[ChrisTP]

And yet when shown a circle, you proudly assert it's a globe. The dissonance here is striking.

You've used the opposite mindset when asked about how we know mars is a globe, because it has been observed to be a spheroid. I'm not sure why you would think seeing a circle shaped photograph of earth would not use the same reasoning. I get that you would prefer not to bother with any photos you can't take for yourself but the above quote seems to be disjointed from your previous comments. I mean this is how it goes really;

guy1; How do we know mars isnt a disk?
guy2; Because we've seen mars and it's shape.
guy1; Ok, we've seen earth's shape too.
guy2; But it's clearly a circle how do we know it's a globe?

Same way we know mars is a globe. 

And once again, to ignore photographic evidence because you couldn't take it yourself seems like strange reasoning. If I recorded a guy beating someone up on the street, clear video, showing faces and all and took that video to court, you think they'd be like "But I couldn't possibly verify this footage, because I didn't take the footage myself and can't go back in time to record the same thing myself, so this evidence is void"?

[GreatATuin]

I can't see a way to reconcile these images with any FE model. Can you?

So you have unverifiable pictures of some landmass, and of the illuminated portion of the Earth. The former is hopefully obvious, but the latter requires a rudimentary understanding of the mainstream model, of which you are proudly ignorant. I can't fix that for you.

Please enlighten me! What is the "mainstream model"? What we see in these images is definitely not, for example, this: https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Map.png , which is the first example on https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps , and in which the Antarctic doesn't even exist. Is the "mainstream model" something so obscure that it's not the first thing we find when looking for a flat Earth map on the FES website?

Also, if you're curious enough to look for the video from himawari, you actually see all the phases of Earth, seen in a single day from a geostationary orbit: https://himawari8-dl.nict.go.jp/himawari8/movie/720/20200408_pifd.mp4 . I don't see how it works on a flat Earth.

In short: yes, under EA, the photographs you presented depict exactly what one would expect. I don't see anything to "reconcile" here.

Well, of course, if you invent an ad hoc theory that assumes light bends in a way that makes everything magically appear the same way it does naturally appear on a spherical Earth, it can work with a single picture. It still doesn't work with the animations, or with the fact we'd have to see a "border", a discontinuity somewhere on a flat Earth. You can only go in a straight line and loop forever on a globe, you can't do that on a disc. We have pictures from many angles. The pictures from DSCOVR are especially interesting as they show us very different angles between the solstices, giving us a complete view of both hemispheres as the Earth spins. In June you can see all the continents and the North pole, in December you can see all the continents and the Antarctic. Where is the border? Where is the discontinuity?

You might recall I posted in this thread early on pointing out that these would be inconclusive. It's a shame you didn't think to use the search function to find out why.

These images are very conclusively incompatible with any map presented on https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps , or with any flat Earth model. If you can see a flat Earth and not a spinning globe on the animations from DSCOVR, I don't know what more I can say.

It's your right to claim everything presented is fake - which would imply the existence of an international conspiracy, because you'll find consistent satellite imagery from every satellite operator. But there is simply no way to say these images could represent a flat Earth.

[GreatATuin]

Simply false.

Every image of the earth issued by NASA is altered.

Plenty of film and pictures of the whole earth here from Apollo 8, the first mission to get far enough away from earth to picture the whole earth:

Arguably, it was actually Apollo 4, even if the mission was uncrewed and the picture was not a full Earth but only a crescent : https://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2018/20180522-apollo-4-images.html .

The Soviet Union launched a probe to photograph the far side of the Moon as early as 1959 so technically they could have made such a picture even earlier, but if they did I couldn't find it.

[Pete Svarrior]

You've used the opposite mindset when asked about how we know mars is a globe, because it has been observed to be a spheroid.

You're once again jumping to unkind conclusions without thinking. I suspect you misunderstood what I meant by observation, and how that term is generally used here. You and I can directly observe Mars to be spherical, not look at pretty pictures of circles. You and I can also directly observe the Earth to be flat through experimentation, rather than by looking at pretty pictures of circles.

GreatATuin, I'm done with you. If you refuse to familiarise yourself with the FE model, or if you choose to discard parts of it because they explain your misconceptions too well, there genuinely is nothing I can do to help you. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you're gonna have to adjust your attitude. If you just want to sit around declaring how much you dislike FE, then you should take it to the appropriate board.

[totallackey]

Not all the pictures and film has been altered, but even if that were true, you can only alter a picture of something if...you have a picture of the something...

You need to have the image, yes...

Right. Good. And how do you get the images of the globe earth without being in space?

But all of them have been altered...
Easily demonstrable...
Just gather all of the images released by NASA of the supposed globe earth and compare them.
None of them depict the same thing.

OK. Well here's 3 pictures I took of a globe I have. I have not altered any of these images (full disclosure, I have cropped them, but that's all, I've not applied any filters). I've simply put them into one image and reduced the size of the combined image. I've not altered any of them in the way you mean, I've done nothing to change the way the images actually looked when I took them:



Those are 3 pictures of the same object. Do they look the same? The top one I stood quite close to it and took a picture.
The second one I stood further away and zoomed in.
The last one I stood further away than the first but closer than the second and I changed my camera setting, you can see the lighting looks quite different. Actually though I took the 3 pictures within a minute and all of the same object.

I've attached the picture in case you are still having that imgbb problem.

So while NASA may well alter some images to enhance them, not all of their images are altered and different pictures of the globe looking different is simply because the pictures were taken from different distances and with different cameras or settings.

So, you pick the globe off your desk and alter it.

Thanks for the support!

You knew what you are doing is the difference.

If you are trying to show how NASA does it though, I doubt you are on to the truth...

[Tumeni]

You and I can also directly observe the Earth to be flat through experimentation, rather than by looking at pretty pictures of circles.

You and I can directly observe it to be Not Flat. I can show you how, but previous postings offering to show such method tend to go unanswered.

[Tumeni]

So, you pick the globe off your desk and alter it.

What has he "altered" ?

[AATW]

So, you pick the globe off your desk and alter it.

No.

I took 3 pictures of it and didn't alter any of them. OK, I cropped them. And I resized them so they weren't 3000 pixels across.
But that isn't altering them in the way you are claiming NASA alter images.
There are no filters, I haven't adjusted anything about the images - brightness or contrast or anything.
Those pictures are as I took them.

Do they all look the same? Does Africa look the same size with respect to the globe?
No, it doesn't. And that's the sort of inconsistency that FE people often jump on.
"Aha!", they say, "That shows that these images are faked and they're not even done consistently."

But actually it's as simple as this - if you take two pictures of a globe - one from fairly close and the other zoomed in from far away - then the results will look different. Landmasses will look like they're different shapes or sizes. Not because of images being altered, simply because of geometry. The first two pictures prove that.

The 3rd image was taken simply to demonstrate that if you change the camera settings then the colouring looks different. That should be fairly obvious but it's another thing that FE people dishonestly use as "proof" that the images are faked.

The basic FE argument is "if these are really all pictures of the globe then why don't they all look the same? The fact they don't proves they're all fake".

I've just driven a coach and horses through that argument. Pictures of the same object taken from different angles or distances or with different camera settings don't all look the same. That does not mean they are not genuinely images of the same object.

[AATW]

You and I can also directly observe the Earth to be flat through experimentation

If that is true then why does the prevailing view in science continue to be that the earth is a sphere?

[ChrisTP]

You've used the opposite mindset when asked about how we know mars is a globe, because it has been observed to be a spheroid.

You're once again jumping to unkind conclusions without thinking. I suspect you misunderstood what I meant by observation, and how that term is generally used here. You and I can directly observe Mars to be spherical, not look at pretty pictures of circles. You and I can also directly observe the Earth to be flat through experimentation, rather than by looking at pretty pictures of circles.

I conceeded that you and I couldn't simply go take the photos ourselves but again this comes down to the fact that we are not in a position to take those pictures while others are. Much like how a judge in a courtroom wasn't in a position to take video evidence of someone being mugged, but someone else could have been in the unique position to do so. The evidence still exists and wouldn't just be ignored because the judge couldn't take the footage themselves.

Again, I get that you'd prefer to ignore evidence you can't gather for youself first hand but you've also said you you don't think for sure that NASA are lying. At some point you can only go down two roads;

Road A; NASA and other space agencies took photos of earth and it is clearly a globe.
Road B; NASA and other agencies have lied and faked all photo and video evidence, thus a conspiracy is born.

Your current road is secret road C; Ignore the evidence you didn't gather yourself. This road doesn't change A or B, one of those has to be true. You're currently petering on the edge of A and B (excuse the pun) and you will have to land on one of them eventually, otherwise you'll never come to a conclusion. You can do all the tests and say the earth is flat in conclusion, but other people have done tests to show the earth is a globe. Photo evidence at this point is kind of needed, just like how in my example, someone needed to come foward to prove the alleged mugger was in fact the mugger.

I'm not coming from a bad place here Pete, if I am to understand your point of view I have to make assumptions about your meaning based directly on what you say. You're guilty of doing this too (like calling me a zealot every chance you get, even though that just isn't the case since I don't care if the earth is flat or spherical, I just care what information people are giving out about the supposed truth).

[Pete Svarrior]

Again, I get that you'd prefer to ignore evidence you can't gather for youself first hand but you've also said you you don't think for sure that NASA are lying.

Indeed. If there wasn't much other evidence available, I'd have to seriously reconsider this. Luckily, there are plenty of ways we can deduce it one way or the other experimentally. I don't pay much attention to the question of photographs because more reliable options are available to me.

[AATW]

Again, I get that you'd prefer to ignore evidence you can't gather for youself first hand but you've also said you you don't think for sure that NASA are lying.

Indeed. If there wasn't much other evidence available, I'd have to seriously reconsider this. Luckily, there are plenty of ways we can deduce it one way or the other experimentally. I don't pay much attention to the question of photographs because more reliable options are available to me.

Ah, but are those other options more reliable? Doesn't that depend on your competence at doing experiments and understanding the results?
Again, the prevailing view in science is that the earth is a sphere. So either:
1) The whole of science is wrong and you and a tiny minority of others (many of whom, let's face it, can't science their way out of a paper bag) are correct or
2) You have made a mistake in your experiments or your interpretation of the results.

Even if your general philosophy is that checking things out for yourself is preferable (not entirely unreliable), the plethora of photos and video of the earth from space by multiple countries, some showing a crescent earth, some showing the earth rotating, should surely make you to pause to consider that option 2 is possible.

[Pete Svarrior]

Ah, but are those other options more reliable? Doesn't that depend on your competence at doing experiments and understanding the results?
Again, the prevailing view in science is that the earth is a sphere. So either:

It does. That's why I'm very careful when interpreting my results, and why I generally don't put much stock in what certain FE'ers say. In the end of the day, it's always a double-edged sword.

[Tumeni]

Doesn't that depend on your competence at doing experiments and understanding the results?

It does. That's why I'm very careful when interpreting my results ...

Your results from ... what experiments?

[AATW]

Doesn't that depend on your competence at doing experiments and understanding the results?

It does. That's why I'm very careful when interpreting my results ...

Your results from ... what experiments?

Aye, there’s the rub...

Obviously it’s a bit unfair to preempt Pete’s reply but from past experience of talking to Pete, he is reluctant or even unwilling to share the results of his experiments, he instead urges people to do their own.

Now, the second part of that is not unreasonable. Testing thing out for yourself is not in itself a bad idea, with the caveat that not everyone has to same ability to. But doing your own tests is not mutually exclusive to documenting what you do and sharing your results. Doing this is the whole reason science has progressed. Pete has done some tests and the results led him to the conclusion that the earth is flat. I believe he is mistaken but I don’t know why he came to the wrong conclusion because I haven’t seen his method or results. Did he make a mistake in his method or interpretation? I’ve no idea. It’s by publishing results and peer review that progress is made. Otherwise if two people do their own tests, one comes to the conclusion that the earth is flat and the other the earth is round then who is right? How can anyone know?

The whole FE philosophy seems to be for people to do their own tests and come to their own conclusions. But the failure to collaborate and share/review results leads to the mess of contradictory FE models we see.

[Pete Svarrior]

We do collaborate and share results among ourselves. That's how our write-up evolves in the Wiki, and how FE is continuously growing in popularity (as much as you love to deny that).

Your complaint is that you want to be involved in the process, and we don't want you to be. Or, well, I don't. I discuss my findings more thoroughly with people I trust to be helpful. Overzealous RE fanboys just don't fall into that category. For what it's worth, neither do overzealous FE fanboys.

[ChrisTP]

Do you worry that you may have the opposite effect by choosing very selectively who you collaborate with? As in, shutting out people who will disagree in favour of people who will agree (yes men)? In the scientific community everyone who publishes papers for peer review is open to scrutiny to all kinda of people. Not that I'm saying this is what you are actually doing but it is potentially possible you have done this simply by choosing to collaborate and share with people with very similar mindsets and world views.

EDIT: to add to this, why not publish the experiments and results anyway and just ignore the "zealots"? That way at least we can see how you've come to the conclusion whether we like it or not.

[GoldenEagle]

We do collaborate and share results among ourselves. That's how our write-up evolves in the Wiki, and how FE is continuously growing in popularity (as much as you love to deny that).

Your complaint is that you want to be involved in the process, and we don't want you to be. Or, well, I don't. I discuss my findings more thoroughly with people I trust to be helpful. Overzealous RE fanboys just don't fall into that category. For what it's worth, neither do overzealous FE fanboys.

How can there be meaningful & spirated dialogue and debate where we can poke holes in each others arguments, if you say that you are only willing to collaborate and share results amongst yourselves, as Flat Earthers. This forum, and others as well, is meant to drive debate and dialogue... at least is what I thought.

It is true that people should read the wiki before asking entry level questions already found in the wiki. And, that many times I suspect you have to deal with this a lot and it get's repetitive.

But, I think to engage in a spirated debate and then kind of say that you''re only willing to collaborate with like minded people defeats the whole purpose of inviting people to these forums to debate.

The write-ups evolve in the wiki not so much because you're garnering or including "bi-partisan" data and observation from Round Earthers, but because of selective collaboration with only like minded people which then doesn't make the wiki that credible.

You also made the comment that the FE is continuously growing in popularity. I suspect that it could be true or that maybe it kind of fluctuates over time, but just because a movement might be growing (or not growing) it doesn't prove that it's a fact (or not a fact). It's kind of irrelevant.

[AATW]

We do collaborate and share results among ourselves. That's how our write-up evolves in the Wiki, and how FE is continuously growing in popularity (as much as you love to deny that).

Can you really not see the limitations of that approach? You are sharing results amongst people who already believe the earth is flat.
That obviously creates the danger of making an echo chamber. And fine, there may be big disagreements within the community about lots of things but do any of you challenge the underlying premise that the earth is flat? Maybe some do but you just have to look at the way Tom unquestioningly accepts anything which he thinks backs up FE and scrutinises to death anything which does not. A lot of FE people, once "converted", are not open to the possibility that they may have got things wrong (for the record, I think you are open to that possibility).

As for continuously growing in popularity, I don't know how to measure that. A couple of searches on Google Trends, the top on "flat earth" and the bottom on "the flat earth society" over the last 5 years actually show a decline in searches over the last year or two after increases before that.

Your complaint is that you want to be involved in the process, and we don't want you to be. Or, well, I don't. I discuss my findings more thoroughly with people I trust to be helpful.

I want to understand how you came to what I believe is a wrong conclusion. And you shouldn't look for people to be helpful. You should look for people to challenge and scrutinise your methods and results, check your workings, so to speak. I'd suggest that both RE and FE people could do that.

[JSS]

So, you pick the globe off your desk and alter it.

Thanks for the support!

You knew what you are doing is the difference.

If you are trying to show how NASA does it though, I doubt you are on to the truth...

I'm curious how you came to the conclusion he picked up the globe and altered it?

He took a picture, backed up, and took another picture.

He never even touched the globe.

It's a perfect demonstration of how spheres can look very different close up and far away.

This is trivial to try yourself with your phone and anything round. You should try it and post the results here, it's a very easy experiment to conduct. Anyone with a camera can do it.

I'll do the same. My example isn't as good because I don't own a globe but you can clearly see the two images look different, but are the same bottle. The one on the left is close up, the one on the right from further away. You can see on the picture on the right there is more showing on the edges. White letting is visible on both sides but not on the left picture.  Also the shape of the wings appear to look different.

I can assure you, I didn't touch the bottle between the two pictures.