The satellites are also within Earth orbit as well and moving. You're not going to capture a full Earth picture in one shot.

It would be like standing in-front of a skyscraper and taking a picture. Are you going to capture everything in one frame? You're either going to have to move far enough back to capture the entire building OR you are going to have to make a panorama and stitch the picture together. Does that make it fake to you or is that just what simply has to be done?

Yes, since it is black and white, they do have to color the pictures. There is a color chart used for reference but there is also artistry involved to highlight certain areas. If you want to call that fake, that's certainly a perspective you can take but how that is evidence that the Earth is flat is absurd.

It's taking words like "Photoshop" and running with them because people like Eddie Bravo instantly assume Photoshop means you are making a fake picture. No, it means they are using Photoshop to stitch together massive photographs to make one picture which we couldn't have otherwise.

yea they are fabricated images. Which are marketed to the dumb sheep as legit pictures.
Yet when a sheep wakes up and says wait that's cgi they have a built in excuse.
Some scientific way of explaining that they can't capture the earth on photo.

 

[JudasAnthony]

lmao in what world is that "flat"?

How about this one:

Was the Red Bull space jump a hoax?

Very much a trick of camera the official outdoor camera had a fish eye to replicate the curverture.
Don't believe me then simply watch the video, every time the camera from inside is live and shoots towards the horizon you see the real perfectly flat horizon

 

[splendica]

This must be why every thing that launches from NASA goes up and then into an arch. They must be waiting for the curve of the ball earth to become cloudless so they can make it through that fiery ring that melts rock but not metal

Perhaps the angle rockets navigate through the various levels of atmosphere is important. Also, the speed at which they travel may effect the appearance of their way. I certainly don't know everything about rocket flight. But I'm quite convinced the flat earth theory is incorrect.


Also, to point out again, sunsets and sunrises in a flat earth model should more regularly show a sun shrinking in size and then disappearing as it approaches the horizon, but never crossing it, eventually being concealed by earth vapors/gasses. The sun appearing to go down with an ever increasing or decreasing line segment (or cord), and still visibly large to the naked eye, shouldn't be the norm if flat earth is correct.

 

[sloppypie]

No brother that is a digital composite image, it's photo shopped

prove it's fake.

 

[BEER]

Very much a trick of camera the official outdoor camera had a fish eye to replicate the curverture.
Don't believe me then simply watch the video, every time the camera from inside is live and shoots towards the horizon you see the real perfectly flat horizon

So, the fish-eye lens only effects the earth's surface, and literally nothing else in the photo?

What about this clip from a MiG jet flying at high altitude:

 

[JudasAnthony]

Perhaps the angle rockets navigate through the various levels of atmosphere is important. Also, the speed at which they travel may effect the appearance of their way. I certainly don't know everything about rocket flight. But I'm quite convinced the flat earth theory is incorrect.


Also, to point out again, sunsets and sunrises in a flat earth model should more regularly show a sun shrinking in size and then disappearing as it approaches the horizon, but never crossing it, eventually being concealed by earth vapors/gasses. The sun appearing to go down with an ever increasing or decreasing line segment, or cord, shouldn't be the norm if flat earth is correct.

You're being deceived by perception. The sun is moving straight overhead and disappears once it crosses the threshold in which it is physically impossible to see it from your position.
Just do me a favor and watch this sort video.

prove it's fake.

i did about 3 posts ago. Keep up

 

[JudasAnthony]

So, the fish-eye lens only effects the earth's surface, and literally nothing else in the photo?

What about this clip from a MiG jet flying at high altitude:

Haha fisheye lens
And the speed of the corkscrew corkscrewing the horizon bro

 

[BEER]

Haha fisheye lens
And the speed of the corkscrew corkscrewing the horizon bro

This is the problem with your tiny, retarded brain: You've made up your mind. I could show hundreds of pictures showing the curvature of the earth, and you would explain away every single one of them. All the while, you'll be completely unable to show any proof of your own claim.

You might as well have Downs.