And now we can simply ignore flat earth retards for good, let them drivel in their madness. So the big question is why is the earth a sphere and other space objects in the universe like the sun or moons?
You know the flat earthers will call all of this CGI like they always do, right?
>>16945142yes, yes... good goy!!!
>>16945165How can we truly prove to them that the earth's round? What can we do about these retards?
>>16945210There are countless millions, if not billions of people that still believe that evolution is a complete lie and Earth is the only source of life in the universe. Luckily progress doesn't depend on these people.
>>16945142Brother, I live IN Florida where I personally saw this rocket being launched. And my buddy who ALSO lives in Florida told me "Bro that video is AI" when I sent him a video I personally shot. These people are straight up brain rotted retards. Flat Earth got completely and finally cooked when their best debaters were given a trip to Antarctica to see the 24 hour sun they swore was not possible.It's insane hearing these people talking about never seeing water stick to a ball when you can observe a wet basketball. But even when water falls off of a ball, it's because of the fucking gravity they claim doesn't exist.
What a blatant shill thread.
>>16945142>>16945165>>16945210>>16945215>>16945235The Earth can still be round while everything else about the Artemis II is 100% fake. There's no actual contradiction here.
watch them "update" this in the coming weeks.
The worst aspect of any NASA CGI is that modern basedboys have made anti-flat earth a core part of their philosophy and mentality.
>>16945266Do you guys have any original thoughts of your own or do you just have Gemini/ChatGPT/whatever do all your thinking for you now?
>>16945307for brevity's sake, I only asked the AI because I know its answer will conveniently change to fit the narrative in the coming weeks.
>>16945142You will never be able to ignore retards, because said retards are the tax paying citizens who fund this sort of stuff.
>>16945266Amazing, it got everything wrong. Imagine if the trillions spent on that shit went to space exploration
>>16945210Flerf youtubers were literally sent to Antarctica to observe the 24hr sun. Said youtubers publicly recanted their belief in flat earth. The broader flerf community? They collectively agreed the videos were faked and the youtubers were either bribed or blackmailed.There is literally no convincing the community as a whole. Pick any batshit retarded thing and there will be a collective of batshit retarded people whose whole identity revolves around believing in it.
>>16945312Well, note that: 1: it mischaracterized the lens flaring behavior.2: it misidentified a lens aritfact as the fucking moon (kek)3. It misidentified Africa as Australia 4. It hallucinated stars where there were none.Your LLM is retarded.
>>16945368The stars are real, it's just repeating reddit nonsense. The photo was taken at night (as evidenced by the city lights) so they don't get drowned out by the Sun
>>16945374Fair. I need to get my eyes checked.
>>16945368>3. It misidentified Africa as AustraliaTbf I did that too. Until I noticed the Strait of Gibraltar.
>>16945235>BrotherStopped reading here
>>16945142>So the earth is truly proven round There is no proof, you're just taking it axiomatic on faith alone that NASA is telling the truth.
>>16945362>Imagine if the trillions spent on that shit went to space explorationFunneling money towards useless bullshit vs funneling money towards useless bullshit
>>16945368>Your LLM is retarded.doesn't matter, it'll just be coincidentally updated with a new set of """"unbiased"""" counterfactuals after the dust has settled. that's the point of me checking.
>>16945397You are inverting the burden of proof here.If you suppose that NASA is lying, that the information they provide is fabricated, it is on *you* to justify that claim. Without evidence of fabrication, the default position regarding an exhibit is that it is as presented.
>>16945215 We literally can't prove evolution; it is mathematically improvable in fact. Why do human and apes having similarities mean we came from them? How do we know we don't just share similar features to fulfill a certain niche? You just repeat what other people tell you. You're an NPC.
>>16945418>We literally can't prove evolutiondon't have to prove evolution its observable dipshit
>>16945419Observe what? Humans? We've only been around for 4000 years. And how does observing prove anything? See you don't have any answers to my questions because they've never crossed your mind.
>>16945414>If you suppose that NASA is lying, that the information they provide is fabricated, it is on *you* to justify that claim.That fake CGI image you posted in the OP, for one.
>>169454211. I didn't post it.2. What makes you think it's CGI?
>>16945418>We literally can't prove evolutionWe see it happen on small scales all the time.>Why do human and apes having similarities mean we came from them?Strawman ignored >How do we know we don't just share similar features to fulfill a certain niche?Analogy vs homology.>you don't have any answers to my questions because they've never crossed your mind.These are bog-standard talking points school children hear. They aren't even the best evolution skeptics have to offer. The only reason you think they're half-decent arguments is because you never actually received any pushback on them.*You* are the NPC.
>>16945431>We see it happen on small scales all the time.And that proves what?>Strawman ignored This is exactly what Darwinism is you fucking idiot. >Analogy vs homology.ElaborateAnd not receiving push-back proves I'm not wrong. When I say the earth is flat or that evolution is fake and gay NPCs like yourself will break down in programming.
>>16945450>And that proves what?That it happens.>This is exactly what Darwinism is you fucking idiot.No it is not. That is your strawman.>>Analogy vs homology.>ElaborateAnalogous structures are what you describe. Similar features independently adapting to fit similar niches. (Eg, moth wings vs bird wings)Homologous structures are the same features in separate species, sometimes adapted to different niches. (Eg. Whales have legs).>not receiving push-back proves I'm not wrong.No. It means you live in a bubble and don't engage with the opposition. Otherwise you wouldn't need me to elaborate on analogy vs homology.
>>16945142In the age of AI nothing is proof.All proof must come from 10+ years ago at least or it is invalid.Flat Earthers are winning in that regard.
>>16945458See >>16945414
I don't get it, what makes that pic special compared to any other space pics?
>>16945454>That it happens.No, it doesn't. Just because it happens over 200 years doesn't mean it happens over millions.>>Why do human and apes having similarities mean we came from them?>No it is not. That is your strawman.pic disproves your accusation. >It means you live in a bubble and don't engage with the oppositionJust stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
>>16945389What a gay reason to not read a post.
>>16945514>Just because it happens over 200 years doesn't mean it happens over millions.I genuinely laughed. You might wanna work on your phrasing there. So is the thing you're disputing the existence of millions of year timescales? Because that's a different discussion entirely.>pic disproves your accusationThe pic does not match your earlier claim."some organisms were able to adapt better to their environments than others"Vs."having similarities mean[s] we came from them"See? Two very different claims. The first is correct. The second is a strawman.
>>16945266AI is the doom of this species... and not for any of the reasons the tards think.
>>16945142>>>/x/ Don't start flat earth threads
>>16945266its so fucking dumb bros
>>16945266Why is Gemini 3.1 Pro so dumb and useless?
>>16945142not the original. there's a reason they never show original undoctored photos. it's because the doctored ("""corrected""" or """adjusted""") either don't look like anything or would fall apart under the slighest scrutiny and they'd have no excuse. NASA has never released a plain unmodified polaroid or iphone image of Earth that shows the blue marble, nor will they ever. and if they claim they did, the photo in question will fall apart immediately when subject to the slightest scrutiny. take it to the bank.
>>16945787Most images from space are daytime images so the stuff like the "lens flare" easily confuse AI's. I mean it confuses most of the bots here too.
>>16945266This dumbass tech is almost singlehandedly propping up the entire western economy right now
>>16945266Uh, Gemini? The moon is that way
>>16945374Wait a minute, that cloud...
>>16945460That's not how burden of proof works.
>>16945882A hell of a LOT of investors sure got tricked by all the hubub a few years ago...
>>16945958Yes. It literally is. If burden of proof aldo meant "prove your evidence is trustworthy" then you get an epistemological cascade that ends in solipsism.
>>16945142>manufactured controversy that only came to be once people started asking inconvenient questions relating to 9/11.makes you think, doesn't it that the whole flat earther trope might be the government cosplaying as le stupid conspiracy theorists.
>>16945977>then you get an epistemological cascade that ends in solipsism.No, it doesn't because solipsism doesn't relate to proof theory.
>>16945984>red apples exist>prove it>here is a red apple*note that non-retards would be satisfied at this step and the conversation would be over >prove that's a real apple>here's the tree I plucked it from>prove you didn't paint the apples>sit down and watch this apple tree grow for a few years>prove my eyes aren't deceiving me>they've been working fine so far>have they?>probably. You've existed in reality so far>prove reality is realBasically, you're retarded.
>>16946013>Basically, you're retarded.Just stfu. I'm not going to waste time arguing with a bot trying to engage people and waste their time. LolWhat a poorly made attempt at demoralization.Go fuck yourself.
>>16945368>Well, note that:5. The "moon" in lower right is what it identified as Venus.AI is pretty bad confronted with anthing new. But nowadays every pic looks cgi because it is cgi. Heavy processed in the camera where the sensor already is adjusted to whatever colour sensing the manufacturer thought looks "good" or "real".After there is heavy processing and compression in the cameras compuing stages and the result is an artifical pic that usually do not look like what you see with bare eyes.The Nikon used pretty sure has no calibration for that high ISO moonlight reflected scene of the night side of earth while on trajectory to our trabant. >tdlr you cannot distinct between cgi and real pic because of the setting.
>>16945977>Yes. It literally is.>the multi-billion dollar corporation says so so they are!!!
>>16946039>makes dumb argument >cries when shown argument is dumbBased.>>16946117If tou have evidence of fabrication, provide it. Otherwise, you are just being retarded.
>>16946118>If tou have evidence of fabrication, provide it. Do you have evidence its real?
>>16946122Yes. The fact that I can see it is evidence that it's real.
>>16946123A digital photograph in an age where its literally never been easier than ever to fabricate false evidence using digital tools and AI.
>>16946135I didn't say it was particularly strong evidence. But it is more evidence than you have provided that it's fake.
>>16945142I just can't really tell what part of Earth I'm looking at, I don't recognise that coastline
>>16946143Africa. The south pole is at about the 1 o'clock position.
>>16946143In the lower left you can see Spain
>>16945368lmao evenThey did the same trick on Apollo 11.
>>16946181What do you think this image is evidence of?
>>16946187faking distance from the Earth. duh.
>>16946190The one on the right is more zoomed in and at a different orientation but otherwise proportional to the one on the left.
>>16946194if you mean filmed through an Aperture to make it look like a sphere, then yes I agree they are faking the distance from the Earth.
>>16946210>filmed through an Aperture to make it look like a sphereDo you have evidence of this claim?
>>16946210>muh Apertureyou're parroting retards who tried to explain how pics of the horizon can look curved, without realizing the explanation is completely unapplicable to pics of the whole fucking sphere (or "disc")
>>16946210>>16946269incidentally, if you admit this an actual thing that was filmed you're already admitting the flat earth is bullshit because they've gone way past the firmament and where the luminaries would be in the flerf model.
>>16945531It was written by a black
>>16946315you can't even read something POSSIBLY written by a black person without throwing a fit? neonazi snowflakes bro
>>16945418this is killing me bro >it is a mathematically improvable it is a matter of mathematics what the fuck are you talking about. this is a matter of genetics and anthropology. >Why do humans and apes having similarities mean we come from them?again, what the fuck are you talking about. humans and apes share a common ancestor which over time evolved into several distinct species. we are related to them, we did not come from them. there were several other "sapien" species which eventually met their demise from natural selection.>How do we know we don't just share similar features to fulfill a certain niche?what does this shit even mean?
>>16945142It looks identical to the images that were already admitted to be digital renders
>>16945142The earth has been proven round for centuries, one more photo from space doesn't move the needle
>>16945210>What can we do about these retards?chlorpromazine
Just more faggot lies from NASA.
