Example please? Not an enhanced image, a manipulated one.
A recommendation for conspiracists/people who understand things the rest of us don't
- Thread starter Deadeye
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
A prime example of people arguing for the sake of arguing.
There is a flat earth theory and a spinning ball theory.
Both theories with no definitive proof of either.
Had you lived in an earlier period you could have been burned at the stake for suggesting a spinning ball nowadays you're scoffed at for promoting a flat earth, who knows what another 100 yrs will bring.
The thing I always wondered about is, what keeps the earth spinning for millions of years at a precise rate.
Anyone point me to a youtube video.
The rate of Earth's spin is not fixed. Nor can it be described as "precise" - Precise in what terms did you mean?
In simple terms, the spin rate is slowing down over the long term.
There are multiple physical "explanations" for spin, including "conservation of (angular) momentum".
'Spinning ball' is actually a rather demeaning and derogatory description of the stuff we know about the motion of the Earth, other planets and other moons/objects within the Solar system...
Another 100 years categorically won't bring anything retrograde (intended orbital dynamics pun) in our understanding of the motions and interdependencies of motion of planetary bodies. We certainly won't be revisiting a flat earth principle for as long as we have observable reality guiding our civilisation - because simply without knowledge of orbital dynamics we would have, for instance, no GPS
(GPS = A constellation of satellites on a circa 55deg orbital inclination with an orbital period of circa 11hr58mins - why not 12 hrs? Because we have to take into account the rotation of the Earth around the sun - which means in practical terms 12 hrs is one full and complete satellite orbit of the Earth in terms of "clock time" which reflects the sunrise/sunset and not a 360deg rotation... it's all relative to the frame of reference that is required. We also need to adjust the signals transmitted from GPS satellites using Einstein's relativity effects, due to the high speeds involved of GPS satellites.)
So as long as observable reality is king, any mention of flat earth is just crank.
I will, however, ruminate on whether observable reality will always be our guiding principle and note that despite (or maybe because of) recent technological advances, such as internet, social media, AI and bot farms, it would appear that observable reality is not the guiding factor of a huge and growing glut of partisan bad actors and their followers and believers. Witness the recent conversations on a huge number of things in the political sphere, things such as Brexit (dominated by known lies), Trump (MAGA tribalism with not a care about the truth, just as long as it is a lie that the people can "get behind"), Johnson (known liar who lost more than one job as a direct result of telling lies...) and the most recent "implied wrongdoing" of Kier Starmer which has no basis in observable reality.
I can't fathom it, personally, but there is an argument to say that the days of observable reality leading human civilisation may actually come to an end in the style of 1984.
No. I'm looking for evidence that NASA has ever faked any of it's photo's. I know they enhance, crop, composite etc, that isn't fakery though. Show me the money, I want to see all this CGI guff
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
Rubbish.
Are you conflating "CGI" and "electronic image"?
Early photographic surveillance satellites ("spy" satellites) used wet film. Films were specially produced, for instance there was KODAK 70mm film. The wet film canisters were ejected by satellites and fell to earth in a prescribed/calculated trajectory so that they could be picked up, developed and used for photographic imagery intelligence.
You are correct in saying that, for example, the "Pale Blue Dot" image was sent electronically, but that doesn't mean it was CGI (this image predates the capability of electronic computers to generate CGI by decades).
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
There is still a strong following to the "faked moon landings" conspiracy theory and there are indeed (or at least have been) supposedly official NASA photos that had some, shall we say "inconsistencies" which still fuel the discussion. For example there were several exhibits of wet film photography where the black cross-hairs, or graticules, which ought to have been "on top" of the captured images, were somewhat "obscured" seemingly by objects in the image, making it appear that the photos had been doctored in some way...
This type of stuff is fuel on the fire as far as conspiracy theorists are concerned.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Conspiracy theorists are insecure, their central theme is “you are all sheep following mainstream media”
It gives them a feeling only they know “the real truth”….it gives them a feeling of superiority.
This is true for anti vaxxers, climate change deniers, even Brexit.
It gives them a feeling only they know “the real truth”….it gives them a feeling of superiority.
This is true for anti vaxxers, climate change deniers, even Brexit.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I bet you are an anti vaxxer, don’t believe in man made climate change, voted for Brexit, voted for Boris Johnson, think Trump is a good bloke and support Israel
RobinBHM
Established Member
The secret to a successful conspiracy theorist is to build the conspiracy around a tiny element that is actually true
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
As with every deliberately concocted lie. Include a small element of truth and even a blatant obvious lie becomes somehow "believable" or at least "subscribable".
The article you posted as a ‘case in point’ talks about the ‘popular’ online conspiracy of government being able to control the weather.
This is not a conspiracy. You yourself confirmed it. The example given by MTG is true, as you stated.
Secondly and to my other point, to take this story as fact when you have no real data to show who is posting these theories, seems a bit keen given your article doesn’t give any worthwhile evidence. Clearly a low standard in genuine reporting.
The legacy media as shown by Piers Morgan, now gets most of its news from social media, whilst trying to report on it as a 3rd party objective source. A perverse position indeed.
There are cranks, there have always been cranks but taking ridiculous social media stories and trying to turn them into serious news, makes all involved look a bit ‘cranky’.
And who is the bigger crank? The ‘conspiracy theorists’ who claims the government made Hurricane x, or those claiming the government can’t control the weather?
If you wrestle with pigs, you end up in ….
Last edited:
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
It's not so long since it was denied that anything was sprayed in the sky and to suggest such made you a conspiracy theorist.
The latest one is for the ‘conspiracy theory hunters’ (a curious bunch and often as nutty as their adversaries), to claim that making rain fall, is not controlling the weather.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Cloud seeding does not control "the weather" as such, except for very limited local effects. Other than that the overall weather conditions remain unchanged; wind speed, direction, humidity, temperature etc.
You can read all about it if you are really interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
Last edited:
Inspector
Nyuck, Nyuck, Nyuck!
When I was a little kid there were shows and newscasts showing cloud seeding to get rain to fall in a drought stricken small area.
So whats up with people that believe in Chem-trails being a plot against us all? Couch cough.
Pete
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Not that you are remotely biased, of course.
Trainee neophyte
Established Member
1. The term "Conspiracy Theory" was created by the CIA to discredit anyone who didn't buy into the official JFK assassination (or was it? https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-conspiracy-theory-jfk-941578119864). Whatever it's origin, the term is used in a smugly disparaging way to confirm the boundaries of right-thinking and "wrongthink" or more accurately "crimethink". It's all very orwellian. Accuse someone of being a "Conspiracy Theoriest" and you have immediately destroyed their argument, without actually addressing any of their arguments.
2. The desire to conform is strong in many people, and especially strong in British culture. Us and Them is a very important way of understanding who you are and where you might fit in to society, and having swivel-eyed loons and gammons trying to tell you that black is white and up is down is, frankly, unsettling. Especially when you know, for a proven fact, that they are deranged imbeciles, which rather presupposes that the facts your certain knowledge is based on are valid and truthful facts. This brings me on to the next point:
3. Narrative control. (See point 1 above, also). There are numerous groups who want to keep you believing in certain things, and not believing in certain other things. You can tell it's a narrative by the endless, redundant repetition. I am sure we can all come up with examples, but just a couple for ironic effect: "illegal and unprovoked invasion", and "the right to defend itself". I'm sure you know who these two are applied to, but just for fun try swapping the names of the countries, and see what happens...
Governments spend a lot of time and effort getting you to belive a narrative, rather than facts. Entertainingly, there are so many different groups vying for control of the narrative that they now make up the bulk of the comments on many fora (I prefer "forums", but we need to pretend to speak Latin to show our off edumication - status again). The half dozen "real" posters get swamped by all the crazy. Flat-earthers tend to turn up wherever there is anything controversial to sidetrack the conversation. Global warming is another favourite. Vitriolic antisemitism is often used by the worldwide Jewish Internet mind control network (Hasbara, anyone?) to rapidly stop any sensible debate. It will be interesting to see who's cages I rattle here.
A resent trend in journalism is to stop reporting facts, and create "stories" tha make you feel. It doesn't really matter what emotion the stoŕy conjures up, as long as you do lots of emotion rather than logic. The BBC website has devolved into an irrelevance of touchy-feely reporting that is heavy on things to make you emotional, but little if anything factual to let you know what is actually going on. Apparently you are more likely to click on a link if you are angry, so the majority of news reports are designed to make you angry, for clicks. Try not reading any news for a week, and see if your mental state improves.
That's quite enough for one post - I stopped posting here a couple of years ago, mainly because I couldn't cope with the enforced group think, jingoism and racism that is built into british society and extremely visible here. Apologies if that includes you, but take comfort in the knowledge that it's not your fault - you are a product of your society. I used to be, but 25 years of living abroad has given me a certain distance with which to view things. I don't know if I will reply again, (I am mentally much better off for not being involved in sharpening squabbles), but have at it. Debate is the search for knowledge, is it not?
2. The desire to conform is strong in many people, and especially strong in British culture. Us and Them is a very important way of understanding who you are and where you might fit in to society, and having swivel-eyed loons and gammons trying to tell you that black is white and up is down is, frankly, unsettling. Especially when you know, for a proven fact, that they are deranged imbeciles, which rather presupposes that the facts your certain knowledge is based on are valid and truthful facts. This brings me on to the next point:
3. Narrative control. (See point 1 above, also). There are numerous groups who want to keep you believing in certain things, and not believing in certain other things. You can tell it's a narrative by the endless, redundant repetition. I am sure we can all come up with examples, but just a couple for ironic effect: "illegal and unprovoked invasion", and "the right to defend itself". I'm sure you know who these two are applied to, but just for fun try swapping the names of the countries, and see what happens...
Governments spend a lot of time and effort getting you to belive a narrative, rather than facts. Entertainingly, there are so many different groups vying for control of the narrative that they now make up the bulk of the comments on many fora (I prefer "forums", but we need to pretend to speak Latin to show our off edumication - status again). The half dozen "real" posters get swamped by all the crazy. Flat-earthers tend to turn up wherever there is anything controversial to sidetrack the conversation. Global warming is another favourite. Vitriolic antisemitism is often used by the worldwide Jewish Internet mind control network (Hasbara, anyone?) to rapidly stop any sensible debate. It will be interesting to see who's cages I rattle here.
A resent trend in journalism is to stop reporting facts, and create "stories" tha make you feel. It doesn't really matter what emotion the stoŕy conjures up, as long as you do lots of emotion rather than logic. The BBC website has devolved into an irrelevance of touchy-feely reporting that is heavy on things to make you emotional, but little if anything factual to let you know what is actually going on. Apparently you are more likely to click on a link if you are angry, so the majority of news reports are designed to make you angry, for clicks. Try not reading any news for a week, and see if your mental state improves.
That's quite enough for one post - I stopped posting here a couple of years ago, mainly because I couldn't cope with the enforced group think, jingoism and racism that is built into british society and extremely visible here. Apologies if that includes you, but take comfort in the knowledge that it's not your fault - you are a product of your society. I used to be, but 25 years of living abroad has given me a certain distance with which to view things. I don't know if I will reply again, (I am mentally much better off for not being involved in sharpening squabbles), but have at it. Debate is the search for knowledge, is it not?
- Status
