Search results

I'd say I'm convinced it was a hairdryer that did it, but I'm not convinced your mum did it with a hairdryer. As above, the 'proof' is that it looks exactly like a hairdryer burn and that it's not unusual for people (especially women) to be slightly burned by hairdryers and later find these...

Fair point. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd started a 'claim' thread when first asking Henkka for evidence of fact checkers not being objective.

That's true. But wasn't the thrust of the two deleted posts about Snopes' objectivity (or lack of) rather than 9/11? Henkka: Here's an example, as requested, of an occasion I feel Snopes weren't objective. Rory: Here's why I feel that's not an example of Snopes not being objective.

To go somewhere better. :)

Ay! Just under two weeks ago I left a place where I was living literally a two minute walk from a Pacific beach with uninterrupted views to the west. Probably be back there at some point though to give it a try. Thanks for digging out the info.

I've seen Snopes be wrong and then later correct the error. I think that's okay (ie, normal, human, understandable). I think if we're to judge them it should be on the latest iteration of an article (as you say, they're often equivalent to an individual's blog post and an early, pre-peer...

Is the revamp objective?

You may have done - Ann wrote it here two months ago: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/when-conspiracists-psychoanalyze.12536/post-281089 And you were the next person to comment (though not in response to what she wrote) in a thread you were quite active in.

Can you cite two or three occasions when a fact checking site failed to be objective?

Since we're well away from the OP (if we were ever on it) I assume I'm safe with this slight divergence: the CTist I know in real life has stopped saying "do your own research" and now invariably comes back with "who fact checks the fact checkers?" There's a wonderful and impenetrable...

Listen, 9/11 happened. Naughty Arabs flew planes into buildings and the buildings fell down. It's done and it's time to forget about it and move on: I don't think there's a single thing anyone can type in this thread about whether or not this Saudi bloke knew or helped that can add value to...

My first questions these days to conspiracy theorists (if I'm thinking straight) are generally "what's the conventional explanation?" and "what's wrong with it?" I have yet to receive a sensible answer. Which tells me there's not much point going on with the conversation. Also: "if you do...

I'm confused why you're still writing sentences like "the horizon is further than it should be". The horizon isn't further than it should be. Have you tried playing with Mick's refraction simulator? You might be a able to simulate the oil rig photo by moving some numbers around.

Though, again, that isn't what's happening here. The numbers are fine - if you use all of them.

Well gee, that's a real slice of humble pie and foot in mouth for Reali and SCU. Also a nice vindication for Mick (and metabunk by extension) after Reali's clumsy diss in the NASA emails. It would be so nice if all parties involved could actually see and understand this whole conversation.

Ah, it's good to know where you're coming from. I don't personally think there is an argument that could work, so my answer to that question would be "it doesn't matter if they do that [refuse to accept refraction as part of the equation]". If they can't respond sensibly to "you're missing...

I don't know. Does it matter that they don't do that? It would be interesting to read that, if you can post the whole section. I see a difference. "The geometry is wrong" is what a globe denier would say, and they would be mistaken. "You're ignoring refraction" is what someone would say to a...

And so to summarise... The globe deniers have a photo they think is a 'killer' for the globe It isn't, because they ignore refraction Case closed Is there anything more to add?

About a year before Ranty changed his mind (maybe longer) he and I had some discussion over a similar photo to the Blackpool one (one of mountains in Oregon and Washington). He was very, very adamant that my assertion that it demonstrated a globe and disproved a flat earth was incorrect, and...

That seems to be Oakley's style. And if the evidence can't be defeated then it leads to questions like "have you personally measured/seen it" or "but how do you know what stars are anyway?" I think he's just playing games for the income stream.