Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I mean we see gravity work on the moon and Mars.

No, we don't see anything. A third party gives us information and we are expected to believe it.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

So I am not sure on what basis you say it is not reproducible unless you are simply acknowledging it is hard to make a second earth and see if it works

Reproducibility is regularly invoked by science proponents. Ask gamb00ler about it:

On 4/11/2026 at 3:28 PM, gamb00ler said:

Thou shalt prioritize reproducibility: Experiments must be documented and repeatable; if your theory does not agree with experiment, it is wrong.

Edited May 5May 5 by rattlesnake

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Reproducibility is regularly invoked by science proponents. Ask gamb00ler about it:

LOL..

You keep misunderstanding, forgetting or deliberately ignoring that reproducibility in science refers to only THE EXPIREMENTS not the entire context of the natural phenomenon under analysis.

wind up

On 5/5/2026 at 1:04 AM, gamb00ler said:

Perhaps the saddest thing is your belief that a religious order from centuries ago has bent science to their will ever since.

On 5/5/2026 at 1:25 AM, rattlesnake said:

No that's a fact, gambs, though I appreciate it is an inconvenient one.

I guess the Russians didn't get the memo from your favorite religious nutjobs about maintaining the flat Earth myth. For years they were busy giving tours to the edge of space in a MiG29 where you can see the curvature first hand.

https://migflug.com/flights-prices/mig-29-edge-of-space/

Unfortunately, Putin now needs all those planes for staving off his demise. Is he still coming through with your payments?

P.S. best leave that employment off your CV.

Edited May 6May 6 by gamb00ler

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

For years they were busy giving tours to the edge of space in a MiG29 where you can see the curvature first hand.

The interesting thing about fisheye lenses is that they are not reliable over an extended period of time, and mishaps almost never fail to occur, the most prevalent one being temporary inversions from convex to concave rendering.

5:00 mark:

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I guess the Russians didn't get the memo from your favorite religious nutjobs about maintaining the flat Earth myth. For years they were busy giving tours to the edge of space in a MiG29 where you can see the curvature first hand.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The interesting thing about fisheye lenses is that they are not reliable

LOL... maybe you should stick to reading comic books so the pictures can help with your comprehension.... I'm sure the MiG29 doesn't use a fish eye lens instead of a canopy for the occupants to observe what's outside.

Edited May 6May 6 by gamb00ler

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

For years they were busy giving tours to the edge of space

'Edge of space' is just a fancy word for 'high up in the sky'. In the case of this company, they go up to max 22 km, or 72,000 feet.

Here is footage in a balloon at 121,000 feet (without a fisheye lens):

Edited May 6May 6 by rattlesnake

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Here is footage in a ballon at 121,000 feet (without a fisheye lens):

and of course you have the complete provenance of that YouTube video to confirm your assumptions?

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

and of course you have the complete provenance of that YouTube video to confirm your assumptions?

Nothing I say will ever change your mind, gamb00ler, I know better than to challenge Those Who Know. This is merely for other people to look at and ponder over.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Nothing I say will ever change your mind, gamb00ler, I know better than to challenge Those Who Know. This is merely for other people to look at and ponder over.

Bottom line... there is no verifiable evidence that you can provide to support your nonsense

And... everyone but you already realize that.

Your posts are long on denials but contain nothing substantial to support your stance.

You need FACTS.. like what is the equipment used to make the video you just posted.

You need to know the field of view before assuming that the included video/photo is capable of a true representation....

Edited May 6May 6 by gamb00ler

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

Bottom line... there is no verifiable evidence that you can provide to support your nonsense

And... everyone but you already realize that.

Bottom line… by all means continue watching your favourite TV show and if it makes you feel good, then I'm happy for you and I mean that very sincerely.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

by all means continue watching your favourite TV show

I have a TV but I know better than to watch what is broadcast by anyone. I do watch movies where I realize that I will have to suspend my disbelief for the duration. Some documentaries like Planet Earth, etc. are worthwhile. YouTube has good videos that cover technical matters such as how to repair something or how to customize some software to my liking.

Edited May 6May 6 by gamb00ler

17 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Nothing I say will ever change your mind, gamb00ler, I know better than to challenge Those Who Know. This is merely for other people to look at and ponder over.

Have you ever stopped to look at how much time you’re spending online?

Not just browsing — but repeatedly posting, defending, and recycling the same claims. At some point it you need to realise that it isn’t "research"; it starts looking more like compulsion.

 

There’s a recognised pattern here. Excessive forum use — especially when it becomes obsessive, defensive, and all-consuming — is often linked to what’s called 'compulsive internet use syndrome' (CIU)... It’s not about being “interested”; it’s about being preoccupied: constantly online, doubling down, unable to disengage even when it’s going nowhere.

 

Now add conspiracy thinking into the mix, and it becomes self-reinforcing:

• Endless “rabbit holes” that feel like research

• A steady drip of validation from like-minded posters

• Increasing distrust of anyone outside that bubble

• And a growing need to defend the belief rather than question it

 

The internet doesn’t create the mindset — it feeds it. Algorithms, echo chambers, and constant engagement turn it into a loop: more time online → stronger beliefs → more time defending them.

 

At that point, it’s no longer about evidence or discussion. It’s about maintenance of the belief and the habit.

 

Might be worth logging off for a bit, getting some perspective, and asking a simple question:

Is this actually thinking — or just repeating? Remember the definition: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

9 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Have you ever stopped to look at how much time you’re spending online?

Not just browsing — but repeatedly posting, defending, and recycling the same claims. At some point it you need to realise that it isn’t "research"; it starts looking more like compulsion.

 

There’s a recognised pattern here. Excessive forum use — especially when it becomes obsessive, defensive, and all-consuming — is often linked to what’s called 'compulsive internet use syndrome' (CIU)... It’s not about being “interested”; it’s about being preoccupied: constantly online, doubling down, unable to disengage even when it’s going nowhere.

 

Now add conspiracy thinking into the mix, and it becomes self-reinforcing:

• Endless “rabbit holes” that feel like research

• A steady drip of validation from like-minded posters

• Increasing distrust of anyone outside that bubble

• And a growing need to defend the belief rather than question it

 

The internet doesn’t create the mindset — it feeds it. Algorithms, echo chambers, and constant engagement turn it into a loop: more time online → stronger beliefs → more time defending them.

 

At that point, it’s no longer about evidence or discussion. It’s about maintenance of the belief and the habit.

 

Might be worth logging off for a bit, getting some perspective, and asking a simple question:

Is this actually thinking — or just repeating? Remember the definition: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

I think you might be talking to yourself more than anyone here, kwilco. I am extremely busy in the real world and this is merely an amusing thing on the side.

'Don't take it too seriously' is what I consistently have to say about it.

14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Don't take it too seriously' is what I consistently have to say about it.

Translation:

I don't know anything and I don't care.... I just like arguing.

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I think you might be talking to yourself more than anyone here, kwilco. I am extremely busy in the real world and this is merely an amusing thing on the side.

'Don't take it too seriously' is what I consistently have to say about it.

“Don’t take it too seriously”… says the person writing contantly to defend it.

If this is just an “amusing side activity,” it’s a strangely time-consuming one — especially for something you claim not to take seriously but feel compelled to repeatedly justify.

And the “I’m very busy in the real world” line doesn’t really land when you’re consistently here, engaging at length, and dodging the actual points. That’s not casual — that’s invested.

More to the point, dismissing the discussion as trivial is just another way of avoiding it. If it’s not serious, why argue so hard? And if it is serious enough to argue, then “don’t take it seriously” isn’t a position — it’s an exit line.

You can’t have it both ways:

• deeply engaged but “not bothered”

• heavily invested but “just for fun”

• making claims but not accountable for them

That’s not a stance — it’s a contradiction.

 

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

“Don’t take it too seriously”… says the person writing contantly to defend it.

If this is just an “amusing side activity,” it’s a strangely time-consuming one — especially for something you claim not to take seriously but feel compelled to repeatedly justify.

And the “I’m very busy in the real world” line doesn’t really land when you’re consistently here, engaging at length, and dodging the actual points. That’s not casual — that’s invested.

More to the point, dismissing the discussion as trivial is just another way of avoiding it. If it’s not serious, why argue so hard? And if it is serious enough to argue, then “don’t take it seriously” isn’t a position — it’s an exit line.

You can’t have it both ways:

• deeply engaged but “not bothered”

• heavily invested but “just for fun”

• making claims but not accountable for them

That’s not a stance — it’s a contradiction.

 

I average a few minutes per day on this thread, mostly to reply to you guys who clearly can't do without me. Try not tagging me or quoting me for a week, see how that goes… 😉

wind-up

58 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

wind-up

The gift that keeps on giving for the uninformed.

58 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

wind-up

Just like a toy bunny eh? Wind it up and watch it go. But never looking at the mechanics behind it.

On 5/8/2026 at 4:43 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

The gift that keeps on giving for the uninformed.

Just like a toy bunny eh? Wind it up and watch it go. But never looking at the mechanics behind it.

Do I remember correctly that the toy bunny didn't have a brain? Just repeating the same action like stuck phonograph! Sorta reminds me of your posts. Blah, blah, blah... virus's don't exist... blah, blah, blah .... corrupt white coats... blah, blah, blah... 1890's medical info is gold.... blah, blah, blah.

Edited May 14May 14 by gamb00ler

Another conspiracy.

Pasteurization was not done for health -- raw milk is healthier.

It was done to push out the small dairy farmers and consolidate power and control of the milk supply. Since small farmers did not have access to pasteurization, their milk was deemed illegal and people were all forced to buy from the big guys.

Raw milk is still available in some places, but most people are afraid of it now.

it amazes me that moon hoaxers don't even understand this basic piece of physics

On 5/18/2026 at 3:48 AM, save the frogs said:

Another conspiracy.

Pasteurization was not done for health -- raw milk is healthier.

It was done to push out the small dairy farmers and consolidate power and control of the milk supply. Since small farmers did not have access to pasteurization, their milk was deemed illegal and people were all forced to buy from the big guys.

Raw milk is still available in some places, but most people are afraid of it now.

Like all conspiracy theories it needs a reality check…

The claim that pasteurization was invented to push out small farmers is a modern fallacy of history. Pasteurization was adopted for one primary reason: saving human lives.

For a start, "Healthier" is a misleading term - When people claim raw milk is "healthier," they are usually conflating nutritional value with safety. The nutritional reality is that pasteurization does not significantly reduce the nutritional value of milk. While the heat slightly lowers a few heat-sensitive vitamins (like Vitamin C), these changes are minor. The core benefits—calcium, protein, and essential vitamins—remain entirely intact.

 

However, the safety aspect (not nutritional) is very real. Milk is an ideal breeding ground for bacteria. Without pasteurization, milk straight from the cow can quickly become a bioweapon.

 

Pasteurization became necessary during the Industrial Revolution, cities expanded rapidly and unhygienically. Milk transported from rural areas to urban centres frequently spoiled, carrying deadly pathogens. This led to massive, widespread outbreaks of tuberculosis, typhoid, and scarlet fever. (You might also look at a cow’s arse for a while and note how it excretes right down onto the udders)

 

French scientist Louis Pasteur originally developed this heating process in the 1860s to prevent wine and beer from souring. In 1886, German chemist Franz von Soxhlet suggested applying this to milk. When pasteurization was widely adopted in the early 20th century, it wasn't a corporate power grab—it was a public health triumph that drastically reduced infant mortality rates worldwide. Organizations like the British Nutrition Foundation and the Science History Institute document how this movement fundamentally transformed urban survival.

 

Nowadays, the fear of raw milk isn't "irrational"—it is backed by modern medical science. In the USA, unpasteurized milk continues to cause numerous foodborne illness outbreaks, including recent multistate outbreaks of E. coli. Because the raw milk has not  been heated to kill microorganisms, it frequently carries dangerous pathogens such as Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella. For most, it means severe diarrhoea, stomach cramps, and vomiting. However, it can also lead to life-threatening conditions like Guillain-Barré syndrome (which can cause paralysis) and Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), which causes kidney failure.

 

High-Risk Groups such as children, pregnant individuals, older adults, and those with weakened immune systems are in severe danger if exposed to these pathogens.

 

Despite making up only a tiny fraction of overall dairy consumption in the US, unpasteurized milk and raw dairy products cause the vast majority of all dairy-related foodborne illnesses. Pasteurization wasn't designed to eliminate the small farmer; it was designed to eliminate mass grave sites for children.

18 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Like all conspiracy theories it needs a reality check…

The claim that pasteurization was invented to push out small farmers is a modern fallacy of history. Pasteurization was adopted for one primary reason: saving human lives.

For a start, "Healthier" is a misleading term - When people claim raw milk is "healthier," they are usually conflating nutritional value with safety. The nutritional reality is that pasteurization does not significantly reduce the nutritional value of milk. While the heat slightly lowers a few heat-sensitive vitamins (like Vitamin C), these changes are minor. The core benefits—calcium, protein, and essential vitamins—remain entirely intact.

 

However, the safety aspect (not nutritional) is very real. Milk is an ideal breeding ground for bacteria. Without pasteurization, milk straight from the cow can quickly become a bioweapon.

 

Pasteurization became necessary during the Industrial Revolution, cities expanded rapidly and unhygienically. Milk transported from rural areas to urban centres frequently spoiled, carrying deadly pathogens. This led to massive, widespread outbreaks of tuberculosis, typhoid, and scarlet fever. (You might also look at a cow’s arse for a while and note how it excretes right down onto the udders)

 

French scientist Louis Pasteur originally developed this heating process in the 1860s to prevent wine and beer from souring. In 1886, German chemist Franz von Soxhlet suggested applying this to milk. When pasteurization was widely adopted in the early 20th century, it wasn't a corporate power grab—it was a public health triumph that drastically reduced infant mortality rates worldwide. Organizations like the British Nutrition Foundation and the Science History Institute document how this movement fundamentally transformed urban survival.

 

Nowadays, the fear of raw milk isn't "irrational"—it is backed by modern medical science. In the USA, unpasteurized milk continues to cause numerous foodborne illness outbreaks, including recent multistate outbreaks of E. coli. Because the raw milk has not  been heated to kill microorganisms, it frequently carries dangerous pathogens such as Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella. For most, it means severe diarrhoea, stomach cramps, and vomiting. However, it can also lead to life-threatening conditions like Guillain-Barré syndrome (which can cause paralysis) and Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), which causes kidney failure.

 

High-Risk Groups such as children, pregnant individuals, older adults, and those with weakened immune systems are in severe danger if exposed to these pathogens.

 

Despite making up only a tiny fraction of overall dairy consumption in the US, unpasteurized milk and raw dairy products cause the vast majority of all dairy-related foodborne illnesses. Pasteurization wasn't designed to eliminate the small farmer; it was designed to eliminate mass grave sites for children.

Small-scale production for your own use is one thing. Large-scale production for a wider market is another. Once you supply many people, stricter safety rules become necessary to prevent salmonella, bacterial contamination, and similar risks.

I asked AI whether raw milk has any real health benefits, apart from the contamination risk, since many world-class athletes swear by it, including Erling Braut Haaland. Maybe it comes down to genes, structure and discipline, not that they swear to drink raw milk ?

That may be true, but it proves very little.

Top athletes can swear by all kinds of things: raw milk, ice baths, fasting, red light, lucky routines, strange diets, or habits that have nothing to do with what actually made them successful. Anecdotes are not the same as evidence.

On the science, the CDC says pasteurized milk offers the same nutritional benefits as raw milk, and the FDA says pasteurization kills pathogens without any significant impact on milk’s nutritional quality.

There is also no strong evidence that raw milk improves lactose tolerance; one controlled study found raw milk did not reduce lactose malabsorption or symptoms compared with pasteurized milk.

21 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Small-scale production for your own use is one thin

No, it isn't. The bacteria exist by default in milk; they don't know the scale of production – it doesn't matter who produced it; it has been a problem for centuries. It is human consumption that is the problem – as the older post makes claims about "healthier" – that is not the issue. Do you realise that by default the Homo sapiens species is lactose intolerant?

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

No, it isn't. The bacteria exist by default in milk; they don't know the scale of production – it doesn't matter who produced it; it has been a problem for centuries. It is human consumption that is the problem – as the older post makes claims about "healthier" – that is not the issue. Do you realise that by default the Homo sapiens species is lactose intolerant?

Scale decides how many people are exposed when something goes wrong, so safety standards matter more in larger production. And small scale production was the norm in the old days, at least country side in Norway and many other countries.

And if someone still wants to take that risk because they believe raw milk is healthier, that should be their choice where permitted. The risk is not unique to milk anyway. Harmful bacteria are a risk in eggs, raw chicken, fish, contaminated water, and poor kitchen hygiene, especially through cross-contamination. Air-conditioning can spread bacteria too, though that is typically Legionella rather than Salmonella.

20 minutes ago, kwilco said:

No, it isn't. The bacteria exist by default in milk; they don't know the scale of production – it doesn't matter who produced it; it has been a problem for centuries. It is human consumption that is the problem – as the older post makes claims about "healthier" – that is not the issue. Do you realise that by default the Homo sapiens species is lactose intolerant?

How does having to heat milk and cool milk before you sell it eliminate small producers?

It makes no sense

55 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How does having to heat milk and cool milk before you sell it eliminate small producers?

It makes no sense

it doesn't - I said that.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Scale decides how many people are exposed when something goes wrong, so safety standards matter more in larger production. And small scale production was the norm in the old days, at least country side in Norway and many other countries.

And if someone still wants to take that risk because they believe raw milk is healthier, that should be their choice where permitted. The risk is not unique to milk anyway. Harmful bacteria are a risk in eggs, raw chicken, fish, contaminated water, and poor kitchen hygiene, especially through cross-contamination. Air-conditioning can spread bacteria too, though that is typically Legionella rather than Salmonella.

That's completely irrational – unpasteurised milk and raw dairy products cause the vast majority of all dairy-related foodborne illnesses. Pasteurisation wasn't designed to eliminate the small farmer; it was designed to eliminate mass grave sites for children. It doesn't matter who produced it – in fact, it is small producers who are more likely to.

Edited May 19May 19 by kwilco

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

That's completely irrational – unpasteurised milk and raw dairy products cause the vast majority of all dairy-related foodborne illnesses. Pasteurisation wasn't designed to eliminate the small farmer; it was designed to eliminate mass grave sites for children. It doesn't matter who produced it – in fact, it is small producers who are more likely to.

Christ sake Im referring to the demand of higher production and food safety 😁

not the conspiracy, okay