Flat-Earthers present?


The video showing the astronauts contradict one another about whether or not they can see stars, at least proves they haven’t been in space. Because if they were in space they’d have their story straight. These aren’t even contextually subjective statements. This is “you can not see stars in cis-lunar space” vs “you can see stars all the time even on the day side of the Earth”. It doesn’t say anything about Flat Earth really but it can be used to support the ‘dome’ idea.


Nope. That is not really logically sound.


You’ll come around to it. You’ve got some astronauts saying there are no stars in space, you have others saying it’s filled beyond imagination. It’s the embodiment of “black and white” as far as reports go.

That would be like, you’re interviewing a group of people who witnessed a crime, and half of them said the perpetrator was white, and other half said he was black. And some seemed to have trouble even remember if they saw a person or not…


Does that mean there was no crime?



(Minimum post lengths suck.)


@ZarkMuckerberg admits that his argument is invalid by admitting that there may still have been a crime and therefore there may still be space and stars and a globe even if people argue on the details, therefore.


What are you even talking about? lol. I don’t even understand your analogy man.

You seem to be missing something: some astronauts say there are stars to be seen in cislunar space, some say there are absolutely none. Does that argument hold up in court?


i do not understand your question as that is the same as what you said about the crime analogy… so, you don’t understand your own analogy haha?


Hey @joey how do you explain astronauts who have been in the same areas of space with the opportunities to see the exact same things, contradicting one another in a way that makes them obvious liars?

Keep in mind the following: going to space is the event of a lifetime. There would be no confusion or hazy memory about what you saw in marvelous space. It would be permanently etched into your mind.


I could ask you the same question in regards to religion.


I’m not religious. If you could actually address my questions, that would be… beyond marvelous.


The question is not about you. I could ask you the same question concerning religion. That has nothing to do with you or it doesn’t have to. You seem not to understand what I’m saying. This is going over your head haha.


The earth is easily proven round from a body of work called celestial navigation and not through hear say by NASA staff.


You’ve lost the plot. You can’t answer the question without sounding like a lunatic (why would astronauts contradict one another etc), so you’re resorting to this shit of a dialogue.


Nah, open borders vs. Legal Immigration…
Then flat earth!


No. Celestial navigation works on the stars which never move and makes even more sense on a flat Earth. Cause apparently we’re flying through space on three different vectors at speeds beyond imagining but the stars never move. Sounds legit.


Maybe a false dilemma.


Different people say different things. @ZarkMuckerberg gave an example about that. I agree with his example concerning a crime. You can say there was no crime. I can say there was a crime. But there was a crime if there was a crime. The disagreement does not automatically mean there was no crime. That’s not proof.

If I say I saw stars and you said you didn’t see stars, then does that prove whatever you want to prove from that automatically?


GUYS. We’re talking exactly opposite remarks which stand on their own outside context. If you’re resorting to philosophical arguments about logical fallacies maybe you just don’t want to accept the reality.

Astronaut 1: “There are so many stars… it’s like 10 times what you’d see in the Arizona desert.”
Astronaut 2: “You can’t see any stars. It’s the deepest black you can imagine. It’s not even ‘black’, it’s utter lightlessness.”
Apollo astronauts: “We don’t remember if we saw stars from the lunar surface.”

You: “Sounds legit.”


@ZarkMuckerberg, what are you trying to say?