Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

I am sorry that Capricorn 1 became a documentary that defines your life.  But it's just a story from 1977.

noodles, I think you are capable of understanding that if you pointed a laser of a type you could obtain at the Moon, the fact that the spot would be hundreds of miles in diameter would mean you would not see it. 

A laser beam has to be collimated with a big telescope to keep the spot concentrated enough to see even when it hits one of the Apollo reflectors (without that, it would be simply impossible to see - light scattering in all directions from the surface 239,000 miles away would mean zero photons would get back to an observer).

That link explains that it is challenging (but doable) to detect the reflected light even with two telescopes to send and receive.

A laser pointer that you play with your cats with won't work.

You're like that guy who kept wanting to shoot himself up to space in homemade rockets, until he killed himself...I supposed in your world, he was taken by the FBI in a coverup upon discovering the earth was actually flat ...

Optimissed - No one convinced me NASA never went to the moon. I had to convince myself with enough evidence. One thing that was very convincing was the lunar lander itself, made with roofing paper, curtain rods, aluminum foil and scotch tape. I would hope any critically thinking person would also be convinced the likelihood of something like that landing and taking off from the moon would be zero. 

Elroch - please find some pics of stars with that kind of telescope in your previous post. Compare them with the Nikon P900/1000 footage of the stars. 

Optimissed - Indeed, the world is not what I thought it was 10 years ago. I have also found that most people would rather not know just how corrupt the world is. I cannot blame them for that. The truth will eventually win out and I will be long gone by then! 

NASA's luck is running out!

Sweet Dreams Optimissed

Real scientists with telescopes with mirrors many meters wide, costing hundreds of millions of dollars have been able to just about measure the diameter of some of the biggest stars for 100 years.

The largest star is visibly 0.052-0.062 arc seconds. By contrast the maximum angular resolution of the Nikon P900's 4600 pixel detector at maximum zoom (83x) is about 1.6 arc seconds.Thus the largest star has about 1/30 the diameter of 1 pixel at maximum zoom. 

Astronomers use MUCH more precise equipment.

if u think astronuts went to the moon ?...plz watch this vid at 1:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWMnbJJpeZc

Elroch - I know all about the opposition to FE that has come about in the last few years. YouTube deleted numerous accounts/videos etc. 

I ask you this, if flat earth was so utterly ridiculous why would they need to do this and then create their own anti-flat earth videos and flood YouTube with them etc.? 

After 500 years why is heliocentric theory still in need of being proved? 

And look at those videos of the stars I posted. How can you say they are out of focus?

You have not done the compare/contrast I ask for like you did with the Saturn pics. Please post  comparison pics of stars. I want to see what the "real scientists" claim are stars light years away with their multimillion dollar telescopes  with the amateur astronomers pics/video footage of the stars using the Nikon P900/1000 telescopic camera. 

We can all look at them and decide for ourselves which are more reliable. 

For both devices, stars are smaller than one pixel (this is known from measurements using ENORMOUSLY superior telescopes with, say  5 meter diameter reflectors).

That means any apparent structure is an artifact (detectible by the lack of reproducibility, for example).
This graphic explains the sorts of optical artifacts observed by the inadequately competent:

I don't pay much attention  to pics. I prefer the actual video footage of stars. 

I know you and many others seek out these "flat earth debunking" sites which is what Optimissed mentioned earlier concerning "confirmation bias". That is what these "flat earth debunking" sites rely on. Why are these sites necessary? To enlighten or obscure? 

Be that as it may, will you post compare/contrast stars with multimillion dollar telescopes vs. Nikon telescopic camera ???

I'd be interested in seeing the differences of the stars like you did with Saturn. 

Interesting...

There is no effective difference between photos and videos.  Resolution, focus, light saturation, etc. are all identical.  You just labor under the notion that videos are a different technology and harder to fake somehow.  Not harder, though, just more time consuming.

As for proving a theory again after 500 years...this is how humanity evolves.  The Roman Empire is to the Dark Ages as the Renaissance is to...?

This, ironically, given the introduction of the Internet, is an age of Ignorance.  Orange presidents and Andrew Tates lead the way.  Right wing movements sweeping back into fashion the moment that Hitler's lessons are forgotten by living generations, the vilification of science by increasingly uneducated/illiterate masses, the rebirth of racism and the decrying of refugees and immigrants as an acceptable viewpoint by many, the wholesale sellout of the planet's and human individuals' health in the name of "free markets" where the top 5% own most of the world's assets, etc.  History will not look on this period kindly.

Actually it is the top 1% btickler and you will not know who they are because they own pretty much everything including the MSM and thus they do not work in the spotlight but behind the curtain. You won't ever see them on the cover of Fortune as the richest in the world.

I disagree with you on photos vs. video footage. Photos are much easier to fake e.g. photo-shop. When NASA fakes their little outer space adventures they screw up frequently. That is why so many are exposing them via using NASA's own official footages.

Either one believes these sites are created to further propagandize the ball earth and attempt to refute FE are simply there to help humanity or they are there to keep the masses in ignorance to where they really live. The latter appears logical. Especially when one investigates Gov't corruption, NASA, the Antarctic treaty etc. 

Since when do the 1%'s care about the 99%? 

They don't and they never have. In fact they openly admit they would like to eradicate more than 90% of us! 

What if the entirety of the universe has been decided and we can't know the future just because our models aren't actually accurate

No, arguably the top 1% only own about half the assets.  The top 5% own a clear majority, though.  Free market capitalism is effectively not that different from feudalism, just more cleverly disguised .  

The Illuminati are not real.  The planet is not flat.

I have used Photoshop for decades, and I have used video editing software as well.  I stand by my statement...altering video is almost exactly like altering photos, just more time consuming.  This stands to reason since video is just a series of still photos.  Did you know that when Id Software first started saving 3D games for replays, they only saved the player's state, the player's X/Y/Z location on the map and current facing, and the timestamp?  With just those criteria you can recreate anything in a 3D world (actually 4D, of course, because of time).  CGI can already fake video of anything they want to spend enough time on.

None of that matters, because the moon landing, the earth not being flat, etc. were all proven long ago before these technologies.  You're fuzzy photo conspiracies are functionally identical to an old photo of a sombrero blowing in the wind being taken as a UFO.  You have an agenda, and you've made up facts to fit it.

I once discovered a much revered military video of a super-fast UFO was actually of a fly.

I enlisted the world's most powerful AI to give noodles a hand: