THE DERAILING ROOM

[hoi.polloi]

Once again, I think you are miscategorizing me, and this simply has to do with our policy of not getting into miscommunications, but instead asking people to work on accepting them, and when it's possible correcting them.

You also really exaggerate and assign emotions and motivations to me that aren't true. You read me "negatively" when I feel I am typing neutrally or simply making it plain what the problem is. Perhaps you can blame the flaws in my writing style. That's fine. I am always working to be better. But there is a point where I am annoyed that I am being asked to use artifice and artistry to make simple plain statements into flowery spoonfuls. I have cussed out shills or plain idiots for obvious reasons.

Case in point, this:

Bringing "archeological sites" into a discussion about paleontology really is a basic completely laymans mistake.

I consider your intelligence higher, so it was not an "accusation" or "non-sequitur", but a word of warning to try to help you not making a fool out of yourself and a compliment in one.

It keeps amazing me how you take everything so negatively, how you start a defensive mode.

I have no idea where you got this. I have been trying and failing to ask you to please reference this disagreement. You are inflating it into a little drama. Please reference what it is you are talking about. I haven't a clue.

Believe it or not, when I am moderating, I have to read all the posts on this entire forum. And I have to switch contexts frequently. So if you don't reference what you are talking about, to me, you appear to be dragging something out of context into the middle of other threads. I have to assume there are a million readers that are equally confused, if not more confused, by this forum. So your statements that assume everyone is on baited breath to read the next "useful quote" at the base of your posts are wasted. Please do not read anything I type to you (or other users) as negative or as personal attacks. I post to address posts, or — when it seems necessary — I post to challenge and identify and differentiate users that seem as though they will cause problems with the forum's message's readability.

Also, I am sorry but I don't think the thrust of your argument makes much sense. I am saying that none of us knows who is worthy of trust on the Internet and your point seems to be that it doesn't matter because even when people lie, shill, mess up posts or derail topics or when robots practice their artificial intelligence routines on us, they do so with "good intentions".

This makes it "okay" to leave lies, word garbage and topic derailments why? Do we have to be complacent about it when AI and/or military intelligence programs are tapping our site? It sounds like you are just arguing for neglect. Have you seen what happens to other forums on the Internet when they neglect their moderation? We are talking about very difficult topics here, on top of that. It would be really foolish of us to let any sort of shill, fool or bot ramble on and make the topics even harder to process.

As for dinosaur hoaxes being proven invalid, I am waiting for a single post from you that does anything of the sort.

Until you give us enough of a deliberate show of your honest intelligence to indicate to everyone that you understand that, and work to actually make a point, I doubt you would make any point about the Earth at all. This is just a statement about your behavior, since your motivations are not much our concern, but not your potential for actually being useful on this forum yet. I would like to see you be useful on this forum, but as it stands you seem to spend most of your time here complaining about your treatment.

This isn't an intellectual club. It's a forum for posting research into media fakery, hoaxes and so on.

If you have something intelligent to say about anything, which others can easily verify and research, will you please just make the post already? And stop wasting our time?

[Selene]

Hoi, you're jumping around as well.

What is this? Is this a forum, where people interact, criticise each other, where people try to figure out by using arguments with each other the truth, or is it a research posting platform, where isolated individuals post their findings and they are not discussed upon between us?

In my forum history you see I started off more on a forum side, then dived more into the posting research, and where the two come together, like in the Dino Hoax, I tend to do both.

But then please define, once and for all what is the idea of Cluesforum? Is it A), B ) or both? If it is both, then I think I nowhere crossed any line of reasonable, honest, respectful (see my word on transcendental world views) discussion considered useful on a forum.

I have never said or meant that "evil bots and shills are there with good intentions", I am honestly offended and hugely surprised why you keep putting me in that category? What is your problem with me in particular? I do not see the responses you give to me to others. Anyone reading along can see this.

Insulting me by "you haven't added anything useful to this forum" is really out of the boxing ring of reasonable intelligent debate.

Hoi, check the posts in the last months and compare the volume and variety of contributions to Cluesforum we both have done. Your research from the past still stands, but you cannot hold it against me that before Jan 2015 I haven't contributed anything...

Because the style of Cluesforum is not of the interacting, commenting way, there's no way to say, other than your authoritarian one, if my contributions were useful or not. They may have been to many readers or everyone would want me to shut up, without interaction, reflection, discussion, communication, debating, using arguments, there's no way to verify your statement from "authority".

The questions for the Dinos I have restated in a new post, on the clowns of the community, that unfortunately, yes, are there.

But are all photographers corrupt 'cause Boston ones faked theirs?
Is astronomy as a whole a fraud because too many of the perps are "photographing ISS"?
....

You said in your last post in the Dino thread this:

From my perspective, "dinosaurs" as a creature, timeline and fossil record are all clearly hoaxed where they aren't creatively invented and speculated about whole-cloth, and I haven't yet seen a convincing archaeological "site" and that is confusing and distressing, if dinosaurs are supposed to be at all real. The leading discussions about it in newspapers are ridiculous. Birds and diets and hunting patterns of invented fantasy worlds and time periods.

My focus is on the mistake you make, please be a mature and intelligent individual, like your work is showing, Hoi. It shows you lack a complete interest in the topic, otherwise you wouldn't make such a laymans mistake. If my two examples on Inuit terrorists and urologists at the dentist do not come across, I am sorry, I've tried the most polite way possible.

You do not do that in your words against a complete scientific community, where you project the clowns on.

Newspapers ARE ridiculous, can't we f*cking agree on that??? Their silly re-interpretations of the words of serious researchers do not in any way reflect the real science behind it!?

Have you read the original publications behind those findings, announced in the media? What are their words, how is it written there? Most of these stories are so twisted and raped by the media that it does not coincide with anything a serious scientist would write down in a report.

It's a false argument. It's taking NASA pictures to disgrace a non-NASA-related person. Taking the Daily Fail as "authority" on "what those darn archeologists paleonto-anything-can't-pronounce-any-of-those-hard-Greek-words say". That's not fair, can we agree??

It really comes across like "you're some guy from the Mid West, watching telly all day, not knowing anything at all, grumpily 'doubting' Dinos". And hoi, despite all our differences, I do NOT (want to) see you as one of these stereotyped people. So please, no urology, Inuit terrorists, or archeology in a paleontological discussion/topic...

Cheers man,

Selene

[Selene]

Instead of just casually linking off site in the middle of your post, try to use your own words to explain your reasoning for believing even one example of "Lists of dinosaur-bearing stratigraphic units".

That would be a good place to start proving dinosaurs existed. Just one site out of under one hundred stong cases listed on Wickedpedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... dy_fossils

Or even among the 300 or so weaker cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... aur_genera

And please don't make us snicker about "dinosaur tracks".

We have more so-called "terrorist" events and "galaxies" than we do the above. If you are not confident enough to do so, how can you say with so much certainty you simply believe them all?

Sorry, but what?? These are places you can visit, you can go there, touch the rocks, take samples, do research, perform tests, take photos and publish about it.

This silly "debate" goes like "NYC doesn't exist, 'cause I haven't/till I have been there".

As indicated in the earlier post are the coordinates of a site in the Spanish Pyrenees where I have been. I have found thousands of fossils in my life, no dinosaur ones though. Dinosaur eggs I have seen there in Spain in a secret location, in that neighbourhood indicated in the link. If you'd spend a week there, you should find them.

Famous fossil Lagerstätten (rich fossil sites) are well-studied by literally thousands of researchers, professionals.

How many of these sites have you visited and verified beyond a shadow of a doubt they were all fake??

I have posted photos of some microfossils in the topic; the only reaction "what about ém", there seems no room for me to convince you of anything?

You think the complete paleontological research community, both amateur and professional is a fraud?

And the other questions stil stand. No dinos, so what animals occupied the lands, seas and skies in the Jurassic and Cretaceous??

Selene

[Selene]

The Earth is not spherical because NASA says so

but also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQt9vq3sdtQ - please note, I do not want to promote any of these scamdalous videos, this is just a quick example, read this description and we all can agree Simons topic is hitting the nail on the head:

Matthew Boylan, former NASA operational graphics manager, worked for years creating photo-realistic computer graphics for NASA. Now a vocal Flat-Earther, Boylan claims that NASA’s sole reason for existence is to propagandize the public and promote this false ball-Earth heliocentric worldview. Originally recruited because of his skills and reputation as a hyper-realist multi-media artist, he started doing projects like photoshopping various lighting and atmospheric effects onto images of Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Europa, etc. Having proved himself, and wanting to promote him to do more classified work, a room of NASA higher-ups during a party, as a type of initiatory-rite, explained to him and a few others in detail the reality of the Geocentric Flat-Earth model and how they have fooled the entire world!

The Earth is not flat because NASA says so

==========

How to prove the Earth is spherical?

1 - Book a couple of flights around the world and check it out or if you have a lot of time do it by boat
2 - The Moon, Sun, stars and planets all appear round (2D representation of spherical) to us and the Moon has been studied extensively by old non-NASA astronomers and more than 50% of the surface of the tidally locked Moon has been studied. From Earth, telescopes, no Disney Space Scheisse. It certainly appears a sphere, a ball, a globe. Why would the Earth be an exception?
3 - If a solar eclipse is not "the spherical Moon is blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on Earth" and a lunar eclipse is not "the spherical Earth blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on the Moon", then what are those well-studied phenomena??
4 - all other curved (spherical-based) phenomena like rainbows, hurricanes, auroras, etc.
5 - Again, long before the NASA scumbags came into existence, the Earth has been studied and mapped as well.


Map by Hendrik Hondius (1630)

If these maps were produced then, the shapes of Africa and South America are true, not made up by our post WWII "geostationary satellite" preachers.

So, we suppose plate tectonics is a valid model explaining these obvious shape similarities?

How do you get plate tectonics to work on a non-spherical object? How does "Flat Earth Scamtheory" explain this away? Just ignore it, an infamous NAStrategy?

Selene

[hoi.polloi]

But are all photographers corrupt 'cause Boston ones faked theirs?
Is astronomy as a whole a fraud because too many of the perps are "photographing ISS"?

Well, right, but I think we agree these rhetorical questions are topical to CluesForum.

We have the right to doubt photographers. We have the right to doubt vast understandings about astronomy.

It doesn't mean all photographers are fake. It doesn't mean stars are fake. There is a crucial difference. That difference seems to be where your confusion lies. We are more permissive of doubt because this forum is about exercising the right to doubt speech made in the interest of free speech.

I see what you meant about my mistake in using a word that implies human activity. Whoops! However, this was a sarcastic comment on my part that you took way seriously. And even if I were to literally use a word seriously appropriate to the discussion, it could have been a simple correction. I never saw you post such a thing. Instead, it took you several long posts to make this point? You could have just said, like fbenario or other mods do, "You obviously mean geological or something else". Why not?

I don't know why you keep thinking I'm picking on you. I'm not. If anything, the least we could take from our miscommunications is that we have different styles of writing. I don't think that has anything to do with a grudge or anything else. Anyhow, I can go correct that post now.

[hoi.polloi]

Instead of just casually linking off site in the middle of your post, try to use your own words to explain your reasoning for believing even one example of "Lists of dinosaur-bearing stratigraphic units".

That would be a good place to start proving dinosaurs existed. Just one site out of under one hundred stong cases listed on Wickedpedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... dy_fossils

Or even among the 300 or so weaker cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... aur_genera

And please don't make us snicker about "dinosaur tracks".

We have more so-called "terrorist" events and "galaxies" than we do the above. If you are not confident enough to do so, how can you say with so much certainty you simply believe them all?

Sorry, but what?? These are places you can visit, you can go there, touch the rocks, take samples, do research, perform tests, take photos and publish about it.

This silly "debate" goes like "NYC doesn't exist, 'cause I haven't/till I have been there".

As indicated in the earlier post are the coordinates of a site in the Spanish Pyrenees where I have been. I have found thousands of fossils in my life, no dinosaur ones though. Dinosaur eggs I have seen there in Spain in a secret location, in that neighbourhood indicated in the link. If you'd spend a week there, you should find them.

Famous fossil Lagerstätten (rich fossil sites) are well-studied by literally thousands of researchers, professionals.

How many of these sites have you visited and verified beyond a shadow of a doubt they were all fake??

I have posted photos of some microfossils in the topic; the only reaction "what about ém", there seems no room for me to convince you of anything?

You think the complete paleontological research community, both amateur and professional is a fraud?

And the other questions stil stand. No dinos, so what animals occupied the lands, seas and skies in the Jurassic and Cretaceous??

Selene

I don't think those arguments are very good.

You misconstrued my statement from "These sites are doubtfully evidence of dinosaurs" into "These sites don't exist"

Will you fucking stop doing that?!

Then, on top of constantly misconstruing my statements and blaming me for it, you basically just said something like, "I have never seen any evidence of dinosaurs at these sites."

So ... what, exactly, are we supposed to take as evidence of dinosaurs?

Let's start over.

This time, answer my questions. And this time, do it without contorting your image of me into a cartoonish monster. I am not evidence of dinosaurs, though you seem to see them everywhere without offering any proof.

[hoi.polloi]

The Earth is not spherical because NASA says so

You are the only one making this point. You set up a straw man to tear it down.

So what can you possibly mean by adding, "but" to your next statement? Plus, you throw a clearly fake NASA image in our faces ... why? What is your point? NASA fakes the globe images. We know this.

but also:

But also?

How to prove the Earth is spherical?

1 - Book a couple of flights around the world and check it out or if you have a lot of time do it by boat

1. Bad argument. No clear explanation.

2 - The Moon, Sun, stars and planets all appear round (2D representation of spherical) to us and the Moon has been studied extensively by old non-NASA astronomers and more than 50% of the surface of the tidally locked Moon has been studied. From Earth, telescopes, no Disney Space Scheisse. It certainly appears a sphere, a ball, a globe. Why would the Earth be an exception?

2. A fine argument, but not good enough if it's your only argument.

3 - If a solar eclipse is not "the spherical Moon is blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on Earth" and a lunar eclipse is not "the spherical Earth blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on the Moon", then what are those well-studied phenomena??

3. The right questions to ask.

4 - all other curved (spherical-based) phenomena like rainbows, hurricanes, auroras, etc.

4. Bringing up the fact that "round things happen" is a pretty beautiful way of studying nature. But I'm not sure it's a strong argument against or for anything. Many shapes happen in nature.

5 - Again, long before the NASA scumbags came into existence, the Earth has been studied and mapped as well.


Map by Hendrik Hondius (1630)

If these maps were produced then, the shapes of Africa and South America are true, not made up by our post WWII "geostationary satellite" preachers.

That's really weak arguing. If they were brought up then, they must be true now. Hmm. Shouldn't we study things with the best available direct data?

So, we suppose plate tectonics is a valid model explaining these obvious shape similarities?

Tectonics was even a largely panned and controversial theory when I went to school. I am not sure we should just embrace it because it justifies certain modern models.

Sorry, but I just don't see a lot of evidence you really think your arguments through. Again, I am not picking on you in particular. It is just the kind of argumentation we don't need.

[Selene]

On the archeological intended use/sarcasm, I really didn't see that, no, sorry for any confusion then.

On this

It doesn't mean all photographers are fake. It doesn't mean stars are fake. There is a crucial difference. That difference seems to be where your confusion lies. We are more permissive of doubt because this forum is about exercising the right to doubt speech made in the interest of free speech.

Glad we agree then; that's exactly what I'm saying the whole time (not even restricted here, also Nepal and with Nazca). Do not take the impossible leap from "some faked examples" to the absolutist view on "everything is fake without ever seeing the samples/evidence".

And I am all in favour of free speech, I am anarchist, a libertarian, what do you think? But then logically also the free speech to correct speech that makes a fool out of one, one who I consider a serious investigator (you, ICfreely and Ataraxia as the examples I mentioned). There's no bad motive involved in any of my comments, trust me. Can you try to trust me as a normal person, using the internet to express his thoughts?

<yes, of course this is a fake image, it may even serve some reading researchers to spot and point out the fakery and have one more clue in our hands>

The Earth is not spherical because NASA says so

You are the only one making this point. You set up a straw man to tear it down.

So what can you possibly mean by adding, "but" to your next statement? Plus, you throw a clearly fake NASA image in our faces ... why? What is your point? NASA fakes the globe images. We know this.

It is still a type of reasoning used. It comes from NASA, so...

but also:

But also?

How to prove the Earth is spherical?

1 - Book a couple of flights around the world and check it out or if you have a lot of time do it by boat

1. Bad argument. No clear explanation.

*sigh*, for the sake of completeness then:

- book a couple of flights
- stay awake during these flights, looking out of the window
- observe day and night
- use the velocity and angular velocity to calculate distances
- see if you can fly EW all around
- see if you can fly across the poles
- map out everything you see
- build a model consistent with all your observations
- let's discuss that model and how you came from your observations to that specific spherical/flat/cylindrical/butterfly-shaped/whatever model for the Earth

That doesn't seem a proper workflow to you?

2 - The Moon, Sun, stars and planets all appear round (2D representation of spherical) to us and the Moon has been studied extensively by old non-NASA astronomers and more than 50% of the surface of the tidally locked Moon has been studied. From Earth, telescopes, no Disney Space Scheisse. It certainly appears a sphere, a ball, a globe. Why would the Earth be an exception?

2. A fine argument, but not good enough if it's your only argument.

Are we exercising a course in sofistry or trying to find out the truth about our blue-green planet (or whatever it is supposed to be in another model)?

3 - If a solar eclipse is not "the spherical Moon is blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on Earth" and a lunar eclipse is not "the spherical Earth blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on the Moon", then what are those well-studied phenomena??

3. The right questions to ask.

Thanks! Positive words.

4 - all other curved (spherical-based) phenomena like rainbows, hurricanes, auroras, etc.

4. Bringing up the fact that "round things happen" is a pretty beautiful way of studying nature. But I'm not sure it's a strong argument against or for anything. Many shapes happen in nature.

It draws the attention. Consciously and unconsciously we describe, analyse and investigate everything around us on the premise the Earth is a (flattened/near-) sphere. All those phenomena we now explain using that spherical model have to be satisfactorily explained in another model as well, do we agree?

5 - Again, long before the NASA scumbags came into existence, the Earth has been studied and mapped as well.

<map of Earth published in 1630>

Map by Hendrik Hondius (1630)

If these maps were produced then, the shapes of Africa and South America are true, not made up by our post WWII "geostationary satellite" preachers.

That's really weak arguing. If they were brought up then, they must be true now. Hmm. Shouldn't we study things with the best available direct data?

Now you're creating a straw man and tear it down.

My reasoning IS NOT: "It was true then, so it must be true now", please...

My reasoning IS: "If the shapes of the continents were studied, mapped and used for 450+ years and we have uncorrupted evidence of it, why did NOBODY in the last 450 years who was sailing those vast oceans between the continents complain "these maps are fraudulent"?"

Dear ex-contributor Heiwa (I still miss his witty well-argumented posts) was sailing the oceans for years. Do you think he's part of some cover-up to hide the real shapes of the continents or can we at least agree on relying on some hard data in life??

So, we suppose plate tectonics is a valid model explaining these obvious shape similarities?

Tectonics was even a largely panned and controversial theory when I went to school. I am not sure we should just embrace it because it justifies certain modern models.

I am wondering about scientific arguments against plate tectonics or tectonics, do you have some to share? I don't know them?

It's not "embrace". Why you use wording like that? Which other mechanism you propose to explain the observations? Faults, fractures, folds, foreland basins, orogens, uplift, erosion, up to the tiniest mineral growth observed indicating historical fault slip, which model do you propose to explain all that, if tectonics is not the mechanism??

Sorry, but I just don't see a lot of evidence you really think your arguments through. Again, I am not picking on you in particular. It is just the kind of argumentation we don't need.

That's the whole problem. The beauty of the Earth compared to astronomical subjects is that you are able to study it yourself! You are free to visit fossil sites, ask questions to paleontologists (not the Horner-Sereno clowns) and all. It's all open and available, for the most part; fossil sites in North Korea may be a challenge.

And as evidence there are thousands and thousands of publications. To say "there's no evidence" shows a lack of interest in the topic. But if you reject every publication, because you already have your own position carved in 90 million years old limestone, then nothing will ever convince you...

And the one who keeps evading my questions is not me.

• Which animals lived during these times??
• Where are their fossils?
• Dinos no, what then?
• Birds didn't evolve from reptiles, so where do they come from?
• Who faked aaaallll those fossil sites, fossils, everything. Up to a level serious scientists are fooled by it!
• Nobody speaks up, out, every individual paleontologist, amateur or professional, is part of the scam? With the "huge" financial gains involved, yeah....?
• What's the motive, the gain, the benefit worth the risk and the huge investments?

Paleontology is not a FOX fakery factory. Even if clownesque creeps with that field of experience (Sereno, Horner, the Jurassic Park/World propaganda) appear on that channel. Or any other that doesn't allitterate that well...

Selene

[Selene]

Instead of just casually linking off site in the middle of your post, try to use your own words to explain your reasoning for believing even one example of "Lists of dinosaur-bearing stratigraphic units".

Why do I "believe" certain geological formations that hold more fossils than others exist? Because I've seen them with my own eyes in dozens of countries on multiple continents? I've posted some microscopic photos in the topic.

Formations I've seen with my own eyes above ground and reflected in seismic data below? Realising how much modeling and connection with the field is needed to properly describe the Earth's behaviour and structure?

I have been fossil hunting for 25+ years, studying the Earth for some 20 so you wouldn't mind asking for a bit more evidence to convince me "dinosaurs are a hoax" than a few faked examples?

Or, to go back to the dentist analogy; being a dentist with quite some experience do you mind asking me for a bit more evidence that wisdom teeth are a hoax?

That would be a good place to start proving dinosaurs existed. Just one site out of under one hundred stong cases listed on Wickedpedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... dy_fossils

Or even among the 300 or so weaker cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... aur_genera

And please don't make us snicker about "dinosaur tracks".

Animals leave tracks and tracks can be fossilised. Animal tracks are a hoax?? Sorry, but what?

We have more so-called "terrorist" events and "galaxies" than we do the above. If you are not confident enough to do so, how can you say with so much certainty you simply believe them all?

Glad you make the comparison and I will try to explain why both are flawed examples:

1 - "terrorist" events are staged by people we cannot control, areas have been shielded off either actively or passively by fearmongering (who goes to Syria now to check out if those ISIS clowns really exist).
- "terrorist" events are singular events, planned, orchestrated, controlled
- the tools are completely in the pockets of the perpetrators; the media as preaching "truth"
- the only control we can apply to it, is by exposing the lies like here with photo & video analysis

2 - galaxies are mostly part of "what's up there and inaccessible to the normal human being". We know galaxies do exist from discoveries way back in the beginning of the telescopes with the Great Magellan Cloud as most famous example. Does that mean every galaxy "discovered" exists? No. Does it mean the whole astronomical science is bogus? Absolutely not. The astronomers watching the skies from Earth are not (necessarily!) part of the NAScam. So are not the many (amateur) paleontologists part of an even more giant hoax.

How can you claim "not believing any of these sites" without ever visiting one of them? What's the point in that? Hence the comparison to NYC; it's a silly position to hold.

You are US American if I recall well, what about we go on a trip to one of those sites? Field trips are a great way to talk man to man, to clear any cloud that now seems to block our mutual understanding.

You may pick any place, I'll accommodate. And as I said, my personal experience with dinosaur fossils is extremely limited, so hunting for a bone or two would be very welcome.

What about the Antlers Formation? Cretaceous fish, amphibians, reptiles (dinosaurs and turtles) and even mammals? Arkansas-Oklahoma-Texas?

Selene

[hoi.polloi]

You don't seem to be learning.

If English is not your first language or for some other reason that is too difficult for you, then stop trying to act like you understand when you do not.

You at least acknowledge that you have not understood me, but even when you say that, you don't show any more understanding when you supposedly "correct" your understanding.

You have accused me of saying things I haven't quite a lot now.

You still haven't given an example of a dinosaur fossil you can verify. I am and have been asking for one thing and one thing only: your evidence for thinking a dinosaur exists. Not a human tooth.

A so-called "dinosaur".

Evidence.

It's time to bring out the old adage: put up or shut up.

Your next post in the dinosaur thread had better be that instead of more rambling. Further posts like the above may just be ignored or moved here.

[hoi.polloi]

On the archeological intended use/sarcasm, I really didn't see that, no, sorry for any confusion then.

You did not understand me. It wasn't sarcasm. It was a play on words. There is a difference. If you wanted me to just correct it, I could have done that in the first place, and I could have just apologized for making a miscalculation in writing. Or even a plain error! Anyway, I really do apologize for it, especially since it seems to have caused this massive struggle in communication between us that we are facing now. Can we be optimistic and assume some good can still come from this? I hope so.

It doesn't mean all photographers are fake. It doesn't mean stars are fake. There is a crucial difference. That difference seems to be where your confusion lies. We are more permissive of doubt because this forum is about exercising the right to doubt speech made in the interest of free speech.

Glad we agree then; that's exactly what I'm saying the whole time (not even restricted here, also Nepal and with Nazca). Do not take the impossible leap from "some faked examples" to the absolutist view on "everything is fake without ever seeing the samples/evidence".

Right. But I have not taken that view. Instead, you have continually clawed and struck at that view and accused me of taking it. When I say I haven't, you insist I have.

And I am all in favour of free speech, I am anarchist, a libertarian, what do you think? But then logically also the free speech to correct speech that makes a fool out of one, one who I consider a serious investigator (you, ICfreely and Ataraxia as the examples I mentioned). There's no bad motive involved in any of my comments, trust me. Can you try to trust me as a normal person, using the internet to express his thoughts?

We'll see. So far, I just think you have a serious misunderstanding of not just me but the English language.

<yes, of course this is a fake image, it may even serve some reading researchers to spot and point out the fakery and have one more clue in our hands>

The Earth is not spherical because NASA says so

You are the only one making this point. You set up a straw man to tear it down.

So what can you possibly mean by adding, "but" to your next statement? Plus, you throw a clearly fake NASA image in our faces ... why? What is your point? NASA fakes the globe images. We know this.

It is still a type of reasoning used. It comes from NASA, so...

Used by whom?

How to prove the Earth is spherical?

1 - Book a couple of flights around the world and check it out or if you have a lot of time do it by boat

1. Bad argument. No clear explanation.

*sigh*, for the sake of completeness then:

- book a couple of flights
- stay awake during these flights, looking out of the window
- observe day and night
- use the velocity and angular velocity to calculate distances
- see if you can fly EW all around
- see if you can fly across the poles
- map out everything you see
- build a model consistent with all your observations
- let's discuss that model and how you came from your observations to that specific spherical/flat/cylindrical/butterfly-shaped/whatever model for the Earth

That doesn't seem a proper workflow to you?

Yes, that is much better. However, some of these questions are very difficult for the average person to answer. We especially welcome evidence that can be researched more easily. How many people have actually flown across both poles, for example?

We know the Earth loops and that the light is consistent with a looping cosmos "above". This has already been discussed. If perhaps you read the "Cold of Space and Our Universe that isn't" thread all the way through, you would see this point was already made, and that it still an explanation for many theories (besides the most common one(s) espoused) according to those theories. Have I said I am completely swayed by them?

I think I have even mentioned how the Earth being mapped to a ball shape is a very useful model. (Even claiming many things NASA claims can be useful.) However, many have discovered it is not the end of the conversation about Earth's shape, as much as you would seem to like it to be. Let us admit when we don't know, when we speculate and when we are leaping to conclusions. I think for all your education and smarts (and intelligent writing style) you could still stand to learn a little bit about this.

2 - The Moon, Sun, stars and planets all appear round (2D representation of spherical) to us and the Moon has been studied extensively by old non-NASA astronomers and more than 50% of the surface of the tidally locked Moon has been studied. From Earth, telescopes, no Disney Space Scheisse. It certainly appears a sphere, a ball, a globe. Why would the Earth be an exception?

2. A fine argument, but not good enough if it's your only argument.

Are we exercising a course in sofistry or trying to find out the truth about our blue-green planet (or whatever it is supposed to be in another model)?

Perhaps we are exercising sophistry if we're not going to read the threads that have already been posted on these topics and pretend they don't exist or we don't have the time to read them, and we're not going to respect ways of approaching the sciences more delicately.

3 - If a solar eclipse is not "the spherical Moon is blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on Earth" and a lunar eclipse is not "the spherical Earth blocking the light from the spherical Sun falling on the Moon", then what are those well-studied phenomena??

3. The right questions to ask.

Thanks! Positive words.

If you must judge everything I say as "positive" and "negative" I worry we aren't going anywhere.

4 - all other curved (spherical-based) phenomena like rainbows, hurricanes, auroras, etc.

4. Bringing up the fact that "round things happen" is a pretty beautiful way of studying nature. But I'm not sure it's a strong argument against or for anything. Many shapes happen in nature.

It draws the attention. Consciously and unconsciously we describe, [analyze] and investigate everything around us on the premise the Earth is a (flattened/near-) sphere. All those phenomena we now explain using that spherical model have to be satisfactorily explained in another model as well, do we agree?

Not really. Typically, in our society, models contradict one another until one emerges "victorious". I find this a very vainglorious way of exercising science. Admitting we don't know is a more useful statement and perhaps more powerful position. So is, in my estimation, the amazing exercise of holding two or more contradictory ideas in your head at once rather than bullheadedly insisting you know the way.

5 - Again, long before the NASA scumbags came into existence, the Earth has been studied and mapped as well.

<map of Earth published in 1630>

Map by Hendrik Hondius (1630)

If these maps were produced then, the shapes of Africa and South America are true, not made up by our post WWII "geostationary satellite" preachers.

That's really weak arguing. If they were brought up then, they must be true now. Hmm. Shouldn't we study things with the best available direct data?

Now you're creating a straw man and tear it down.

My reasoning IS NOT: "It was true then, so it must be true now", please...

My reasoning IS: "If the shapes of the continents were studied, mapped and used for 450+ years and we have uncorrupted evidence of it, why did NOBODY in the last 450 years who was sailing those vast oceans between the continents complain "these maps are fraudulent"?"

You basically rephrased what you said you are not saying. I am saying there have been plenty of mistakes in the past and it's a poor argument to use "establishment" as the best evidence. Of course this does not diminish your point. Of course, we should look at all documents. That is the point, I believe, of CluesForum (as insanely ambitious as that may be) helping people learn how to do that on their own. However, it's obnoxious that you seem to expect constant reinforcement of the ones you choose.

Dear ex-contributor Heiwa (I still miss his witty well-argumented posts) was sailing the oceans for years. Do you think he's part of some cover-up to hide the real shapes of the continents or can we at least agree on relying on some hard data in life??

The best hard data is what one can contribute and have others understand well, also. Saying "I am an expert" doesn't work. Saying "he's an expert" is even worse. Do you qualify a lot of soft data as "hard" just because it appears in print?

Please bear in mind I am not saying science is a bad method. The problem is how much it is abused, and how little people actually contribute while whining that something isn't believed as much as someone else believes it.

We are looking for actual hard data, not soft data called hard.

And anyway, where is yours in the Dinohoax thread? I am still waiting.

So, we suppose plate tectonics is a valid model explaining these obvious shape similarities?

Tectonics was even a largely panned and controversial theory when I went to school. I am not sure we should just embrace it because it justifies certain modern models.

I am wondering about scientific arguments against plate tectonics or tectonics, do you have some to share? I don't know them?

It's not "embrace". Why you use wording like that? Which other mechanism you propose to explain the observations? Faults, fractures, folds, foreland basins, orogens, uplift, erosion, up to the tiniest mineral growth observed indicating historical fault slip, which model do you propose to explain all that, if tectonics is not the mechanism??

Sorry, but it was a long time ago. I suggest you open your mind and look into it while I look into your tectonics glossary and why you believe so strongly in it. What I recall from high school was the idea that the theory was developed in the early part of last century, despite its controversial ideas, and that it was emphasized over and over, with every lesson, "nobody really knows how the world actually works because it's too hard to measure". This was not a Christian or conservative school but a public school. Since that time, I've seen a few different globe theories, many of which concern themselves with the mystery of how continents formed, changed and moved. These are fascinating things, but I believe they should be respected as mysteries being addressed by various scientific approaches with various biases until it is explained to me in a different way that there can only be finally one explanation. Feel free to educate us on the history of how plate tectonics theory developed and we can see if it sounds like sound science or not.

I personally admit I don't know and I need to hear more about each theory. But I am concerned that you can't admit when you don't know, and even worse, you can't explain in your own terms why you believe something. Nor do you show much desire to. That makes me a bit suspicious of how you arrive at your conclusions. I am fine with "tectonics" (which I have assumed you said to mean "plate tectonics" but correct me if you meant the more general study) and leaving it undiscussed and we can just assume you know what you say you know about it. But when you use that as an argument for something else like so-called, so-far unproven "dinosaurs", then your expertise comes into question and when you can't allow that for whatever reason, it makes your expertise look meaningless.

Sorry, but I just don't see a lot of evidence you really think your arguments through. Again, I am not picking on you in particular. It is just the kind of argumentation we don't need.

That's the whole problem. The beauty of the Earth compared to astronomical subjects is that you are able to study it yourself! You are free to visit fossil sites, ask questions to paleontologists (not the Horner-Sereno clowns) and all. It's all open and available, for the most part; fossil sites in North Korea may be a challenge.

I agree here. It's worth looking into.

And as evidence there are thousands and thousands of publications. To say "there's no evidence" shows a lack of interest in the topic. But if you reject every publication, because you already have your own position carved in 90 million years old limestone, then nothing will ever convince you...

You haven't actually posted any publication, and I really don't know why you are focused on it. Is it because now you just want to win some argument you perceive is happening?

My greater concern on this forum is to examine claims. If you have no claims to present, you can just be content with your knowledge never being questioned, and that might be just fine for you. But then, why post here?

And the one who keeps evading my questions is not me.

• Which animals lived during these times??
• Where are their fossils?
• Dinos no, what then?
• Birds didn't evolve from reptiles, so where do they come from?
• Who faked aaaallll those fossil sites, fossils, everything. Up to a level serious scientists are fooled by it!
• Nobody speaks up, out, every individual paleontologist, amateur or professional, is part of the scam? With the "huge" financial gains involved, yeah....?
• What's the motive, the gain, the benefit worth the risk and the huge investments?

Paleontology is not a FOX fakery factory. Even if clownesque creeps with that field of experience (Sereno, Horner, the Jurassic Park/World propaganda) appear on that channel. Or any other that doesn't allitterate that well...

Some of your questions are more than rhetorical and may have been addressed, and before I even attempt them, I'd like to see evidence you can understand me and we speak the same language. So far, it has been quite a struggle.

You do seem to frame a lot of questions with a lot of assumptions. By saying, "Who lived during the age of _______?" you actually imply that this age took place with all the assumptions that it means to you alone rather than what those years mean to different belief systems or possibilities. I could challenge you by asking unanswerable questions as well using my exclusive terms, but I don't. That's not why I post. I want to create greater open transparent communication.

This isn't exactly a place to be "educated" as much as it is a place to be "de-educated" so we can learn how to learn again. Your methods remind me strongly of "education" and I suspect you received a strong one. However, that might not match the use of this forum. Does that make sense?

And please, please, for the love of whatever you hold dear, stop reading into my posts finding things I haven't said. And just try reading them. That would be much appreciated. Thanks!

[pmb]

Professor Pete, ..

That's known as a "wiseguy" comment.

specialised expert in a field of relative relativity, ..

That's known as a falsehood since I never claimed to be an expert. In fact I object to being referred to as one. The only reason I mentioned it was because you kept expecting me to have expertise in fields outside my specialty. Since you have to know what my specialty is so you can't have expectations outside of it I said what my field is. Period. Now please stop with this "expert" nonsense. No decent physicist calls themselves an expert. They're all too modest to do so.

"Rude comments"? Can you point out where I've been rude?

Who said I as talking about you?? I was referring to those other jerks.

I simply asked for some basic physical explanations in your own words.

Giving explanations outside my field would require me to go back and refresh my memory in those fields. I've studied thermal conductivity when I studied thermodynamics in college. But that was decades ago and I haven't used it since. It would take months to reread an entire text on thermodynamics to the point where I can talk intelligently about it rather than quoting a text intelligently. Understand? And that's only in those fields that a physicist studies as an undergraduate and in graduate school.

You were the one presenting yourself as an educator, ...

Wrong! Yet another falsehood. I'm not a teacher. I came here to find out why you people think that the derivation of the rocket equation is flawed and how you account for the fact that there are satellites and spacecraft in orbit and flying around the solar system. And I know that because I know and respect people in the fields that use those spacecraft and satellites. They're MIT physicists who are of stellar character.

..as someone who is used to explain relatively advanced and hard subjects in an easy-to-grasp way. Using sketches, equations and simple language to bring across a point you think you have.

That's certainly true. And not "think" that I have. I know it.

On top of the pretty ridiculous ..

Well, now you're getting rude. And now you're basing your beliefs on claims of the idiots who posted here. I make no attempt to help the kind of rude, arrogant, ignorant idiots that I've seen here.

[hoi.polloi]

Sorry about Selene's comments, pmb.

I suggest that instead of taking everything personally, you simply demonstrate your knowledge. I don't think anyone means to insult you. They just mean to test your mettle and see if you are genuinely going to answer important questions and not derail the important topics.

By appealing to authority and/or your own "trust", you realize it does not actually help your case.

The thread is ready for you now. I've responded to your question. If you'd go back and read what I've written, I think you'll find I've made a very open invitation under clear terms, for you to respond.

Please begin by answering the contradiction about the laser both going to the moon and not possibly going to the moon, since that seems to be a very confusing misconception you've created.

Also, please answer what it is you did for NASA. That would be a good start for people to trust that your judgment of your esteemed colleagues makes any sense. It would also help us understand your perspective and show that your interest in ours is in good faith. Thank you.

Here is your own personal thread for these topics: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1812

Here is the specific response about your rocket questions: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2396096

Would you begin answering questions now, please?

[hoi.polloi]

I am really not trying to derail the discussion, but if you're going to be as stupid as spelling stupidity "stupity", how are you expecting to be taken seriously? Furthermore, that site is not adequate citation since their stated goal is to "debunk" proof of (i.e.; defend) NASA's fakery. Not that you need a site for such speculation, but why (amongst all sites) choose that one in particular to do so?

[Selene]

Hoi,

I agree with your comments about clavius.org, it is just as bad/propaganda as TheBadAstronomer by Philly Plait. But come on, 1 typo in "stupidity" does not discredit Senecas posts, he always writes in a clear and neat manner and supports the need for decent spelling on CF.
Couldn't it just be a typo due to crappy mobile typing, it happens to me all the time with these smartphones...?

Selene

[ADMIN: Seneca obviously corrected the error after I pointed it out, so there's no problem. Please don't give me beef for moderating the forum. -HP]