ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Today, 06:10 AM   #721
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,748
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
Your Google-fu is terribly weak for someone bent on destroying the very fabric of physics as we know it, grasshopper.
It is, but there is the added dimension that not everything that is evidence is on YouTube. The latest generation of claimants seems aghast that evidence can exist outside their ability to link to it -- especially facts desired in a certain form. When the producers of Apollo 11 set about their task, they had to deal with the fact that much of the record had not been digitized, and indeed would be hard to digitize given its actual format. There literally existed only a few shops in the world who could do it. That doesn't mean the footage doesn't exist and isn't evidence. (I'm talking about Saturn V ascent footage.) But it means the chances of it being on YouTube are nil. And before YouTube, we watched analog copies of it that were available in several repositories, such as that at Rice University.

That's why I asked the extent of his research. "I did a quick YouTube search and couldn't find unedited film," is not sufficient to say no such film exists. He wants to be published, but he is unwilling to undertake the exhaustive effort required to give authority to the statements he wants published.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:16 AM   #722
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,889
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
...which you'll then say is CGI without further discussion. Therefore I'm going to test your ability to discern CGI from the real thing. You said footage of rockets operating in space could be CGI. Provide an example of such footage and show us how you were able to tell it's CGI.

And you say you can't find evidence on your own to satisfy your desire. I've asked you several times to what extent you have searched. You sitting there lazily, holding court while others do all the work, is not going to fly in this debate.
I will say again, the cost of the number of "google earth planes" that would be needed to support the GPS or satellite radio system far exceeds anything imaginable. And it is also untenable from an engineering standpoint.

I'd like to hear an actual description of what it would take to do GPS all over using Google earth planes and cables, like has been proposed.

You can't just say that crap and pretend it's good. It's completely untenable.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:22 AM   #723
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,748
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I'd like to hear an actual description of what it would take to do GPS all over using Google earth planes and cables, like has been proposed.
As would I, but he will not oblige us. Previously his excuse for things like GPS was that surely there existed some secret technology that could mimic the effects. It's one of the standard fringe arguments: if his critics can't imagine how it could be done then they're just too naive for words.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:33 AM   #724
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,889
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
As would I, but he will not oblige us. Previously his excuse for things like GPS was that surely there existed some secret technology that could mimic the effects. It's one of the standard fringe arguments: if his critics can't imagine how it could be done then they're just too naive for words.
Probably true, and that's why I wish he'd indulge me.

I mean, I have been taught by people, apparently, who have been paid off to maintain the status quo. Here we have someone who knows better, and has the opportunity to correct all my misguided learning. From what I know, doing GPS by means other than using satellites is technically impossible and/or unfeasible. So here's his opportunity to correct my ways. Show me that what I have been taught is wrong.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:35 AM   #725
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,561
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Show one then. Iím asking you for it
And I don't care what you want. You claim they're all CGI, so pick one.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:46 AM   #726
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,561
Ah go on then, just for the amusement factor alone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLLP6bzNJwo

https://youtu.be/XlGis35Epvs?t=226

[/trigger]
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:50 AM   #727
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
Ah go on then, just for the amusement factor alone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLLP6bzNJwo

https://youtu.be/XlGis35Epvs?t=226

[/trigger]
Wow ... CGI was pretty good back in the early 1970s!
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:58 AM   #728
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,748
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
You claim they're all CGI...
...and then he bristles when the same lame standards of evidence are applied to his own videos.

Just to be clear, I don't actually believe the videos he's posted are faked in the ways I suggest. We can explain what's happening in them from the perspective of ordinary physics. My exercise is to validate or refute his standard of evidence, in this case by turnabout. The criteria by which he purports to reject video of rockets ought to be applicable to his own videos. And when we apply them, we find that his own evidence can't meet his own standard. If his position is to be accepted as consistent and valid, then either his evidence must be rejected or his criteria must be relaxed.

There's a difference between "There is no evidence of X" and "I have seen no evidence of X." The former is an affirmative statement, and depends for its proof upon evidence of an exhaustive search. Lacking that, we reject the statement. Laziness is not proof. The opponent who desires to satisfy the less affirmative version must beware the proponent's foisted and/or nebulous standard of proof. It's rather trollish to set one's critics upon lengthy tasks to produce evidence without first agreeing upon the specifics of the standard to judge it by.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:59 AM   #729
Gingervytes
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
If a balloon popped next to a plate in space, would it exert any force on the plate?
Depends on how you popped it. A balloon is elastic and also has tension built up.
Gingervytes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:59 AM   #730
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,158
Why wonít you answer my questions, Gingervytes?

(To Jay and others - yeah, but Iím looking for a direct response from Gingervytes.)
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:01 AM   #731
Gingervytes
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
Wow ... CGI was pretty good back in the early 1970s!
Lol maybe not cgi but Definitely looks fake.
Gingervytes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:02 AM   #732
Gingervytes
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Gingervytes, I repeat - again:

Iíve personally built (as part of a team), integrated, tested, observed the launch of, and operated spacecraft, including postflight testing. Your claim is observed to be wrong.

Any response? Or are you going to continue ignoring refutations like this one?

Ya know, if it was me, and I was getting my head handed to me by people who actually do spaceflight for a living, as well as an assortment of educated laymen, I would stop and ask myself if maybe I was wrong, and investigate the criticisms of my claims, because itís more important to me to get it right than to cling to my beliefs on an anonymous Internet forum. How about you? Would you like to learn something?
Did you personally see the rocket go into space. Did you just merely work while thinking rockets work in space?
Gingervytes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:08 AM   #733
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,067
Gingervytes, you have a lot of unanswered questions on the table. Just a couple of the greatest hits:

How does satellite tv work? Do you propose they use Google...what, helicopters? My dish used to point at a fixed position and if it was off by a fraction of an inch, it would lose reception. Nothing was visible in the sky there. Why don't we see the Google helicopters and see them being refueled and stuff?

At what point are scientists bought off? this is important because the son of a buddy of mine is considering studying aerospace engineering, and he'll need to be ready for negotiations.

Speaking of which, any whistleblowers speak up yet? Of the hundreds of thousands of aerospace scientists and technicians, any of them spill the beans for a juicy book deal?

Posters sts60 and JayUtah are exactly the sinister puppetmasters you claim are deceiving mankind: anything to say to them, now that you have the rare opportunity of a public audience and interaction with them?
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:13 AM   #734
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,748
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
Your Google-fu is terribly weak...
Indeed. Just as an exercise, it took me only a few seconds to locate continuous footage of the Saturn V from liftoff through S-IC staging, which occurs where the air pressure is calculated at about 0.008 atmosphere (altitude ~67 km). If Gingervytes accepts a partial vacuum produced by a household vacuum cleaner as effective, then he must agree that the vacuum in which the Saturn V is observed to be flying, from the ground up, is dispositive of his claim.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:17 AM   #735
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,748
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Lol maybe not cgi but Definitely looks fake.
Describe the process you used to determine it "definitely looks fake." You continue to apply dismissive ad hoc criteria after the fact. This is why you are not in a position to continue demanding evidence and insisting it has all been dealt with.

You have insinuated you can tell that rocket footage purporting to be real is actually CGI. This claim is based either on having determined this for actual clips, which we demand you produce, or is either purely speculative, in which case we reject it. Please elaborate.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:18 AM   #736
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,748
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Did you personally see the rocket go into space.
Yes.

Quote:
Did you just merely work while thinking rockets work in space?
No.

The means by which our experiences were validated has been presented several times. Stop asking for it and deal with the answer. You have blatantly accused myself and others of taking bribes in return for lying about the real physics of rockets operating in a vacuum. Either support that accusation with actual evidence or withdraw it.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:20 AM   #737
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,158
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Did you personally see the rocket go into space. Did you just merely work while thinking rockets work in space?
Your question makes no sense. Why would you expect direct eyeball observation from the ground to be the standard of evidence as to whether rockets work in space? You have other problems, but first you need to address your faulty premise.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:23 AM   #738
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,748
Originally Posted by Gingervytes View Post
Depends on how you popped it. A balloon is elastic and also has tension built up.
Yes, that's what it means to be a balloon. The material reacts elastically to the contained pressure, until the material's elasticity and the static pressure reach equilibrium. "Popping" means the membrane is suddenly and catastrophically breached, such that the gas pressure inside is released very abruptly and allowed to expand. Stop evading the question with pedantic requests for clarification.

If an ordinary balloon in space is popped next to a free-body solid place -- "next to" meaning as close to it as you can get without actually touching -- will the expanding gas that was once pressurized inside the balloon act on the plate? How will the plate respond.

Quit stalling.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:31 AM   #739
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,889
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The means by which our experiences were validated has been presented several times. Stop asking for it and deal with the answer. You have blatantly accused myself and others of taking bribes in return for lying about the real physics of rockets operating in a vacuum. Either support that accusation with actual evidence or withdraw it.
Here's the best part about this whole line:
Either you are part of the conspiracy, or someone is paying you a lot of money and going through a ton of effort to make you think you are actually designing spacecrafts to go in space, and then going through the whole act of making it look to you like your product has gone into space.

Jeez, why would anyone hire you to go through all that? Wouldn't it be a lot easier and a lot cheaper to just not do it?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:34 AM   #740
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,889
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Describe the process you used to determine it "definitely looks fake."
This is why this is a fool's errand. He claims he will accept an unedited video. This is a great unedited video, looking out the window of the spacecraft as it launches from the moon.

Response? "Looks fake."

Personally, I say it doesn't look fake at all. I'd think a fake video would be a lot neater looking, without all the parts where all you can see is the gray surface of the moon (although I love that huge crater that pops up at about 6:40. Beautiful!)
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:38 AM   #741
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,115
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I mean, I have been taught by people, apparently, who have been paid off to maintain the status quo.
Evidently paid off by an agency with a poorly-managed payroll department. Still waiting for my check. Just sayin'

Quote:
From what I know, doing GPS by means other than using satellites is technically impossible and/or unfeasible. So here's his opportunity to correct my ways. Show me that what I have been taught is wrong.
From the government-shill orthodox view, yes, it's unfeasable. My BOTE (need at least 4 GPS xmitters in view at least 15 deg above the horizon, xmitters at ~15km/50K feet altitude), I'm getting 10,000 evenly-spaced xmitters above North America* alone. So, 10,000 aircraft on-station above North America all the time. Just imagine the number of people involved in such a project, especially in the pre-UAV days when GPS first went online.

Buried cables with lots (about a million) of static GPS transmitters wouldn't work; it wouldn't give you the vertical dimension if you're in a flat area, and I've used GPS out in the Ohio farmlands.

And the 10,000 aircraft thing would give you a navigation solution (only for NA), but it would be easy to show that they weren't satellites.

*On the chance that Gin is a flat-earther, I don't know what value he/she would accept for the surface area of the Earth. But I'm speculating that we'd be in relatively close agreement on the surface area of North America.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:21 AM   #742
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,393
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
How does satellite tv work? Do you propose they use Google...what, helicopters? My dish used to point at a fixed position and if it was off by a fraction of an inch, it would lose reception. Nothing was visible in the sky there. Why don't we see the Google helicopters and see them being refueled and stuff?
Reminds me of a zany argument made by Apollo hoaxists over at the old UK 9/11 CT forum. They claimed the craft were unmanned and never left orbit, but it was pointed out that people all over the world were receiving voice broadcasts from the region of the Moon (when the craft were out there, on or near it).

They countered by proposing satellites in the line-of-sight of each observer, spoofing the broadcasts, but then somebody calculated the vast number of satellites required and pointed out the fact that being in orbit would constantly take them out of line-of-sight.

And so on ... there was nothing they would not concoct in order to defend their pre-conceived belief. Science be damned.

A powerful desire to believe can do terrible things to a mind.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; Today at 08:39 AM.
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:31 AM   #743
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 23,730
How did satellite TV work before Google existed? People have been using satellite dishes for a very long time, you know.

When I went out at night in 1957 and saw Sputnik in the sky, what CGI was in effect? We saw something nobody had ever seen before, which corresponded to mathematical and physical predictions as to location and time. Millions of people, every one in a different place on the earth, looked up at the night sky and saw this new thing. What do you think we saw, and how do you contend that the effect was made so perfectly that people in all parts of the world saw what they were supposed to when they were supposed to?

I know this is a fool's errand and all, but it really does interest me a little to wonder what a conspiracy theorist thinks is the point of the conspiracy. We are describing what must be the most complicated and expensive hoax ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. Why?

According to Gingervytes, it would appear that every bit of space flight has been faked in a nearly perfect, seamless and coordinated way by forces unknown for more than a half a century. Huge resources must have been called out to make this happen. Thousands of people, including the rocket scientists and physicists in this very thread, must have been part of a gigantic cabal intended to mislead the people of the world. Instead of the relatively cheap, efficient technology of satellites for communication and GPS, they have invented an enormous, expensive, secret system for which there is no technical literature and no physical evidence. That must require the willing participation of thousands, even millions, of people. In other areas of life and society, even small attempts at real conspiracy are blown by dissenters and seekers of profit or fame. And yet here we are, all these years and decades gone by, and nobody has come up with anything but the vaguest junk. No internal memos, stolen correspondence, confessions, warehouses full of props, etc. etc.

To prove the conspiracy would be a goal so grand and enormous that it would guarantee world fame forever. A person who captured or stole a Google plane would capture a fortune and more. A person who convincingly countered the claims of physicists would have a Nobel Prize. So where are they all?

So what is the point? Who benefits and how? How is the world better or worse, or different at all because of this? How do the shadowy leaders of this vast conspiracy guarantee the loyalty of their minions? What, for example, do STS60 and Jay Utah get out of this?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:50 AM   #744
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,748
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
(To Jay and others - yeah, but Iím looking for a direct response from Gingervytes.)
Understood and agreed. I just wasn't sure you'd noticed his having doubled down. Please continue attempting to hold his feet to the fire.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.