What Are Things You've Heard That Made You Facepalm?

[Xannari Ferrows]

Get a life dude!

Hello? Is this the emergency line? "Yes. Please state your emergency." Well, I've been told I need a life dude. Is this where you call for one of them? "...Clarify." Well, ya know. A life dude. I really can't make it simpler.

"...Are you referring to an ambulance?" No, just the dude.

*Click*

I can't believe you did that. (It was your idea) It was a joke!

[ChrisSpace]

There is no 'I' in 'Communety'.

[Hcube]

Translated from french, found it in (again) the youtube comments section for a CNES video (btw their channel is quite good, if you know french you should totally check it out) :

(the video was about ExoMars and Curiosity)

"When you look at the photos taken by the Curiosity rover, one can only be astonished by the amount of manufactured objects and structures left by humans who used to live on Mars. It is not possible to have doubts on this because it is obvious. About the next european rover, i'd say that it's going to look for clues, like Curiosity. (*you don't say, that's the whole point of the video above*) But wil it also take photographs of these man-made objects ? "

I replied "It's a joke, right ?"

And here's what he answered :

"Well look at this

: there is no doubt at all."

That is quite a facepalm-y video, mind you...

Even the CNES (the youtube channel) made fun of him :

"We thank you for your enthusiasm, but the only man-made objects we found on Mars are curiosity's own instruments. But maybe our researchers aren't as clever and observers as you are ?"

[Robotengineer]

Here is another flat-head for you. The first comment thread is hilarious, watching a Concave-earther and a flat-earther argue is hilarious.

The floor is concave. "Earth" is the "shell" of the Universe.

+rogerthecabinboy2012 The apollo window? Where you there? Of course Earth do not move, but why do you use NASA video to try to prove it? The people who do not know that NASA is a scam should really be ashamed of them selves by now. Earth is proven concave. Cyrus Teed`s rectilineator proved it beyond all doubt a long time ago, and today all you need is a laser to prove the concavity of Earth. We all live INSIDE Earth, it is really not a discusion.

I'm convinced that Flat Earthers aren't real. After all, I've never actually seen one with my own eyes, so they don't exist.

+2DaNk Music Also why would our MONEY GRUBBING SOCIETY forgo trillions of dollars of Oil, Coal, Gold and Uranium deposits as evident by Admiral Birds exploration in the 50's? And instead enact a global treaty that says it is off limits to anything but scientific inquiry? Surely you can't be that naïve to think nothing is up down there.......or should I say around us at the outer edge.

I could give days of reasons the world is not a ball but I only need one everyone can understand regardless of how brainwashed and/or retarded.

A hot air balloon. It will always stay up and down with the ground below it, ya? Then why when it's far away is it not tilting from ur perspective? The earth should be sloping down significantly at one 14mi away off the horizon yet it's still vertical.

And a simple for not spinning is an airplane. How does a jet going 600mph heading west go anywhere if the earth is spinning 1000mph east? And why does a flight from la to nyc not take an hour if the earth is going tbst fast to meet you ? It's so simple and basic yet it's like Chinese calculus to people. They are so brainwashed they just can't break the spell.

NWO, Illuminati and other secret organizatiosn that control the world.

In short: POWER! In length, if people know we lived in an enclosed or flat earth model it would prove the existence of GOD and Science would get laid to waste and religion would become the dominant model of the world.

[Hcube]

(Long post ahead !)

WOW ! AMAZING NEWS : i did the impossible ! the dude who published the video that robotengineer linked ! He's actually the guy i quoted before in this facepalm thread...

Here's what happened:

I was enjoying some ESA's earth from space video, and that bloke (he had already stalked some other similar videos, i had already "discussed" with him before) posted a comment about NASA and ESA being fake, conspiracy and the usual stuff. Here's what happened next :

(i cut the part where i wonder about the number of neurons and glial cells in his brain to keep it to the point it's quite facepalm-y anyway)

He finally decided ot listen to my arguments about the subject

Flatbrain : Alright, tell me how a satellite stays in orbit then.

Me : uh, it doesn't actually stay in orbit forever... But if you at least believe in Newtonian physics and in math i can mathematically demonstrate to you that an object with constant speed can be in a circular orbit around a parent body. Be careful what you ask though, because you can't argue and use ........ arguments over mathematics like you do with the other stuff.

Flatbrain : don't need a long equation or formula. When I ask someone they say satellites constantly fall down to earth, but because the speed is just right they fall 'with the curve' so they keep going around like that. is that correct ? Oh wait ! he's actually being less idiot than before !

Me : you don't understand. You cannot say that something is impossible and then refuse to read "long formulas". If you limit yourself to "constantly falling towards earth and curves stuff" then don't write on the internet your stupid conspiracy stuff.

Flatbrain : I just want to know the basic principle that makes it so they can stay in orbit. I know they don't stay in orbit forever and need to adjust their course/speed a little sometimes. If I throw something up in the air it always comes right back down, unless it's lighter then air. So if I would throw a object at a insane speed in the right angle it would get in a orbit .... in theory. I think I'm correct ? That's what the nasa explanation says.

Me : Of course the basic stuff is that given enough horizontal speed and a normal (normal means towards the center) acceleration, the considered object is "falling" around the planet. It's just like spinning a small object attached to a string around your hand. The string acts as the normal force that pulls the object towards your hand.

but that's a cheap-ish and undetailed explanation...

There's something i don't understand : If you didn't know that in the first place, why did you start saying that it's all a conspiracy and other BS ? it's like shouting out stuff you made up while you have no clue...

Flat(but getting rounder though)brain : say it's BS because I try to research all this stuff for months and you can't find any info that makes sense. So if this pricinple is correct and satellites keep 'falling' around the planet. ... how does a geostationary satellite stays in orbit. I could understand it could work for low earth orbit. A geostationary satellite is much further away from earth so there is alot less gravitational pull from the earth, probably nothing anymore *facepalm*. Those satellites need a much higher speed to keep up with the rotation of the earth, since most of them stay in the same spot above earth at all times. Noone so far could give me a explanation for this. (A bit facepalm-ish but OK not to know that i guess)

Me : blablabla telling him about that thing called Kepler's 3rd law

(soo to be round?) flatbrain : so in low earth orbit a satellite circles the earth 20-30 times / day at a much higher speed. I would think in geostationary orbit you need more speed since you need to do alot more distance to circle the earth. I will do some calculations today and some more research to understand this. Thanks for you answers ! (""calculations"" lmao)

Aaaand OMG ! What do we have here ? I convinced a hoaxer ! The impossible became possible ! The satisfaction was overwhelming... After all, before this conversation, he was posting videos like

... oh wait

is even worse.

I hope that he really learnt something.

What do ou guys think ? do you think he is convinced ? or do you instead facepalm because I am completely oblivious and he actually wasn't convinced at all ?

[Bill Phil]

(Long post ahead !)

WOW ! AMAZING NEWS : i did the impossible ! the dude who published the video that robotengineer linked ! He's actually the guy i quoted before in this facepalm thread...

Here's what happened:

I was enjoying some ESA's earth from space video, and that bloke (he had already stalked some other similar videos, i had already "discussed" with him before) posted a comment about NASA and ESA being fake, conspiracy and the usual stuff. Here's what happened next :

(i cut the part where i wonder about the number of neurons and glial cells in his brain to keep it to the point it's quite facepalm-y anyway)

He finally decided ot listen to my arguments about the subject

Flatbrain : Alright, tell me how a satellite stays in orbit then.

Me : uh, it doesn't actually stay in orbit forever... But if you at least believe in Newtonian physics and in math i can mathematically demonstrate to you that an object with constant speed can be in a circular orbit around a parent body. Be careful what you ask though, because you can't argue and use ........ arguments over mathematics like you do with the other stuff.

Flatbrain : don't need a long equation or formula. When I ask someone they say satellites constantly fall down to earth, but because the speed is just right they fall 'with the curve' so they keep going around like that. is that correct ? Oh wait ! he's actually being less idiot than before !

Me : you don't understand. You cannot say that something is impossible and then refuse to read "long formulas". If you limit yourself to "constantly falling towards earth and curves stuff" then don't write on the internet your stupid conspiracy stuff.

Flatbrain : I just want to know the basic principle that makes it so they can stay in orbit. I know they don't stay in orbit forever and need to adjust their course/speed a little sometimes. If I throw something up in the air it always comes right back down, unless it's lighter then air. So if I would throw a object at a insane speed in the right angle it would get in a orbit .... in theory. I think I'm correct ? That's what the nasa explanation says.

Me : Of course the basic stuff is that given enough horizontal speed and a normal (normal means towards the center) acceleration, the considered object is "falling" around the planet. It's just like spinning a small object attached to a string around your hand. The string acts as the normal force that pulls the object towards your hand.

but that's a cheap-ish and undetailed explanation...

There's something i don't understand : If you didn't know that in the first place, why did you start saying that it's all a conspiracy and other BS ? it's like shouting out stuff you made up while you have no clue...

Flat(but getting rounder though)brain : say it's BS because I try to research all this stuff for months and you can't find any info that makes sense. So if this pricinple is correct and satellites keep 'falling' around the planet. ... how does a geostationary satellite stays in orbit. I could understand it could work for low earth orbit. A geostationary satellite is much further away from earth so there is alot less gravitational pull from the earth, probably nothing anymore *facepalm*. Those satellites need a much higher speed to keep up with the rotation of the earth, since most of them stay in the same spot above earth at all times. Noone so far could give me a explanation for this. (A bit facepalm-ish but OK not to know that i guess)

Me : blablabla telling him about that thing called Kepler's 3rd law

(soo to be round?) flatbrain : so in low earth orbit a satellite circles the earth 20-30 times / day at a much higher speed. I would think in geostationary orbit you need more speed since you need to do alot more distance to circle the earth. I will do some calculations today and some more research to understand this. Thanks for you answers ! (""calculations"" lmao)

Aaaand OMG ! What do we have here ? I convinced a hoaxer ! The impossible became possible ! The satisfaction was overwhelming... After all, before this conversation, he was posting videos like

... oh wait

is even worse.

I hope that he really learnt something.

What do ou guys think ? do you think he is convinced ? or do you instead facepalm because I am completely oblivious and he actually wasn't convinced at all ?

I would have immediately said after his first comment:

"Do you know about centripetal/centrifugal force? Well, orbits are using that force to counteract Earth's gravity. That's why satellites need to go very fast."

It's not the best, but it's more correct than some explanations.

I would probably also go into how you can derive an equation for orbital speed by using the equation for centripetal force.

"v^2/r=a

If you put earth's gravity at the orbital radius in a, and the radius for a circular orbit in r you can solve for v. Put in the equation for earth's gravity at a certain distance you get something akin to the vis-viva equation."

I think if you said blatantly what the physics make happen, and then do it step by step, it might help. MIGHT.

[heng]

I hope that he really learnt something.

this! <- now with working link.

What do ou guys think ? do you think he is convinced ?

no. at least, not yet. it is a long road, to change ones convictions,

but he is trying! i mean, not trying to chance his convictions, his believes... few people actually seek that in earnest. but to understand what he's talking about. and that is worth sooo much.

any fool with an encyclopedia can quote smart stuff, but in the long run, the ones with the actually thinking going on between their ears will win, no matter how much knowledge still misses.

that is, what made me so sad about the video i linked earlier. the guy actually sounded... well, smart. "question everything" is a very good motto... if one is willing to learn and accept the answers. he is going out there with his own telescope, drawing his own conclusions. yes, they may be false. but they are his. so i do have some respect for him.

Edited July 7, 2015 by heng
forgot to add link. sorry

[JetJaguar]

I kind of like the "Moon/Mars/whatever is a hoax!" web sites. Since they like zooming in to point out the smallest details, I find that they are a good source for hi-res space wallpaper. In fact, my current wallpaper is a 2400px-wide shot of the Apollo 11 launch that someone was using to prove that a Saturn V couldn't really reach space. (Edit: Now that I think about it, IIRC they were using it to point out features on the Apollo CSM "proving" it was a dummy capsule that didn't match the one that "allegedly" went to the moon.)

Ugh, I am constantly debunking stupid stuff my wife and mother-in-law read on the internet. I almost never change their minds, it seems their level of belief is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence presented. I give up pretty easily nowadays. If their belief doesn't cause any real harm, I let it go. Here's a recent conversation in a nutshell:

"I saw online that if you put an aloe plant next to a video screen, it will absorb all of the harmful radiation."

"Uh, no. First of all, modern flat-panel displays don't generate an appreciable amount of ionizing radiation. Second, even if they did, the rays would travel in a straight line. A plant isn't going to magically suck them in. For it to work, the plant would have to be between you and the screen and completely block your view."

"But I saw this YouTube video someone made."

"They don't understand science."

"But my friend sent me the link."

"Believe whatever you want, then."

We now have a little potted aloe next to every TV and computer in the house.

Edited July 7, 2015 by JetJaguar

[Hcube]

I kind of like the "Moon/Mars/whatever is a hoax!" web sites. Since they like zooming in to point out the smallest details, I find that they are a good source for hi-res space wallpaper. In fact, my current wallpaper is a 2400px-wide shot of the Apollo 11 launch that someone was using to prove that a Saturn V couldn't really reach space. (Edit: Now that I think about it, IIRC they were using it to point out features on the Apollo CSM "proving" it was a dummy capsule that didn't match the one that "allegedly" went to the moon.)

Ugh, I am constantly debunking stupid stuff my wife and mother-in-law read on the internet. I almost never change their minds, it seems their level of belief is inversely proportional to the amount of evidence presented. I give up pretty easily nowadays. If their belief doesn't cause any real harm, I let it go. Here's a recent conversation in a nutshell:

"I saw online that if you put an aloe plant next to a video screen, it will absorb all of the harmful radiation."

"Uh, no. First of all, modern flat-panel displays don't generate an appreciable amount of ionizing radiation. Second, even if they did, the rays would travel in a straight line. A plant isn't going to magically suck them in. For it to work, the plant would have to be between you and the screen and completely block your view."

"But I saw this YouTube video someone made."

"They don't understand science."

"But my friend sent me the link."

"Believe whatever you want, then."

We now have a little potted aloe next to every TV and computer in the house.

Ouch that aloe plant thing... but well, it's not a very ugly plant to own i guess. Hey could you please share that Apollo 11 launch shot ? i'd like to see it !

[Randazzo]

Watching the start of Shark Week, a program about tagging and tracking Great White Sharks in the Atlantic, the narrator says:

"Once attached, the tags transmit their location data to a satellite DEEP IN SPACE..."

I said aloud: "Hah, not likely. Low orbit, maybe."

My family stared at me.

[Robotengineer]

Checkout the guy in the first part of this video, it's in the same series as the one I posted above.

[Hcube]

Checkout the guy in the first part of this video, it's in the same series as the one I posted above.

Oh yeah it's that guy that i may have enlightened (hopefully). Well, this one is as retarded as the others. I laughed so much at this beard dude at the beginning of the video ! Hell, it was Aristoe who thought that if the earth was spinning then dropped objects shouldn't fall to his feet.... theory wich was debunked like 20 centuries ago

EDIT : this guy has not posted any videos since our discussion. Is that a good sign ?

[JetJaguar]

Hey could you please share that Apollo 11 launch shot ? i'd like to see it !

Sure! I'm at work right now, but I'll post it up this evening when I get home. It's a still frame from the movie camera that was mounted on top of the launch tower that captured the famous slow-motion, close-up movie of the rocket as it lifted past. The pic was taller than it is wide and I cropped it to fit my monitor's aspect ratio, but I believe I still have the original also.

[JetJaguar]

Okay, let's see if this works. Here is the Apollo 11 launch, clicking on it should take you to where you can download it at full 2400x3000 resolution. (BTW, now I'm thinking it's not a still from one of the movie cameras):

Apollo_11_Launch2 by JetJaguar1, on Flickr

Here are some other photos I found on Moon hoax sites that I've used as wallpaper. I uploaded them to a Flickr album so I don't clog up this thread with a bunch of giant images. The picture of Earth behind the LM is a classic "no stars in the sky" pic. The astronaut on the ladder is supposedly too well-lit for being in full shadow, and the reflections on the boots "prove" additional studio lighting was used. I forget what was wrong about the CSM pic, but the rover and footpad pics have shadows at different angles "proving" multiple light sources.

Edited July 8, 2015 by JetJaguar

[Hcube]

cool pictures ! have some rep

Wow the "no stars in the sky" argument is always very facepalm inducing

[heng]

In fact, my current wallpaper is a 2400px-wide shot of the Apollo 11 launch

awesome pic!!!

"I saw online that if you put an aloe plant next to a video screen, it will absorb all of the harmful radiation."

probably just a misunderstanding...

there are certain plants that are good for taking out harmful substances from the air. so it might actually be slightly beneficial to have an aloe plant next to stuff that constantly heats its plastic casings. nothing to do with radiation, but as long as it harms noone...

but yeah, i feel you. my parents are the same.

[JetJaguar]

Thanks! It actually is radiation that some believe is somehow being drawn in and absorbed (see tip #1 here, and

). I'm not sure why my wife believes in aloe specifically, because some quick Googling mainly turns up mentions of cacti or succulents in general, but not just aloe plants. I figure whatever, a cost-benefit analysis tells me this isn't a battle worth fighting, she can have her plants if it makes her happy.

[windows_x_seven]

There's a certain channel on YouTube that basically says that everything is Illuminati. Hell, it even has a video about the "Alien Illuminati Agenda".

facepalm incoming, take cover

there's a secret in this post

Edited July 8, 2015 by windows_x_seven
spooked scari skeletonis

[Skyler4856]

Jet fuel can melt steel beams

[StrandedonEarth]

Jet fuel can melt steel beams

It might not melt them, but it will soften them

[ChrisSpace]

So my mum and I were standing outside last evening waiting for the ISS to pass over. My little cousin asks what we're doing, and I explain it to him. But then he asks:

So how loud will it be?

Me: Umm... it's a thing in space.

Yeah, but how loud is it going to be?

[UnionPacific1983WP]

"It's true, a car protects you from lightning. Because of the rubber tires." Basically what one of my teachers said one day. Funny thing is, I watched a CGP Grey video the previous night saying how cars are faraday cages, and that's how they protect you.

I had a facepalm in my head when the teacher said that, and very nearly had one IRL.

[InterCity]

Overheard conversation in a hospital bedroom (I was in the ready room, drinking coffee):

Man: I thought the car will hold better if I go fast. It always does in the F1 races!

Woman: Well, sweetheart, you shouldn't believe everything they say on TV. The other day, they were saying that first humans appeared 40 000 years ago. Damn, It's only 2015!

Like, for real? Thanks god stupidity and ignorance is not transmitted genetically, otherwise I'd be worried about their children.

[TheBedla]

Ooh, I read a bunch of those yesterday.

First: This article (otherwise quite interesting) contained this part "That's because bodies floating through space could (...) even float over to alien planets and effectively colonise them with human remains and whatever..."

Second: I started reading Ghost Fleet and it had the exact same problem in the first chapter. An astronaut is locked out of the ISS, and he pressed on the hatch button so hard that "If he hadn't been tethered to the station, that push would have sent him spinning off at a rate of ten feet per second on a trajectory toward Jupiter".

Really, guys? All it takes is a gentle push and we can float to other planets?

Third: In general, Ghost Fleet seems interesting, but the authors should have someone to fact-check them on space stuff. When describing the Chinese Shenzhou (and bear in mind, this is near-future projection, no alternate history stuff), they say it is a cheap copy of the US Gemini spacecraft. I did not have enough face to palm when I read that.

[Goddess Bhavani]

Seriously, lol. Even a total space newbie could identify that the Shenzhou is related to the Soyuz when watching Gravity for the first time.

Make that 3 space newbies, I brought them to the big screen to watch it.