How Gullible are we?

[JacksBratt]

Ok, you guys that love to argue with us "tinfoil hatters" about our conspiracy theories, and you have probably guessed that I respect Rob Skiba. Now, I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time and Rob is no different.

I do believe, however, that this video is exactly what I think when it comes to the whole NASA and Space trash that we have been taught and are being taught.

Give it a watch. It's fairly short but, I think, it is bang on.... You decide.

 

[Anthony2019]

I didn't think the word gullible existed. I'm told it had been removed from the dictionary.

 

[JacksBratt]

I didn't think the word gullible existed. I'm told it had been removed from the dictionary.

It will be soon.

 

[SPF]

Rob Skiba. Now, I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time and Rob is no different.

Can you point out one thing you specifically think Rob Skiba is wrong about?

 

[JacksBratt]

Can you point out one thing you specifically think Rob Skiba is wrong about?

I disagree with Rob on several views of certain topics... One is the timing of the rapture.
AND... I didn't say he was wrong... I said I disagree. There is a difference there.


On thing that I like about Rob... among other things... He almost always starts his talks by stating "Don't believe me, check this out for yourself"

By the way.. anyone that argues against any point on any subject.... without doing some digging themselves.... doesn't deserve an ear.

 

[Lost4words]

Watched the video.

Obvious that guy in the video is one short of a dozen and has a massive chip on his shoulder when it comes to NASA.

 

[SPF]

I disagree with Rob on several views of certain topics... One is the timing of the rapture.
AND... I didn't say he was wrong... I said I disagree. There is a difference there.


On thing that I like about Rob... among other things... He almost always starts his talks by stating "Don't believe me, check this out for yourself"

By the way.. anyone that argues against any point on any subject.... without doing some digging themselves.... doesn't deserve an ear.

Can you name one thing you disagree with Rob about concerning the topic of FE? You keep attempting to position yourself as a skeptic, but you come across as the number one defender.

 

[Kate30]

Ok, you guys that love to argue with us "tinfoil hatters" about our conspiracy theories, and you have probably guessed that I respect Rob Skiba. Now, I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time and Rob is no different.

I do believe, however, that this video is exactly what I think when it comes to the whole NASA and Space trash that we have been taught and are being taught.

Give it a watch. It's fairly short but, I think, it is bang on.... You decide.

Interesting video Jack thanks for the watch. Only around 15 minutes. Still it does make many good points especially with the temperatures variations in space from minus250 to 250plus along with supposedly being able to take photo’s of planets that are light yrs away. That’s trillions of kilometres. I really can’t see how they can do. And if we could than we wouldn’t have a problem of observing the Apollo landing sites on the moon with that type of resolution. Thank you again.

 

[JacksBratt]

Can you name one thing you disagree with Rob about concerning the topic of FE? You keep attempting to position yourself as a skeptic, but you come across as the number one defender.

I'm far from the #1 defender... I just keep posting the other side of the story to those who are just waking up to this debate.

Just because you totally hang on to the globe... and I am on the fence... does not make me the #1 defender... If someone comes on here and says "why don't people fall off the edge".. I know enough about the FE model to explain why.

As to what I disagree with Rob, on the FE, there are a couple. One is the proof of 24 hour day at the south pole or not. The other is flight patterns. These two things are still on my list of questions.

 

[lasthero]

Interesting video Jack thanks for the watch. Only around 15 minutes. Still it does make many good points especially with the temperatures variations in space from minus250 to 250plus along with being supposedly being able to take photo’s of planets that are light yrs away.

What’s weird about that? Light is really fast and it’s had a long time to travel. What would stop it?

And if we could than we wouldn’t have a problem of observing the Apollo landing sites on the moon with that type of resolution. Thank you again.

The Apollo landing site is really small. Planets are really big.

Even so, there are pictures of the Apollo landing site that make it quite clear what it is and that it’s not something that would naturally be there.

 

[Kate30]

What’s weird about that? Light is really fast and it’s had a long time to travel. What would stop it?



The Apollo landing site is really small. Planets are really big.

Even so, there are pictures of the Apollo landing site that make it quite clear what it is and that it’s not something that would naturally be there.

Lasthero Yes planets are quite big but are we not able to locate suburbs and individual homes from satellites . Surely when NASA is is able to produce pristine photo’s of planets light yrs away than these satellites should be able to scan every nook and cranny of the moons surface including where the Apollo missions landed. Which has no comparison of being trillions of kilometres away. Well there’s nothing weird about the speed of light. It’s simply just how far some claim to be able to observe and see what’s actually out there. After all its merely only a artists impression of all those dots and fuzz balls of what is being claimed to be seen light years away.

 

[A_Thinker]

So, if science gives us tools that we can use to investigate and realize that we can see things that, by math, also a science, that are so far away that they should be beyond the curve, yet are in full sight.... what are we to do with that scientific data?

We are not to dismiss some science because it doesn't align with other science that we tend to hold as gospel.

Such has not been definitively demonstrated ... and I, personally, have uncovered numerous observational errors in any number of these observations ... as you might recall ...

 

[lasthero]

Lasthero Yes planets are quite big but are we not able to locate suburbs and individual homes from satellites .

Most satellites are actually quite low in orbit. About 300 miles.

The Moon is 240,000 miles away. Give or take.

So. Yeah.

Surely when NASA is is able to produce pristine photo’s of planets light yrs away than these satellites should be able to scan every nook and cranny of the moons surface including where the Apollo missions landed.

I’ve never seen any pristine photo of a planet from a telescope, they’re usually fairly grainy. The best pictures I’ve seen are from probes, and even they don’t get close enough to show clear shots of the surface.

Which has no comparison of being trillions of kilometres away. Well there’s nothing weird about the speed of light. It’s simply just how far some claim to be able to observe and see what’s actually out there. After all its merely only a artists impression of all those dots and fuzz balls of what is being claimed to be seen light years away.

You can tell a lot from light.

 

[Kate30]

Most satellites are actually quite low in orbit. About 300 miles.

The Moon is 240,000 miles away. Give or take.

So. Yeah.





I’ve never seen any pristine photo of a planet from a telescope, they’re usually fairly grainy. The best pictures I’ve seen are from probes, and even they don’t get close enough to show clear shots of the surface.



You can tell a lot from light.

That’s right most satellites or whatever they be are mostly in low earth orbit for a reason mostly for telecommunications and intelligence purposes. As to the telescope or even cameras we do get excellent pictures and viewing of the moon. As to the far distant places like planets other galaxies and solar systems it pure conjecture and that’s why artists, computer stimulation and photoshop are often employed without the public being any the wiser. You say we can tell a lot with light . Well obviously not enough especially when it comes to the vast alleged distances in space that they claim to be viewing. As to the long distance probes some of those probes just seem to continue on forever. No maintenance ever required. Never mind the vast temperature shifts that often warp materials when going from one extreme to the other over time. let’s not also forget the battery life and I guess it would be nice if all our batteries lasted that long. Actually to even be able to communicate from such vast distances seems to me to be a never ending love story that some would like us to believe. As to the 240,000 miles. Lasthero do remind the astronauts of that next time they are claiming to be three quarters of the way to the moon whilst still in earths orbit.

 

[Kate30]

What exactly was your background in astronomy and as a professional photo/video editor again?

Screener I think it’s a background called common sense which everyone has the right to use. Why do you ask.

 

[Skreeper]

Screener I think it’s a background called common sense which everyone has the right to use. Why do you ask.

Common sense has it's limit as demonstrated by your uninformed opinion about complex topics such as astronomy and photo/video editing.

 

[A_Thinker]

Screener I think it’s a background called common sense which everyone has the right to use. Why do you ask.

I think that most would agree that Science is much more an example of "uncommon sense", ... given that you actually have to put some work and effort in to gain it.

There is a level of observational truth one can gain by just using one's unaided sight ... and there's truth that one gains by seeking to "see farther" ...

 

[Kate30]

Common sense has it's limit as demonstrated by your uninformed opinion about complex topics such as astronomy and photo/video editing.

The world of Science has its limits also. If the photo’s are merely a artists impression than that’s all they are. I don’t speak for every photo in the same manner but there are certianly examples where they are.

 

[Kate30]

I think that most would agree that Science is much more an example of "uncommon sense", ... given that you actually have to put some work and effort in to gain it.

There is a level of observational truth one can gain by just using one's unaided sight ... and there's truth that one gains by seeking to "see farther" ...

Thinker I’m sure much hard work goes into science as with any profession. The world of science is contantly changing so there are always many different viewpoints and also many theories on what people believe. Now if some of those photo’s are computer generated or merely a artists impression of how parts of the universe may look than that’s all they really are. They could be right with their assumptions of how things look and they could be completely wrong. But it is still a assumption all the same.

 

[lasthero]

That’s right most satellites or whatever they be are mostly in low earth orbit for a reason mostly for telecommunications and intelligence purposes. As to the telescope or even cameras we do get excellent pictures and viewing of the moon.

I'm not aware of any telescope picture that's good enough to get a good shot of the surface of the Moon, close enough to show the rover and flag in detail. Again, though, there are pictures that are good enough to show that those objects are there, or at least that there's something on the Moon that clearly was put there by humans.

As to the far distant places like planets other galaxies and solar systems it pure conjecture and that’s why artists, computer stimulation and photoshop are often employed without the public being any the wiser.

You're implying that these photos were made with the intention to fool the public. They weren't.

Also, again, we can use probes to get better, more detailed looks at planets.

You say we can tell a lot with light . Well obviously not enough especially when it comes to the vast alleged distances in space that they claim to be viewing.

We can tell what the stars are made of from the light, among other things.

As to the long distance probes some of those probes just seem to continue on forever. No maintenance ever required. Never mind the vast temperature shifts that often warp materials when going from one extreme to the other over time. let’s not also forget the battery life and I guess it would be nice if all our batteries lasted that long. Actually to even be able to communicate from such vast distances seems to me to be a never ending love story that some would like us to believe.

Okay, what - aside from your own personal incredulity - makes you think any of this is impossible? It seems like your discounting all of this because you, personally, don't think any of its possible, but on what experience do you base that?

As to the 240,000 miles. Lasthero do remind the astronauts of that next time they are claiming to be three quarters of the way to the moon whilst still in earths orbit.

You can be that far from the Moon and in Earth's orbit, that's not a contradiction. As evidenced, by, well...THE MOON. Which is, you know, in Earth's orbit. You gotta think about this stuff a bit before you post, man.