Remix.run Logo
sandworm101 5 hours ago

Come on flat-earthers. I know you are out there. Lets hear your crazy rant about how this is a fisheye lens on a weather balloon or a webcam atop the eiffel tower. Why can't we see the poles? And is that an ice wall on poking up in the lower-right quadrant of the disk?

YZF 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason"

https://www.amazon.ca/How-Talk-Science-Denier-Conversations/...

brendoelfrendo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Ridicule them until they leave? Don't really feel like wasting my time on any more than that.

majkinetor 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly what Professor Dave does.

layer8 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don’t you see the reflection of the studio lighting in the middle?

geldedus 5 hours ago | parent [-]

of course they are sore losers

christophilus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My guess is the answer is: We didn’t really launch Artemis. This is all CG.

NitpickLawyer 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> This is all CG.

Reminds me of the classic - It is true that Spielberg filmed the moon landings, but he was such a perfectionist that he wanted to shoot on location.

dylan604 4 hours ago | parent [-]

ahem, Kubrik

saint_yossarian 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Kubrick, even.

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
jgrahamc 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is no point engaging in any way with people who believe in such "theories". They are like trolls, the only way to deal with them is not at all. Don't engage, don't disagree, just nothing, total silence. One can choose to be a wilful edit and waste your life and time on complete bullshit, but the rest of us should just ignore those people completely.

sandworm101 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Ya, but eventually they all wind up wearing furs and carrying spears as they storm the gates of some government building. Its all good fun until people start to die. We laugh as soveriegn citizens are yanked from thier cars. Harder to watch are the vids of them pulling guns on police.

Conspiracy theorists need to be kept in check. Disengagment is easy but it doesnt help.

2 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
simonw 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This was a fantastic YouTube video on flat earther beliefs from a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44

Spoiler - they mostly switched to QAnon instead.

gaurangt 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh, wait, in addition to their usual conspiracy theories, now they can also claim that this is AI-generated!

itsalwaysthem 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Flat Earth is a distraction or a way to ridicule any counter-narrative to anything scientific.

When a cosmologist says that a planet nobody can see exists and is made of x% helium and is y light years away etc etc with absolute certainty despite nobody being able to go there and witness any of it (look how wrong they were about Pluto’s appearance), then you can always just say “what are you a Flat Earther” and easily discredit any doubt I have in these extraordinary claims with underwhelming evidence.

Any idea you want the public to oppose, you can create and market an adjacent thing, like Trump. You can throw all the ideas you want to oppose in the Trump bucket and if anyone supports it it’s probably because they’re a Trump supporter right?

See you’re very very easily programmed, like clockwork.

kube-system 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> a planet nobody can see exists and is made of x% helium and is y light years away etc etc

Yeah, because this is high-school curriculum.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/resources/lesson-plan/using-lig...

> with absolute certainty

It is taught that the scientific method provides evidence, not certainty, in middle school science curriculum.

adrian_b 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do not know what you mean about "how wrong they were about Pluto’s appearance".

Since when I was very young and until now the amount of information about Pluto has continuously increased, so now we know much more about it.

For example now we know that Pluto is practically a double planet, having a relatively very large satellite. This was not known when I was a child, e.g. at the time of the first NASA Moon missions.

However, I do not remember anything wrong. Many things that have been learned recently were previously unknown, not wrong.

If you refer to the fact that Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet, that is also a case of information previously unknown, not wrong.

This planetary reclassification was not the first.

When Ceres was discovered in 1801, it was considered the 7th planet, after the 5 planets known in antiquity and Uranus that was discovered a few years earlier. (The chemical elements uranium and cerium, which were discovered soon after the planets, were named so after the new planets, as their discovery impressed a lot the people of those times.)

However, soon after Ceres a great number of other bodies were discovered in the same region and it was understood that Ceres is not a single planet, but a member of the asteroid belt.

Exactly the same thing happened with Pluto, but because of its distance, more years have passed until a great number of bodies have been discovered beyond Neptune and it became understood that Pluto is just one of them, i.e. a member of the Kuiper belt, so it was reclassified, exactly like Ceres.

maxbond 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> ...discredit any doubt I have in these extraordinary claims with underwhelming evidence.

Something unfortunate about our media environment is that science news is a dumbed down summary of a dumbed down summary of a dumbed down summary. These issues you're flagging, a lack of evidence and overstated certainty - they're an artifact of the reporting process. If you work your way back to the original sources, there will be a heck of a lot of evidence and it will carry error bars (so the certainty is precisely & appropriately stated). There's bad or even fraudulent papers out there but there's a huge amount of good science being done by honest researchers who are just as concerned as you are about the quality of the evidence and the degree of certainty.

Eg, there really is a compelling explanation of how we can know the composition of a gas giant light-years away, and it isn't invented out of thin air, it's been 100+ year process of understanding spectroscopy and cosmology, building better telescopes, etc. It's the culmination of generations of scientists pushing the field forward millimeter by millimeter.

chrisnight 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your argument is against large generalizations and straw man arguments, and to prove it, you.. use a generalization and straw man argument?

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
wat10000 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you believe in Antarctica?

sph 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

the_humblest 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't pay attention to "authorities," think for yourself.

- Feynman

slopinthebag 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The only real difference between the "spaceflight" in the 1960's and today is that these pictures don't need to be hand painted - you can render them in Blender in a single day.

But yeah, sure. With the amount of fake stuff on the internet including AI image generation, we're expected to believe that the US government dumped billions of dollars into going to space when they could give the appearance of doing so for a few bucks in nano banana credits? Hah.

maxbond 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They couldn't do that for "a few bucks of nano banana credits" though. You could generate the imagery but that's only one line of evidence. A launch is easily detectable through multiple signals.

Why would Russia and China and any other country with any degree of astronomic capability that the US has an adversarial relationship with just let them get away with lying to the world? Why wouldn't they take the opportunity to humiliate the US by revealing that no launch happened and that they cannot detect the spacecraft?

slopinthebag 3 hours ago | parent [-]

How would they prove that no launch happened? There isn't conclusive evidence of an absence of launch, and if there were it would be accused as being fake and a ploy from American enemies to discredit them.

maxbond 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> There isn't conclusive evidence of an absence of launch, ...

A launch is detectable seismically, visually, on radar, etc. There's a lot of investment in being able to detect launches (to detect the launch of nuclear weapons). It would be screamingly obvious if the launch was fake. It would absolutely be conclusive if there were no seismic activity, no radar return, they couldn't detect the spacecraft presently, etc. At least for a definition of "conclusive" that can be operationalized - conclusiveness is a judgement call about when evidence is sufficient and not reaching some theoretical 100% certainty. Which can't possibly be reached for any claim for the reason you outlined; you can always invent some negative counterclaim that can't be entirely dismissed, even for claims like "the sky is blue".

It's also pretty easy to find people who were physically there to witness the launch. This wasn't a secret bunker or a barge in the middle of the ocean. It was in Florida in the late afternoon.

> ...it would be accused as being fake and a ploy from American enemies to discredit them.

Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have access to this data. Astronomers, geologists, petroleum engineers, backyard amateurs. The conspirators could muddy the waters but they couldn't ultimately prevail. It is many orders of magnitude easier to go to the moon than to convincingly fake it.

mylies43 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Im curious, so the rocket definitely took off, where did it go?