The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: GoldenEagle on March 28, 2020, 11:14:49 PM
-
Hi,
With the Zetetic method of observation and experimentation to get to truth, what is the critical thought process amongst the Flat Earth community to determine which pictures/ photos they believe are real vs. fake?
For example, in another post regarding ice wall discussion, a picture of a small section of an Antarctic ice wall was provided from a Flat Earther, that was taken from on-line content. The immediate assumption from FE'er is that it is real.
On the flip side, on-line content showing pictures of Earth from space or pictures on the moon are immediately deemed from FE'ers as fake with a conspiracy theory behind it, but no real proof.
Thank you.
-
On the flip side, on-line content showing pictures of Earth from space or pictures on the moon are immediately deemed from FE'ers as fake with a conspiracy theory behind it, but no real proof.
This statement is false.
I would strongly recommend that you familiarise yourself with the movement before you choose to comment on it. Just airing your assumptions and imagination is unlikely to gather much attention.
-
Which part about the statement is false? FE'ers do claim photos from the moon and from space are false and thus a conspiracy is needed to explain the photos that the government claim are real. Is it the "no real proof" part that you claim false in the statement? I'm not trying to pick a fight with you on this one just understanding where you're coming from on the topic.
-
FE'ers do claim photos from the moon and from space are false
This part.
The argument is not that all claim images are false, but rather that they're not particularly trustworthy due to their unverifiable nature. Further to that, they are rarely conclusive either way even if we ignored their other problems.
The main problem with photographic evidence is not that it's some spooky conspiracy, but that it's simply a waste of everyone's time.
Our FAQ currently seems to be doing a poor job of explaining this (it over-focuses on how easy it would be to manipulate a photo, rather than how hard it would be to verify one), so I appreciate we may not have helped the confusion. I'll try to adjust the wording later today.
-
Our FAQ ... (it over-focuses on how easy it would be to manipulate a photo, rather than how hard it would be to verify one) ...
Please explain, either here or there, why you think it is "hard" to verify them...
-
Please explain, either here or there, why you think it is "hard" to verify them...
Because going to space as a private citizen is hard.
Tumeni, you've been here a while. These entry-level questions are an obvious attempt at obstruction from you. Crawl back into your cave and let others have a discussion.
-
Because going to space as a private citizen is hard.
So are a number of other endeavours, none of which seem to find a lack of acceptance from the FE community.
Photos from space are disbelieved without personal "private-citizen" verification, but when it comes to (for instance), the setting of a land-speed record, water-speed record, or other such, this is seen from afar, and third-party accounts, photos, video, even the reporting by Guiness, are all accepted at face value. I could name a host of other scientific achievements, all outwith the scope of the private citizen, which are also taken at face value, without verification.
Yet the "I need to verify it for myself" attitude persists amongst the FEers... Why is it this topic in particular that brings out this attitude?
-
Hi,
With the Zetetic method of observation and experimentation to get to truth, what is the critical thought process amongst the Flat Earth community to determine which pictures/ photos they believe are real vs. fake?
For example, in another post regarding ice wall discussion, a picture of a small section of an Antarctic ice wall was provided from a Flat Earther, that was taken from on-line content. The immediate assumption from FE'er is that it is real.
On the flip side, on-line content showing pictures of Earth from space or pictures on the moon are immediately deemed from FE'ers as fake with a conspiracy theory behind it, but no real proof.
Thank you.
I would surmise the zetetic method as applied to pictures is to take note of the difference between the words, "picture," and "image."
NASA generally releases "images."
-
I would surmise the zetetic method as applied to pictures is to take note of the difference between the words, "picture," and "image."
NASA generally releases "images."
I'm interested to know what you see as the distinction between those things, do you regard one as more valid than the other and if so, why?
FE people often jump excitedly on NASA admitting they often make composite images which always seems strange to me. Every time you use the panorama function on your phone you are creating a composite image. That doesn't mean the image is fake.
-
If we are going to update the FAQ I always thought that it should clarify that we believe that government space claims are, indeed, evidence for a round world. But we also believe that the various things suggesting chicanery is also evidence.
That answers the first frequently asked question of "how is this not evidence???". Perhaps the answer can be expanded on as well.
-
I would surmise the zetetic method as applied to pictures is to take note of the difference between the words, "picture," and "image." NASA generally releases "images."
Generally? So not always, then?
Seriously, what do you define as the difference between the two?
Are you expecting all pictures from space to be taken on roll film, sheet film, or glass plates?
-
On the flip side, on-line content showing pictures of Earth from space or pictures on the moon are immediately deemed from FE'ers as fake with a conspiracy theory behind it, but no real proof.
This statement is false.
I would strongly recommend that you familiarise yourself with the movement before you choose to comment on it. Just airing your assumptions and imagination is unlikely to gather much attention.
Pete,
I think you're slicing and dicing my words and so l'll try to be more exacting in my question.
I know you know what I am trying ask and so hopefully this works better:
Within this site, numerous times mentioned that you can't always trust what you see on the internet.
The Zetetic method is about observing with the senses and experimentation to test theories and get to facts.
So far, so good.
What I see is Zetetic Council members / Flat Earth believers (like Tom) / and or the Wiki that proport to extol the virtues of observing with the senses and experimentation. But, at the same time, guilty of posting or leveraging photos / images / etc.. from the internet to support and help back the Flat Earth theory.
Both of these things are a direct contradiction to each other.
-
Hi,
With the Zetetic method of observation and experimentation to get to truth, what is the critical thought process amongst the Flat Earth community to determine which pictures/ photos they believe are real vs. fake?
For example, in another post regarding ice wall discussion, a picture of a small section of an Antarctic ice wall was provided from a Flat Earther, that was taken from on-line content. The immediate assumption from FE'er is that it is real.
On the flip side, on-line content showing pictures of Earth from space or pictures on the moon are immediately deemed from FE'ers as fake with a conspiracy theory behind it, but no real proof.
Thank you.
I would surmise the zetetic method as applied to pictures is to take note of the difference between the words, "picture," and "image."
NASA generally releases "images."
How do you know which are pictures and which are images?
-
So are a number of other endeavours, none of which seem to find a lack of acceptance from the FE community.
That's a nice unqualified assertion you've made there. It happens to be completely false.
I trust your question of "why are space photos hard to verify?" has been answered to your satisfaction, given you had no objections that actually pertained to my point. I will ask once more, politely for now, that you stop wasting everyone's time.
Zetetic Council members
Don't use terms you don't understand. It's a bad look for you. If you want to say Tom, just say Tom. And probably direct your question to him instead of being vague.
But, at the same time, guilty of posting or leveraging photos / images / etc.. from the internet to support and help back the Flat Earth theory.
Anyone who does that is being silly, regardless of which tribe they happen to support. I'm not sure what else I could do to help you on that front.
-
So are a number of other endeavours, none of which seem to find a lack of acceptance from the FE community.
That's a nice unqualified assertion you've made there. It happens to be completely false.
I trust your question of "why are space photos hard to verify?" has been answered to your satisfaction, given you had no objections that actually pertained to my point. I will ask once more, politely for now, that you stop wasting everyone's time.
Zetetic Council members
Don't use terms you don't understand. It's a bad look for you. If you want to say Tom, just say Tom. And probably direct your question to him instead of being vague.
But, at the same time, guilty of posting or leveraging photos / images / etc.. from the internet to support and help back the Flat Earth theory.
Anyone who does that is being silly, regardless of which tribe they happen to support. I'm not sure what else I could do to help you on that front.
What direct knowledge or fact-based evidence do flat Earthers have that pictures from space showing a round earth are fake?
Also, what direct knowledge or fact-based evidence do Flat Eathers have that space travel by man never happened / that space travel, the moon landing, etc.. was an elaborate hoax?
-
I would surmise the zetetic method as applied to pictures is to take note of the difference between the words, "picture," and "image."
NASA generally releases "images."
I'm interested to know what you see as the distinction between those things, do you regard one as more valid than the other and if so, why?
The distinction is one is real and the other is not.
FE people often jump excitedly on NASA admitting they often make composite images which always seems strange to me. Every time you use the panorama function on your phone you are creating a composite image. That doesn't mean the image is fake.
Anything that does not depict reality is fake.
-
Hi,
With the Zetetic method of observation and experimentation to get to truth, what is the critical thought process amongst the Flat Earth community to determine which pictures/ photos they believe are real vs. fake?
For example, in another post regarding ice wall discussion, a picture of a small section of an Antarctic ice wall was provided from a Flat Earther, that was taken from on-line content. The immediate assumption from FE'er is that it is real.
On the flip side, on-line content showing pictures of Earth from space or pictures on the moon are immediately deemed from FE'ers as fake with a conspiracy theory behind it, but no real proof.
Thank you.
I would surmise the zetetic method as applied to pictures is to take note of the difference between the words, "picture," and "image."
NASA generally releases "images."
How do you know which are pictures and which are images?
NASA generally informs you which are images.
Most of NASA's stuff are images created by things such as scanners, not point and shoot cameras.
Generally? So not always, then?
Correct.
Seriously, what do you define as the difference between the two?
One is a picture taken by a camera, the other is an image not taken by a camera.
Are you expecting all pictures from space to be taken on roll film, sheet film, or glass plates?
Nope. I have no expectations.
-
Most of NASA's stuff are images created by things such as scanners, not point and shoot cameras.
Most? So you accept that some of their output is from "point and shoot cameras"?
However ... I have a scanner next to my desk. If I place my hand on the scanner glass, and start the scanner, I end up with a scan of my hand. If I pick up my phone or camera, and press the shutter to take a photo of my hand, I still end up with a scan of it. One focuses an optical device on segments of a full-size scanner glass, the other focuses the scene through a lens onto an optical device with a matrix of optical receptors.
Both results are taken from a real hand. So I don't see how you justify the rejection of the scanned one, simply because a scanner has been used.
-
Most of NASA's stuff are images created by things such as scanners, not point and shoot cameras.
Most? So you accept that some of their output is from "point and shoot cameras"?
It could be, but even that is altered, as is obvious to the objective viewer.
However ... I have a scanner next to my desk. If I place my hand on the scanner glass, and start the scanner, I end up with a scan of my hand. If I pick up my phone or camera, and press the shutter to take a photo of my hand, I still end up with a scan of it. One focuses an optical device on segments of a full-size scanner glass, the other focuses the scene through a lens onto an optical device with a matrix of optical receptors.
Both results are taken from a real hand. So I don't see how you justify the rejection of the scanned one, simply because a scanner has been used.
Well, a scanner on a satellite doesn't take a single image of a hand.
It runs over select areas and then turns out a stitched image.
-
It could be, but even that is altered, as is obvious to the objective viewer.
Is there any qualification to this, other than you say so?
Well, a scanner on a satellite doesn't take a single image of a hand.
It runs over select areas and then turns out a stitched image.
I can select the areas of my hand that I want to scan, could scan all fingers and thumb separately from the palm, and stitch them together later to make a stitched image.
If I did this, would you assert that I had not actually scanned it?
-
It could be, but even that is altered, as is obvious to the objective viewer.
Is there any qualification to this, other than you say so?
Yes.
NASA stating the images are altered.
Well, a scanner on a satellite doesn't take a single image of a hand.
It runs over select areas and then turns out a stitched image.
I can select the areas of my hand that I want to scan, could scan all fingers and thumb separately from the palm, and stitch them together later to make a stitched image.
If I did this, would you assert that I had not actually scanned it?
Of course you scanned it.
You just qualified in your post you scanned it.
-
Hi,
With the Zetetic method of observation and experimentation to get to truth, what is the critical thought process amongst the Flat Earth community to determine which pictures/ photos they believe are real vs. fake?
For example, in another post regarding ice wall discussion, a picture of a small section of an Antarctic ice wall was provided from a Flat Earther, that was taken from on-line content. The immediate assumption from FE'er is that it is real.
On the flip side, on-line content showing pictures of Earth from space or pictures on the moon are immediately deemed from FE'ers as fake with a conspiracy theory behind it, but no real proof.
Thank you.
I would surmise the zetetic method as applied to pictures is to take note of the difference between the words, "picture," and "image."
NASA generally releases "images."
How do you know which are pictures and which are images?
NASA generally informs you which are images.
Most of NASA's stuff are images created by things such as scanners, not point and shoot cameras.
Generally? So not always, then?
Correct.
Seriously, what do you define as the difference between the two?
One is a picture taken by a camera, the other is an image not taken by a camera.
Are you expecting all pictures from space to be taken on roll film, sheet film, or glass plates?
Nope. I have no expectations.
This line of reasoning without hard evidence / without facts is why it's so obvious that the Flat Earth Movement is steeped with Confirmation Bias.
It's a perfect example and a case study of stating things as fact without having direct knowledge, evidence, or facts. Thus, it is what a Confirmation Bias looks like.
-
This line of reasoning without hard evidence / without facts is why it's so obvious that the Flat Earth Movement is steeped with Confirmation Bias.
Do a search for facts on what type of imaging is available on satellites.
You will find I am the one who is correct here and you are the one who is clearly wrong.
It's a perfect example and a case study of stating things as fact without having direct knowledge or evidence. Its personal opinion that fits into the Flat Earth narrative and thus what Confirmation Bias looks like.
I agree you are not stating facts and have no direct contradictory evidence to anything I have written.
Hence the nature of your reply, which clearly lacks any substance.
-
Totallackey, so you take NASA's statements at face value and accept that photos they take are actually photos and images they have created are indeed images they've created? If so, what about the photos of the earth as a full image from extremely far away? Like this one;
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-camera-snaps-stunning-view-of-earth-and-moon-video/
The claim here is that it is in fact a photo according to NASA. Not a composite of many images or scanned data stitched together. If you deny this and call it fake, it's the same as claiming conspiracy, the same as claiming NASA and the US government are liars... Which is fine and all if you want to make that claim but you've been reluctant in the past to admit this.
Also verifiable by other countries scientists, so it isn't just NASA claiming this is a photo, other countries have snapped photos of earth from afar like China;
https://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2018/20180614-longjiang-2-earth-pics.html
So photos of earth from far away are verifiable. You could say it's a different angle or distance but it's really no different from say for example, me taking a photo out my apartment window of the nearby mountain, no one can take the same photo without my permission but other people can take photos from similar angles and distances and verify that you can infact take a photo of that mountain from that far.
-
Totallackey, so you take NASA's statements at face value and accept that photos they take are actually photos and images they have created are indeed images they've created? If so, what about the photos of the earth as a full image from extremely far away? Like this one;
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-camera-snaps-stunning-view-of-earth-and-moon-video/
The claim here is that it is in fact a photo according to NASA. Not a composite of many images or scanned data stitched together. If you deny this and call it fake, it's the same as claiming conspiracy, the same as claiming NASA and the US government are liars... Which is fine and all if you want to make that claim but you've been reluctant in the past to admit this.
Also verifiable by other countries scientists, so it isn't just NASA claiming this is a photo, other countries have snapped photos of earth from afar like China;
https://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2018/20180614-longjiang-2-earth-pics.html
So photos of earth from far away are verifiable. You could say it's a different angle or distance but it's really no different from say for example, me taking a photo out my apartment window of the nearby mountain, no one can take the same photo without my permission but other people can take photos from similar angles and distances and verify that you can infact take a photo of that mountain from that far.
And here is where we are going to differ.
You believe there is such a thing as outer space.
I do not.
"The Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) takes images of the sunlit side of Earth for various Earth science monitoring purposes in ten different channels from ultraviolet to near-infrared. Ozone and aerosol levels are monitored along with cloud dynamics, properties of the land, and vegetations."
Even the pictures supposedly take from a fictional million miles away are altered.
-
And here is where we are going to differ.
You believe there is such a thing as outer space.
I do not.
....which renders all of your arguments about types of imaging and photography from space totally moot.
It's as if you're arguing about seafaring methods of navigation, but you don't believe the oceans and seas exist.
Or quibbling about whether the lumberjack used a chainsaw or a handsaw when you don't believe there's a forest.
-
NASA stating the images are altered.
Right. But when you say altered. What do you mean and what do you see as the significance of that?
If you mean that the images they produce are not always what you'd see if you were where the craft they're taken from is then sure, that's true. Sometimes they're making images with only certain wavelengths for various reasons. Sometimes images are enhanced in various ways to make them clearer. You can do these sorts of things on your phone these days - you can apply a filter which means that if you take a selfie then it might look a bit airbrushed and wouldn't look like you. But...it doesn't mean that you weren't there when the selfie was taken. An image with a filter applied still requires you to be there. This is where things like "Aha! See! They admit it's a composite" make no sense.
Yeah. It's a composite. Of pictures they took from space. Like the panorama you took is a composite of photos you took...wherever you took them. You still needed to be there to take the photos.
-
And here is where we are going to differ.
You believe there is such a thing as outer space.
I do not.
....which renders all of your arguments about types of imaging and photography from space totally moot.
No it doesn't.
That is just ridiculous.
It's as if you're arguing about seafaring methods of navigation, but you don't believe the oceans and seas exist.
Again, setting up a strawman to knock it down.
Or quibbling about whether the lumberjack used a chainsaw or a handsaw when you don't believe there's a forest.
Nice try.
-
NASA stating the images are altered.
Right. But when you say altered. What do you mean and what do you see as the significance of that?
If you mean that the images they produce are not always what you'd see if you were where the craft they're taken from is then sure, that's true. Sometimes they're making images with only certain wavelengths for various reasons. Sometimes images are enhanced in various ways to make them clearer. You can do these sorts of things on your phone these days - you can apply a filter which means that if you take a selfie then it might look a bit airbrushed and wouldn't look like you. But...it doesn't mean that you weren't there when the selfie was taken. An image with a filter applied still requires you to be there. This is where things like "Aha! See! They admit it's a composite" make no sense.
Yeah. It's a composite. Of pictures they took from space. Like the panorama you took is a composite of photos you took...wherever you took them. You still needed to be there to take the photos.
Altered is altered.
Somebody from a position that has no clue about what anything looks like from the position where the image is supposedly captured applying their sense of what it should look like is nowhere near the analogy you offer.
I take a photo with my phone and applying filters and making a composite or panoramic view is fundamentally based on my having a more firm grasp of the subject matter.
-
I take a photo with my phone and applying filters and making a composite or panoramic view is fundamentally based on my having a more firm grasp of the subject matter.
No. It's fundamentally based on you being in front of the object you're taking a photo of.
When I took panoramas at the Grand Canyon I was able to do that because I was at the Grand Canyon. My camera did the clever bit, stitching the images together, but I still had to physically be there.
And this is completely different from me digitally making an image of the Grand Canyon somehow without actually being there.
I believe you are accusing NASA of doing the latter when actually they're doing the former.
And we do have plenty of photos of the whole earth which aren't composites going back as far as the Apollo missions.
-
What direct knowledge or fact-based evidence do flat Earthers have that pictures from space showing a round earth are fake?
You are not paying attention to what I'm saying. I told you in my first response here (and twice more afterwards) that this presumption of yours is false.
If you don't read my words, I won't waste my time writing them out for you. Show some basic courtesy, or be prepared to receive none back.
-
What direct knowledge or fact-based evidence do flat Earthers have that pictures from space showing a round earth are fake?
You are not paying attention to what I'm saying. I told you in my first response here (and twice more afterwards) that this presumption of yours is false.
If you don't read my words, I won't waste my time writing them out for you. Show some basic courtesy, or be prepared to receive none back.
I read what you said in your previous response that it's not that all claim images are false, but rather that they're not particularly trustworthy due to their unverifiable nature.
I get that.
But, then your fellow Flat Earthers like totallackey say things like: even the pictures supposedly taken from a fictional million miles away are altered.
So, totallackey is stating two things: that the pictures taken far away are fictitious and that they are altered.
How can Flat Earthers state this as a fact if to your point there is the aspect of unverifiable nature?
-
FE'ers do claim photos from the moon and from space are false
This part.
The argument is not that all claim images are false, but rather that they're not particularly trustworthy due to their unverifiable nature. Further to that, they are rarely conclusive either way even if we ignored their other problems.
Pictures of the Earth taken from far enough away unequivocally show the Earth to be a globe. And there are a lot. From Apollo missions, from DSCOVR, from geostationary satellites (not only NASA's)...
Someone who claims the Earth is flat also claims these pictures are false. That's a logical equivalence.
By contrapositive, someone who says these pictures might be real also says the Earth might be round.
-
FE'ers do claim photos from the moon and from space are false
This part.
The argument is not that all claim images are false, but rather that they're not particularly trustworthy due to their unverifiable nature. Further to that, they are rarely conclusive either way even if we ignored their other problems.
Pictures of the Earth taken from far enough away unequivocally show the Earth to be a globe. And there are a lot. From Apollo missions, from DSCOVR, from geostationary satellites (not only NASA's)...
Someone who claims the Earth is flat also claims these pictures are false. That's a logical equivalence.
By contrapositive, someone who says these pictures might be real also says the Earth might be round.
I'll elaborate a little on this.
Let's take for example the solar eclipse of December 26, 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_December_26,_2019).
It was independently captured by Russia's Elektro-L No.2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektro-L_No.2) and by Japan's Himawari 8 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himawari_8), both being satellites in a geostationary orbit.
You can find a movie made from the Japanese satellite's images on that day here : http://himawari8-dl.nict.go.jp/himawari8/movie/720/20191226_pifd.mp4 . You can also view an interactive animation here (http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/?sI=D531106&sD=1577338200000&sS=0&sNx=0&sNy=0&sL=-137&sT=-137&wW=275&wH=275) (disable shorelines for more clarity).
The Russians don't offer videos or interactive animations, just a FTP with their pictures : ftp://ftp.ntsomz.ru/ELECTRO_L_2/2019/December/26/ (relevant folders are 0600 through 0800).
We can verify that everything matches : the shape and movement of the clouds, the location of the eclipse. And these pictures are obviously only compatible with a round Earth model, and not compatible at all with any flat Earth model. They are very, very conclusive.
So, there are really only two options.
Option 1, these images are real, and not significantly altered other than for color enhancement. Which, a bit like HDR or color filters on your camera, can change things like contrast and make the picture generally look better, but will not show a cube where there is a sphere or a banana where there is an apple. The Earth is a globe, end of story.
Option 2, these images are fake, or at least have their geometry very significantly altered to match how it would look on a sphere. Then there is an international conspiracy that involves the Russian and Japanese governments to make everything look consistent.
It's anyone's choice to believe in and defend either option. But it's not logically possible to both claim the Earth is flat, and not to claim pictures taken from geostationary satellites are fake.
NB: I chose an eclipse because it's more spectacular and I like eclipses, but you could also check and compare for virtually any other time and date.
-
How can Flat Earthers state this as a fact if to your point there is the aspect of unverifiable nature?
I dunno, but I once met a RE'er who constantly mixed up velocity and acceleration. How can Round Earthers claim to be serious when they make such simple mistakes?!
To spell my point out to you: you're trying to project the views of an indivudual onto a movement, and demand that others defend those views. It's not gonna happen. If you have a problem with something TL said, take it up with TL.
-
How can Flat Earthers state this as a fact if to your point there is the aspect of unverifiable nature?
I dunno, but I once met a RE'er who constantly mixed up velocity and acceleration. How can Round Earthers claim to be serious when they make such simple mistakes?!
To spell my point out to you: you're trying to project the views of an indivudual onto a movement, and demand that others defend those views. It's not gonna happen. If you have a problem with something TL said, take it up with TL.
You asked the original question and then I replied to help clarify. And, now it seems your annoyed with my reply.
Your "I dunno" is clear to me and so hopefully your fellow Flat Earther (TL) can clarify.
I know that I will likely get a warning or get kicked off the site for saying this (and am ok with it)... but Pete, your only part of this FE movement because it makes you feel important and special as a moderator. But otherwise, you really don't bring much to the table. While I dont agree with Tom, I do have respect for him in that at least he joins in debates in a constructive manner. Your approach to a debate is you always seem annoyed and angry, too thin-skinned. You tend to nit pick questions as a kind of way to distract from the debate flow.
You always seem kind of angry.
-
You asked the original question and then I replied to help clarify.
I didn't. I haven't asked any questions here that weren't rhetorical.
And, now it seems your annoyed with my reply.
You mistake pointing out a glaring hole in your argument for an expression of annoyance. Try to separate ideas and beliefs from emotions, it will help you along here.
I know that I will likely get a warning or get kicked off the site for saying this (and am ok with it)... but Pete, your only part of this FE movement because it makes you feel important and special as a moderator. But otherwise, you really don't bring much to the table. While I dont agree with Tom, I do have respect for him in that at least he joins in debates in a constructive manner. Your approach to a debate is you always seem annoyed and angry, too thin-skinned. You tend to nit pick questions as a kind of way to distract from the debate flow.
You always seem kind of angry.
I assure you I rarely am angry when I post here (or, rather, that I normally avoid posting here if something upsets me). I don't dance around subjects, and when you say stupid things, I simply point it out. After 10 years of hearing RE'ers raise the same non-starter issues while thinking they're original, responding to them becomes a bit robotic for many of us. Try to read my posts in a matter-of-fact tone - it might help.
As to what I bring to the table, you haven't been here long enough to really be able to assess that. You're welcome to dislike my posts (but please express that in the appropriate board, and not in the middle of other threads), but there's much more to my work here than forum posting. I'd argue that this is the source of your confusion - you're trying to judge me by solely looking at a task I consider low priority.
That said, this place has some rules, and it's also my job to enforce them. If you want to make personal comments, take it to CN/AR. You're on three warnings, so mods will be able to issue short bans at their discretion now. I want to be super clear here: you are completely welcome to talk about how terrible I am and how much you think you're wItNeSsInG DK or whatever. But you are expected to do so in the right place, without disrupting an existing discussion thread. If you need help understanding the rules, drop me or one of the other mods a message, and we'll clarify.
-
I take a photo with my phone and applying filters and making a composite or panoramic view is fundamentally based on my having a more firm grasp of the subject matter.
No. It's fundamentally based on you being in front of the object you're taking a photo of.
Well, I don't know how you are going to have a more firm grasp of the subject matter at hand than by being an eyewitness to that which you are witnessing in front of your face.
When I took panoramas at the Grand Canyon I was able to do that because I was at the Grand Canyon. My camera did the clever bit, stitching the images together, but I still had to physically be there.
And this is completely different from me digitally making an image of the Grand Canyon somehow without actually being there.
I believe you are accusing NASA of doing the latter when actually they're doing the former.
And we do have plenty of photos of the whole earth which aren't composites going back as far as the Apollo missions.
Simply false.
Every image of the earth issued by NASA is altered.
-
Every image of the earth issued by NASA is altered.
...even the ones that were on the front pages of newspapers in 1969 to 1972, when the Apollo missions took place?
What alterations do you assert were done, beyond cropping and filtering for colour correction?
I have, in another room, a copy of Full Moon, published by Random House a good few years ago. The foreword states, that for publication, the team were given access to the original negatives and transparencies for scanning into publication format. So these weren't actually "issued by NASA" ....
-
Every image of the earth issued by NASA is altered.
...even the ones that were on the front pages of newspapers in 1969 to 1972, when the Apollo missions took place?
What alterations do you assert were done, beyond cropping and filtering for colour correction?
I have, in another room, a copy of Full Moon, published by Random House a good few years ago. The foreword states, that for publication, the team were given access to the original negatives and transparencies for scanning into publication format. So these weren't actually "issued by NASA" ....
As a flat earther, I hold the images were altered to depict a globe.
We aren't writing about a full moon here, but where did the images come from again?
-
As a flat earther, I hold the images were altered to depict a globe.
How would this be done, with an original negative or transparency film?
Surely if Random House had access to the originals, they would have noticed the originals were unaltered?
-
As a flat earther, I hold the images were altered to depict a globe.
How would this be done, with an original negative or transparency film?
Surely if Random House had access to the originals, they would have noticed the originals were unaltered?
I am totally unfamiliar with the book you are referencing.
Where did Random House access the originals?
-
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBeA7DRq89k
And once again you miss the point. 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. When a magazine picture is airbrushed you could say it's altering the original. But the person in the original picture still exists. The photographer was in front of that person when they took the photo.
These pictures and film from the Apollo 8 mission only exist because astronauts were there and taking footage of the globe earth.
-
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...
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.
-
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...
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.
Could you please elaborate? All the images I've seen were very consistent with the commonly accepted globe model. Do you have an example of images "not depicting the same thing"? Obviously, images taken from a different angle and a different distance will show different parts of the Earth.
Also, what about images released by other space agencies? European, Russian, Japanese, Indian...
Which ones have you found that are not consistent with a globe earth model such as seen, for exemple, at https://earth.google.com ?
-
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...
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.
Lets say I go outside right now in the morning and take a picture of the sky, then take another tonight after sunset. They will look completely different, does this mean they are fake and there is no sky?
Every picture of the Earth, taken from different distances, different seasons, different times of day, different angles, and different years will be unique. It's a big planet with weather and even human activities over decades like deforestation will be visible as changes.
Can you tell me what you expect pictures from space to look like? Should they all look exactly the same? What are you expecting to see?
-
Also different cameras/lenses will make a difference. If you're going to say that different pictures have different colours for the earth, I don't particularly care about that. If the picture of the shape of the earth is changing in each one then we have something to talk about.
-
If the picture of the shape of the earth is changing in each one then we have something to talk about.
I doubt you would. The shape of the Earth does change in pretty much every supposed picture of it, and yet the obvious RET-consistent explanation for it is simple optics.
-
If the picture of the shape of the earth is changing in each one then we have something to talk about.
I doubt you would. The shape of the Earth does change in pretty much every supposed picture of it, and yet the obvious RET-consistent explanation for it is simple optics.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. As previously mentioned, different angles and distances will obviously result in different images.
Once again: did anyone find any image taken from space that is not consistent with the commonly accepted globe model?
-
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Then it's time to pick up photography. How do you expect to have a discussion on something you don't understand the very basics of?
Once again: did anyone find any image taken from space that is not consistent with the commonly accepted globe model?
That depends on your definition of "consistent", but I'll humour you.
Has anyone found any image supposedly taken from space that is not consistent with the mainstream FE model?
-
You need to have the image, yes...
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.
Different cameras, different lenses, different distances, different position of observing craft, etc. etc.
Why would you expect them all to be the same?
-
.... I'll humour you.
Has anyone found any image supposedly taken from space that is not consistent with the mainstream FE model?
There seems to be a number of "mainstream FE models", for many flat-earthers, here and elsewhere, respond to queries with something along the lines of " .. but it depends on which model you consider", but .... I'll humour you.
Yes. Multiple images.
And videos. And films. And data.
-
The shape of the Earth does change in pretty much every supposed picture of it
Examples and citations, please.
-
If the picture of the shape of the earth is changing in each one then we have something to talk about.
I doubt you would. The shape of the Earth does change in pretty much every supposed picture of it, and yet the obvious RET-consistent explanation for it is simple optics.
In what way? Is it in a way that shows inconsistency to what is expected of a spheroid earth? What do you expect to see from a photo of earth instead? I ask because I've seen people (not you but randomflat earthers) say things like countries are depicted bigger or smaller in various photos, but this can be explained by distance of the camera used to take the picture. Is there an official photo out there taken of the earth by a government agency claimed to be a real photo that shows anything other than a picture of a globe shape? And if so, could you present it so we can compare?
-
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:
(https://i.ibb.co/5vw8pt3/Globe-Pictures.jpg)
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.
-
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Then it's time to pick up photography. How do you expect to have a discussion on something you don't understand the very basics of?
What I'm not sure I understand is what you meant. It's been mentioned by almost everyone: sure, images taken in different conditions will give a different result. Just like of any object, even down here on Earth. But unless you seriously alter a photo, you won't see a square where there actually is a circle.
Once again: did anyone find any image taken from space that is not consistent with the commonly accepted globe model?
That depends on your definition of "consistent", but I'll humour you.
"Not consistent" would be any picture that doesn't look like what it's supposed to look like if you take a picture of an oblate spheroidal Earth from space. Continents not being at the place they're expected to be for example.
Has anyone found any image supposedly taken from space that is not consistent with the mainstream FE model?
Oh, so now there actually is a mainstream FE model? Great news.
And yes, many images taken from space do show for example the Antarctic, which is a hoax in the popular monopole model : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Satellite_pictures_of_Antarctica. Or show phases of the Earth, that are only compatible with a globe : https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/ . Or show how it spins : https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ .
I can't see a way to reconcile these images with any FE model. Can you?
-
Yes. Multiple images.
And videos. And films. And data.
Please, go on. Don't leave us on a cliffhanger.
But unless you seriously alter a photo, you won't see a square where there actually is a circle.
And yet when shown a circle, you proudly assert it's a globe. The dissonance here is striking.
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.
In short: yes, under EA, the photographs you presented depict exactly what one would expect. I don't see anything to "reconcile" here.
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.
-
But unless you seriously alter a photo, you won't see a square where there actually is a circle.
And yet when shown a circle, you proudly assert it's a globe. The dissonance here is striking.
No, it is not.
Although the globe may LOOK like a circle when rendered in a photograph, humankind knows it is a globe from the assemblage of other photos from differing distances and angles, from data accumulated over the last 60 years or so of space flight, and from earthbound measurements since the 1600s.
-
In short: yes, under EA, the photographs you presented depict exactly what one would expect. I don't see anything to "reconcile" here.
You'd probably want to think about how these photos exist.
The general way multiple countries (say they) launch craft that take these sort of photos is by launching something into orbit around a spinning globe.
Plus there are visual cues that indicate that these are not pictures of a flat surface, you can see the way land masses and clouds wrap around the outside of a ball.
And it's not hard to find timelapse video from craft showing the earth as a spinning globe.
-
In short: yes, under EA, the photographs you presented depict exactly what one would expect. I don't see anything to "reconcile" here.
You'd probably want to think about how these photos exist.
The general way multiple countries (say they) launch craft that take these sort of photos is by launching something into orbit around a spinning globe.
Plus there are visual cues that indicate that these are not pictures of a flat surface, you can see the way land masses and clouds wrap around the outside of a ball.
And it's not hard to find timelapse video from craft showing the earth as a spinning globe.
Here is a good one, from the NASA satellite about a million miles away. An entire year of photographs, taken every few hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://i.ibb.co/5vw8pt3/Globe-Pictures.jpg)
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...
-
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.
-
So, you pick the globe off your desk and alter it.
What has he "altered" ?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://i.ibb.co/qRZbxzt/Google-Trends.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
That's always a risk. I can only assure you that I don't spend much time talking to people who unconditionally agree with me.
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.
I've tried it. I still do, rarely, just to keep myself in check. It just leads to extremely unproductive threads with the zealots endlessly demanding follow-up answers. And if at any point I choose to drop out of the conversation, we're back to square one. "Ooh, why don't you spend your every living moment explaining yourself? Do you fear scrutiny?" It's not worth trying to appease the unappeasable.
Can you really not see the limitations of that approach? You are sharing results amongst people who already believe the earth is flat.
That's not what I said, and it's not the case.
As for continuously growing in popularity, I don't know how to measure that.
This is actually a great example of the unappeasable never being appeased. I've explained our growth time and time again. I've linked newspaper articles, poll results, and I've explained how Google Trends surges are irrelevant (three days of people visiting in droves because haha funny Elon tweet does not a meaningful increase make, but it does mean that the site suddenly surges in Google results, and ends up getting more views for some time. Those are usually bounces - someone visits and leaves immediately without doing anything. Other times, they're quality visits from schoolkids posting dinosaur memes). And yet here you are, still asking the same question. There is absolutely no point in engaging you on it. You're not interested in the answer, you're just looking for things to poke.
-
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.
I've tried it. I still do, rarely, just to keep myself in check. It just leads to extremely unproductive threads with the zealots endlessly demanding follow-up answers. And if at any point I choose to drop out of the conversation, we're back to square one. "Ooh, why don't you spend your every living moment explaining yourself? Do you fear scrutiny?" It's not worth trying to appease the unappeasable.
To me the reactions you are getting are obvious. To any non flat earther, hearing about experiments that prove the earth is flat is incredibly intriguing.
Of course we want to hear about them, learn how they work and what the results are. Maybe even try and replicate them.
And of course we would want to debate them. Why wouldn't we? People are curious, it's human nature to want to learn and explore.
And also of course, you will get people who have heated arguments about it and get rude and point out perceived flaws in mean ways. You are challenging core beliefs here, you're going to get plenty of pushback.
-
And of course we would want to debate them. Why wouldn't we? People are curious, it's human nature to want to learn and explore.
Please, try to at least pretend you've read and understood the discussion up until now. I already explained why I won't "debate" it with people whom I consider to be a waste of my time. The current question is "why not publish the experiments and results anyway and just ignore the 'zealots'?"
-
And of course we would want to debate them. Why wouldn't we? People are curious, it's human nature to want to learn and explore.
Please, try to at least pretend you've read and understood the discussion up until now. I already explained why I won't "debate" it with people whom I consider to be a waste of my time. The current question is "why not publish the experiments and results anyway and just ignore the 'zealots'?"
I've been following the whole discussion with interest, because I do want answers to the question in the subject. I've read every word.
I just wanted to suggest some reasons why you get the reactions that you do.
Why not publish your methods and experimental results on the TFES Wiki? You don't have to engage anyone here about them if you don't want to, but they would be available for others to look at.
-
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.
No...wait...yes...
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.
Where did I place limitations on the way NASA alters their images.
They alter 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.
It remains altered, regardless of how...
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.
No, everything you wrote actually supports the images are altered.
-
You're not interested in the answer, you're just looking for things to poke.
I am interested, but I think it's a complicated question to answer.
Yes, you've provided polls and there is no doubt that interest in FE is far higher now than, say 10 years ago.
I don't see that as a validation of your theories, it's simply easier to spread any ideas these days but that's a separate debate.
Whether there is a continuing growth though or whether it's just a phase, even if it's quite a long one, is a harder question to answer.
I am interested in the answer but I think it's a hard question to answer.
I'm also interested in how you came to the conclusion that the earth is flat. I understand it's been a journey for you so that's probably not a simple answer but when McToon interviewed you, you said something about being able to "see too low". I'd be very interested to see your examples about that to "check your workings" and I might even be inclined to do my own tests. The Bishop experiment where it's just him saying a thing and providing no evidence for it, or even that he even did the experiment does not pique my interest. A well documented experiment might.
-
Totallackey, So what if an image was cropped? What is your point Totallackey? Why would resizing, cropping or differing lense types for a photo of earth mean it's suddenly not a real photo of a globe and why even then does that equate to the earth somehow being flat because of this? Are the images above showing examples of this suddenly now fake because they were 'altered' and thus the model globe is actually flat instead? In what reality does that make any sense? A cropped photo of a football is still a photo of a football. A resized photo of a rugby ball is still photo of a rugby ball. Zooming way in to the surface of a basketball doesn't make the basketball flat. doing these things does not make the shape of the object drastically change and applying common sense you can easily understand how optics can change with perspectives.
-
Totallackey, So what if an image was cropped? What is your point Totallackey? Why would resizing, cropping or differing lense types for a photo of earth mean it's suddenly not a real photo of a globe and why even then does that equate to the earth somehow being flat because of this? Are the images above showing examples of this suddenly now fake because they were 'altered' and thus the model globe is actually flat instead? In what reality does that make any sense? A cropped photo of a football is still a photo of a football. A resized photo of a rugby ball is still photo of a rugby ball. Zooming way in to the surface of a basketball doesn't make the basketball flat. doing these things does not make the shape of the object drastically change and applying common sense you can easily understand how optics can change with perspectives.
The point is you are taking the photo of the football.
Therefore, you know if the picture is an accurate representation of the football.
And could offer an opinion as to whether another photo of a football (even one that is flat) is an accurate representation.
You haven't been to space and :
1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there
2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.
-
You haven't been to space and :
1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there
2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.
Neither have you? ??? Use these arguments on yourself, You've not seen the whole flat earth from space, so you are in no position to claim it flat under your own argument. You look how a window a see land or water, your vision is extremely limited and easily tricked, why should you or I rely on your 'senses' for this extremely limited scope? What about the people who have gone to space and seen earth? They're in a better position than you or me to claim the shape. They're more educated than us, they've more experience than us. The people who sent up their very own built equipment and took photos know what they're doing, they have achieved taking a photo from space without being there and the photo came back showing a ball earth. You can either claim they're all liars, ignore them and believe your own limited scope with your inaccurate senses or you can just admit you're wrong. There is no middle ground here. You don't believe in space but people have gone and taken pictures. They have more evidence than you. They have more credentials, I think I'd believe them over you, someone who has claimed;
A) The ISS can't be seen with the naked eye (it can be seen with then naked eye if you aren't blind).
B) Rockets are holograms. lol
You claim this stuff with no evidence, all the while saying you have some kind of near infinite vision to see the whole earth is flat from your window. Cool story bro.
-
You haven't been to space and :
1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there
2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.
Fairly reasonable, but my photos were a rebuttal to a specific point which is made by FE, summed up by this image:
(https://dasg7xwmldix6.cloudfront.net/episodes/681203_zyYqcRxZ.jpg)
The basic point is "Aha! See? America is different sizes! The oceans look different colours!" and thus all the images are declared fake.
There is a school of thought which says if you were going to fake images of the globe earth from space you'd probably make sure it was done consistently...
And as my photos prove, you can take several photos of the same object from different distances and with different camera settings and the photos look different. Landmasses look different, sizes and shapes. Things look to be different colours. That is NOT evidence of fakery, it's simply that different photos of the same thing can look different. It depends on the angle you take the photo from, the distance and camera settings.
-
I feel that it's a waste of time talking to many people here as well. Someone interested in the truth wouldn't be shouting "that's an illusion!!", but rather, "how can I find out if it's an illusion?"
They won't and can't say that, because they have a belief system. You can say "that's an illusion!" to literally anything. Not really worth giving much consideration to.
-
The point is you are taking the photo of the football.
Therefore, you know if the picture is an accurate representation of the football.
And could offer an opinion as to whether another photo of a football (even one that is flat) is an accurate representation.
You haven't been to space and :
1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there
2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.
I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?
If I tell you the CPU in your phone is made up of a billion tiny switches so small you can't see them, all flicking on and off a billion times a second and it's made from silicon, do you think I'm telling the truth? If not, what exactly do you think is in your phone? You certainly never saw a 10nm transistor with your own eyes, yet I assume you believe that the CPU in your phone is a computer and not a demon or magic feather? Do you believe silicon chips are actually made of silicon, even though you never opened your phone and ran tests?
Seriously, I'm curious how far you take this viewpoint. Is the whole world a mystery, other than your room and the view out your window? I find that very strange way to go about life. We as a species would still be banging rocks together in caves if we didn't have the capability to learn information second hand.
-
I feel that it's a wast of time talking to many people here as well. Someone interested in the truth wouldn't be shouting "that's an illusion!!", but rather, "how can I find out if it's an illusion?"
They won't and can't say that, because they have a belief system. You can say "that's an illusion!" to literally anything. Not really worth giving much consideration to.
I don't recall anyone saying the word "illusion" in the 5 pages of this thread so far. Can you be more specific, please? What I see is a lot of talk about pictures and how to prove they are real or fake, and examples of what distance and perspective do when taking a picture.
I posted some pictures myself to show that it's an easy experiment to do yourself to back up the (much better quality) globe pictures. I literally performed an experiment, posted the results, and explained how to do it yourself.
How is that not asking, "how can I find out if it's an illusion?"
It's exactly what we should be doing. Performing experiments, asking questions, coming to conclusions, and accepting them.
-
I feel that it's a waste of time talking to many people here as well. Someone interested in the truth wouldn't be shouting "that's an illusion!!", but rather, "how can I find out if it's an illusion?"
They won't and can't say that, because they have a belief system. You can say "that's an illusion!" to literally anything. Not really worth giving much consideration to.
This seems to have been your argument a few times before... How on a flat earth do you explain footage of large ships sinking below the horizon in the ocean? It's explained on a spherical earth by obviosly being spherical and sure, there's a wibble in the air but it's still a consistent effect. Go ahead and explain it without using mirages (a form of illusion).
-
You haven't been to space and :
1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there
2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.
Neither have you? ??? Use these arguments on yourself,...
I do every day.
You've not seen the whole flat earth from space, so you are in no position to claim it flat under your own argument.
You are correct.
I have not been to space.
I do not make the claim the earth is flat on the basis of my having been to space.
I make the claim the earth is flat on the basis of me having been on earth nigh on 60 years.
You look how a window a see land or water, your vision is extremely limited and easily tricked, why should you or I rely on your 'senses' for this extremely limited scope?
Because if you do not rely on your senses bad things generally happen.
What about the people who have gone to space and seen earth?
What about them?
They're in a better position than you or me to claim the shape.
No, they're not.
They're more educated than us, they've more experience than us.
No, they're not more educated than me. They do have different experience than me.
The people who sent up their very own built equipment and took photos know what they're doing, they have achieved taking a photo from space without being there and the photo came back showing a ball earth.
No it hasn't.
It shows a circle.
You can either claim they're all liars, ignore them and believe your own limited scope with your inaccurate senses or you can just admit you're wrong.
Geez, I am so happy you have offered me a choice!
I choose to call the people who have altered the images liars.
There is no middle ground here.
For you, it is obvious there is none.
I think if I write more word, you might be tempted to turn me in to the Gestapo or KGB...
You don't believe in space but people have gone and taken pictures.
That is what you believe.
They have more evidence than you.
That is what you believe.
They have more credentials, I think I'd believe them over you, someone who has claimed;
A) The ISS can't be seen with the naked eye (it can be seen with then naked eye if you aren't blind).
B) Rockets are holograms. lol
You claim this stuff with no evidence, all the while saying you have some kind of near infinite vision to see the whole earth is flat from your window. Cool story bro.
When did I ever ask for you to believe me?
What is your problem?
Why would I ask a RE-adherent who finds joy in hanging out on a FE forum to believe anything?
Why would I ask a RE-adherent to even think or behave rationally?
-
You haven't been to space and :
1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there
2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.
Fairly reasonable, but my photos were a rebuttal to a specific point which is made by FE, summed up by this image:
(https://dasg7xwmldix6.cloudfront.net/episodes/681203_zyYqcRxZ.jpg)
The basic point is "Aha! See? America is different sizes! The oceans look different colours!" and thus all the images are declared fake.
There is a school of thought which says if you were going to fake images of the globe earth from space you'd probably make sure it was done consistently...
And as my photos prove, you can take several photos of the same object from different distances and with different camera settings and the photos look different. Landmasses look different, sizes and shapes. Things look to be different colours. That is NOT evidence of fakery, it's simply that different photos of the same thing can look different. It depends on the angle you take the photo from, the distance and camera settings.
Actually, it is all evidence of fakery on the part of NASA.
-
The point is you are taking the photo of the football.
Therefore, you know if the picture is an accurate representation of the football.
And could offer an opinion as to whether another photo of a football (even one that is flat) is an accurate representation.
You haven't been to space and :
1) have no clue if any image was even actually taken there
2) would therefore have no clue as to what actual alterations were done.
I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?
Never has been my stance.
If I tell you the CPU in your phone is made up of a billion tiny switches so small you can't see them, all flicking on and off a billion times a second and it's made from silicon, do you think I'm telling the truth?
Perhaps.
It is an earthbound object and something like this could be verified if I really thought it important.
If not, what exactly do you think is in your phone? You certainly never saw a 10nm transistor with your own eyes, yet I assume you believe that the CPU in your phone is a computer and not a demon or magic feather? Do you believe silicon chips are actually made of silicon, even though you never opened your phone and ran tests?
I don't care.
Seriously, I'm curious how far you take this viewpoint. Is the whole world a mystery, other than your room and the view out your window? I find that very strange way to go about life. We as a species would still be banging rocks together in caves if we didn't have the capability to learn information second hand.
Please ...stop with the hyperbole.
-
Actually, it is all evidence of fakery on the part of NASA.
Please elaborate.
I have demonstrated very clearly that different pictures of a globe taken from different distances or using different camera settings can look different. So please explain how different images of the earth looking different are evidence of anything when the images were taken at different times using different cameras and from different distances. I have just shown you'd expect them to look different.
-
I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?
Never has been my stance.
Sorry for assuming it was. Lets clear this up with a simple, direct question.
Can you can accept things are true even if you can't see them with your own eyes?
-
Actually, it is all evidence of fakery on the part of NASA.
Please elaborate.
I have demonstrated very clearly that different pictures of a globe taken from different distances or using different camera settings can look different. So please explain how different images of the earth looking different are evidence of anything when the images were taken at different times using different cameras and from different distances. I have just shown you'd expect them to look different.
Yeah, you were using that camera taking pictures of what you knew was supposed to be in the picture.
There is no indication or accompanying explanation from NASA indicating what type of device was even responsible for the images to begin with. Just a, "Hey! Lookie here!"
Only after being called out for their BS do they even want to attempt any explanation...
I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?
Never has been my stance.
Sorry for assuming it was. Lets clear this up with a simple, direct question.
Can you can accept things are true even if you can't see them with your own eyes?
I can accept things are possible even if I can't see them with my own eyes, yes.
When it comes to the shape of the earth, there is no legitimate (purely subjective term that it is and always will be) reason to believe it to be anything other than what my own two eyes and rational mind state it must be, and that is flat.
-
Sorry for assuming it was. Lets clear this up with a simple, direct question.
Can you can accept things are true even if you can't see them with your own eyes?
I can accept things are possible even if I can't see them with my own eyes, yes.
When it comes to the shape of the earth, there is no legitimate (purely subjective term that it is and always will be) reason to believe it to be anything other than what my own two eyes and rational mind state it must be, and that is flat.
Can you imagine any evidence at all that would convince you the earth was a sphere? What could you be shown that would convince you?
-
Sorry for assuming it was. Lets clear this up with a simple, direct question.
Can you can accept things are true even if you can't see them with your own eyes?
I can accept things are possible even if I can't see them with my own eyes, yes.
When it comes to the shape of the earth, there is no legitimate (purely subjective term that it is and always will be) reason to believe it to be anything other than what my own two eyes and rational mind state it must be, and that is flat.
Can you imagine any evidence at all that would convince you the earth was a sphere? What could you be shown that would convince you?
Let me get this straight...you are asking me to "imagine," up evidence?
-
Sorry for assuming it was. Lets clear this up with a simple, direct question.
Can you can accept things are true even if you can't see them with your own eyes?
I can accept things are possible even if I can't see them with my own eyes, yes.
When it comes to the shape of the earth, there is no legitimate (purely subjective term that it is and always will be) reason to believe it to be anything other than what my own two eyes and rational mind state it must be, and that is flat.
Can you imagine any evidence at all that would convince you the earth was a sphere? What could you be shown that would convince you?
Let me get this straight...you are asking me to "imagine," up evidence?
Yes. I'm asking you to think and imagine, what evidence could change your mind. What would it take for you to believe in a globe earth? Money is no object, you can perform any experiment you want. What would it take?
-
Yes. I'm asking you to think and imagine, what evidence could change your mind. What would it take for you to believe in a globe earth? Money is no object, you can perform any experiment you want. What would it take?
I will leave the thinking up and imagining up of evidence to RE, thank you.
That is why we have the lie of the globe to begin with.
-
Way to skip out on answering a question by pretending you didn't understand what he meant. He is asking you to use your brain and come up with an idea of what kind of evidence you'd require if you had no budget (all the money in the world). It's a simple question dude. You aren't being asked to make up ideas for fake evidence.
-
Yes. I'm asking you to think and imagine, what evidence could change your mind. What would it take for you to believe in a globe earth? Money is no object, you can perform any experiment you want. What would it take?
I will leave the thinking up and imagining up of evidence to RE, thank you.
That is why we have the lie of the globe to begin with.
The ability to imagine and examine other viewpoints is crucial to being able to understand the world. You really should try some basic logic exercises, it a good mental workout.
Here, let me show you an example.
What would it take for me to believe the world was flat? If I bought one of those high altitude rockets or even bought one of Elon Musk's boosters and got back pictures of a flat disk with an ice wall and the sun below the camera, I'd be pretty shocked. I'd suspect tampering with the digital recorder. If I sent another with a film camera signed by me, developed it myself and verified it was mine and it showed the same thing, and repeated tests also did, I'd have to conclude that the world really isn't as I am being told. It would be pretty damn exciting and I'd be converted.
So there. Film evidence I launched myself showing a flat disk would make me a believer.
What evidence would make you believe a globe earth?
-
Yes. I'm asking you to think and imagine, what evidence could change your mind. What would it take for you to believe in a globe earth? Money is no object, you can perform any experiment you want. What would it take?
I will leave the thinking up and imagining up of evidence to RE, thank you.
That is why we have the lie of the globe to begin with.
The ability to imagine and examine other viewpoints is crucial to being able to understand the world. You really should try some basic logic exercises, it a good mental workout.
The ability to imagine has absolutely nothing to do with logic as it relates to the physical, concrete world.
Here, let me show you an example.
What would it take for me to believe the world was flat? If I bought one of those high altitude rockets or even bought one of Elon Musk's boosters and got back pictures of a flat disk with an ice wall and the sun below the camera, I'd be pretty shocked. I'd suspect tampering with the digital recorder. If I sent another with a film camera signed by me, developed it myself and verified it was mine and it showed the same thing, and repeated tests also did, I'd have to conclude that the world really isn't as I am being told. It would be pretty damn exciting and I'd be converted.
So there. Film evidence I launched myself showing a flat disk would make me a believer.
What evidence would make you believe a globe earth?
Offering up something you claim already exists is hardly the leap of imagination I was expecting.
There are plenty of the altered images existing of a circle or disk.
-
It would be pretty damn exciting and I'd be converted.
This is an underrated comment, I say this all the time but yet flat earther peeps still call me a "round earth zealot" and/or are sure I am brain washed to only believe the earth is spherical. If I had found conclusive evidence of a flat earth I'd be hella excited, it would be fun to find out something of a massive cover up like this. In no way do I 'want' to believe the world is a spherical planet, the evidence I see all the time for myself is simply too overwhelmingly in favour or a spherical world. I'd really be interested to see how other people have somehow come to the opposite conclusion, but flat earthers don't share that kind of information, no 'zetetic' or scientific experiments or logical reasons that prove the earth is flat that couldn't also just be how it is on a globe.
Regarding the real vs fake pictures argument, I'd like to extend this to CGI too. My question is, how is it that we are able to model the globe and it's surroundings so visually accurately in terms of scale, size and shape? Take for example Google Earth, Microsoft Flight Sim 2020 that uses a 3D globe via Bing maps, game engines that also show a globe visually the same as real life would be like Outerra or even games like No Mans Sky and Star Citizen where if you're on the planet surface in game, it looks pretty much the same as it would on earth in real life with a visually flat horizon and mountains/valleys (even though Star Citizen planets are mostly smaller). If this kind of stuff that I see regularly matches reality why then is it so difficult to come to terms with the shape and size of earth as a globe? Yes I understand this is all CGI, btu the question is how does CGI match reality this well using globes? Is this visual evidence? If not, then would you also not take every other game that generally uses a flat land model as evidence of a flat earth since lets face it, globe or flat looks the same locally)?
-
So there. Film evidence I launched myself showing a flat disk would make me a believer.
What evidence would make you believe a globe earth?
Offering up something you claim already exists is hardly the leap of imagination I was expecting.
There are plenty of the altered images existing of a circle or disk.
I'm not even sure what to say at this point. Are you refusing to come up with something, or saying it's impossible?
-
So there. Film evidence I launched myself showing a flat disk would make me a believer.
What evidence would make you believe a globe earth?
Offering up something you claim already exists is hardly the leap of imagination I was expecting.
There are plenty of the altered images existing of a circle or disk.
I'm not even sure what to say at this point. Are you refusing to come up with something, or saying it's impossible?
I think perhaps your imagination might be failing you in your attempt to decipher what is actually a lucid and clear point made in my response.
-
I'm not even sure what to say at this point. Are you refusing to come up with something, or saying it's impossible?
I think perhaps your imagination might be failing you in your attempt to decipher what is actually a lucid and clear point made in my response.
I think your point is you are refusing to answer, you have made that very clear in how many times you dodged and avoided the question. So yes, it's quite clear.
Too bad, it could have been interesting to hear what you had to say.
-
I'm not even sure what to say at this point. Are you refusing to come up with something, or saying it's impossible?
I think perhaps your imagination might be failing you in your attempt to decipher what is actually a lucid and clear point made in my response.
I think your point is you are refusing to answer, you have made that very clear in how many times you dodged and avoided the question. So yes, it's quite clear.
Too bad, it could have been interesting to hear what you had to say.
I think my point is this just in case you truly don't get it.
Imaginary evidence is what supports the globe lie.
Asking me to imagine or otherwise make up evidence regarding something I know to be false is a ridiculous proposition.
-
Imaginary evidence is what supports the globe lie.
Asking me to imagine or otherwise make up evidence regarding something I know to be false is a ridiculous proposition.
And here the mask slips.
It's quite clear that you are so entrenched in your position - you "know" the globe to be false - that you simply declare all the evidence which shows you to be wrong to be wrong or "imaginary".
I guess it's easy to prove yourself right if you ignore all the evidence which shows you to be wrong.
-
It's quite amazing that Totallackey couldn't even think of some kind of experiment that would prove the earth a globe without calling his own thoughts fake.
-
Imaginary evidence is what supports the globe lie.
Asking me to imagine or otherwise make up evidence regarding something I know to be false is a ridiculous proposition.
And here the mask slips.
It's quite clear that you are so entrenched in your position - you "know" the globe to be false - that you simply declare all the evidence which shows you to be wrong to be wrong or "imaginary".
I guess it's easy to prove yourself right if you ignore all the evidence which shows you to be wrong.
There is no mask here.
All the evidence doesn't "show" me to be wrong.
You believe the evidence shows me to be wrong.
That doesn't make your belief true.
It is your life and you can feel entitled to whatever you wish.
-
It's quite amazing that Totallackey couldn't even think of some kind of experiment that would prove the earth a globe without calling his own thoughts fake.
Thoughts and imagination, in case you don't really know, can be separate and distinct, and usually are.
-
It's quite amazing that Totallackey couldn't even think of some kind of experiment that would prove the earth a globe without calling his own thoughts fake.
Thoughts and imagination, in case you don't really know, can be separate and distinct, and usually are.
Hmmm, that doesn’t see me to fit the neuroscience very well. Here is an article discusses these very things: https://www.fastcompany.com/3026510/the-neuroscience-of-imagination
-
It's quite amazing that Totallackey couldn't even think of some kind of experiment that would prove the earth a globe without calling his own thoughts fake.
Thoughts and imagination, in case you don't really know, can be separate and distinct, and usually are.
Hmmm, that doesn’t see me to fit the neuroscience very well. Here is an article discusses these very things: https://www.fastcompany.com/3026510/the-neuroscience-of-imagination
That depths and lengths you will go to throw mud on the windshield of cars traveling down the road is quite evident with your posts today.
You believe the article you offer somehow invalidates my statement?
That is rich.
-
I think my point is this just in case you truly don't get it.
Imaginary evidence is what supports the globe lie.
Asking me to imagine or otherwise make up evidence regarding something I know to be false is a ridiculous proposition.
There is a desperation in your tone here in how strongly you reject even thinking about the Earth as a globe. You were asked to try a thought experiment and reacted with hostility, evasion and complete denial.
This is not a rational way to think and reason, and it's simply not healthy to reject facts and refuse to imagine.
As others pointed out "something I know to be false" shows you are not operating from facts, but from your own rigid internal beliefs.
Perhaps you should sit long and hard, and try and figure out what about thinking about 'globe lies' makes you so uncomfortable. I can think all day about Flat Earth models and what it would be like and how I'd perform experiments, and not once get upset or angry or afraid. I'm not asking you to talk about it here, but at the very least, try and think about it.
-
It's quite amazing that Totallackey couldn't even think of some kind of experiment that would prove the earth a globe without calling his own thoughts fake.
Thoughts and imagination, in case you don't really know, can be separate and distinct, and usually are.
Hmmm, that doesn’t see me to fit the neuroscience very well. Here is an article discusses these very things: https://www.fastcompany.com/3026510/the-neuroscience-of-imagination
That depths and lengths you will go to throw mud on the windshield of cars traveling down the road is quite evident with your posts today.
You believe the article you offer somehow invalidates my statement?
That is rich.
Whoa, take it easy. I’m not your enemy.
I was only trying to offer some additional information to help the conversation.
The article discusses some of the neuroscience behind imagination and thoughts, which infers that the subject is more complicated than what you said. That’s all.
-
I think my point is this just in case you truly don't get it.
Imaginary evidence is what supports the globe lie.
Asking me to imagine or otherwise make up evidence regarding something I know to be false is a ridiculous proposition.
There is a desperation in your tone here in how strongly you reject even thinking about the Earth as a globe. You were asked to try a thought experiment and reacted with hostility, evasion and complete denial.
Hostility?
I think not.
Evasion?
I think not.
Denial?
I think not.
My statement that evidence is not something to be imagined is valid.
Period.
End of sentence.
I find it ludicrous for people who claim to be educated can somehow claim evidence should be imagined or think that imaginary evidence is otherwise valid.
Your feelings about my reply are none of my concern.
This is not a rational way to think and reason, and it's simply not healthy to reject facts and refuse to imagine.
Asking people to imagine up evidence is certainly not rational and is indicative of a lack of reason.
There were facts here I rejected?
Where?
I still have the ability to imagine...Right now, I am trying to imagine why an RE -adherent would devote some much of their time to a website concerning flat earth...
As others pointed out "something I know to be false" shows you are not operating from facts, but from your own rigid internal beliefs.
No, I am operating off the facts of what I see and what I know to be true.
I know I stand directly on flat surfaces.
I see water running off of surfaces that are not flat.
You, on the other hand, need all the imagination you can muster to explain how these things can take place on anything but flat surfaces...
Perhaps you should sit long and hard, and try and figure out what about thinking about 'globe lies' makes you so uncomfortable. I can think all day about Flat Earth models and what it would be like and how I'd perform experiments, and not once get upset or angry or afraid. I'm not asking you to talk about it here, but at the very least, try and think about it.
Perhaps you should just go hang out somewhere where they might credit you with the abilities to imagine up evidence, like a RE site...See if you can come up with something new and refreshing...it is getting played out here and I don't care about your imaginary evidence.
-
You believe the evidence shows me to be wrong.
That doesn't make your belief true.
When I see photos or video of a globe earth taken from space then yes, it pretty conclusively shows you to be wrong.
Literally your only counter argument to that evidence is to shout "fake!" and run away.
So yes, I "believe" the images to be real - based on my having seen a rocket launch and using technology every day which relies on satellites. I can't prove it, but you certainly can't prove any fakery. I have shown quite clearly in this thread that different photos of the same object can look different which drives a coach and horses through the tired old "NASA can't even decide what the earth looks like" argument.
And it's not just NASA with craft taking photos of the globe earth of course.
And tallies with all the other evidence like the Turning Torso video where you can see the amount of the building which is hidden by the curve of the earth increasing with distance.
So, yeah. The evidence is pretty compelling, just denying it and declaring yourself right isn't really a counter-argument.
-
Whoa, take it easy. I’m not your enemy.
I was only trying to offer some additional information to help the conversation.
The article discusses some of the neuroscience behind imagination and thoughts, which infers that the subject is more complicated than what you said. That’s all.
The article discusses issues of imagination as it relates to non-concrete ideals and economy.
That is certainly a science in and of itself, however, it is not even tangentially connected to the topics here.
I never stated you were my enemy.
-
You believe the evidence shows me to be wrong.
That doesn't make your belief true.
When I see photos or video of a globe earth taken from space then yes, it pretty conclusively shows you to be wrong.
No...that shows you to be gullible.
Literally your only counter argument to that evidence is to shout "fake!" and run away.
No.
The images are altered.
So yes, I "believe" the images to be real - based on my having seen a rocket launch and using technology every day which relies on satellites. I can't prove it, but you certainly can't prove any fakery.
I know rockets to be real.
I know there are things called satellites circling overhead.
I use technology everyday.
I said the images are altered to depict a globe, as no globe exists.
I have shown quite clearly in this thread that different photos of the same object can look different which drives a coach and horses through the tired old "NASA can't even decide what the earth looks like" argument.
No it doesn't.
It shows you can do it.
It doesn't show NASA hasn't done it.
You have no experience with the types of imaging devices utilized by NASA or any of the other so-called space agencies.
-
The images are altered.
Ahh yes that handy snapchat filter that turns a disk into a spheroid that you claim NASA uses with no evidence to back up the claim.
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LoathsomeThirdHylaeosaurus-size_restricted.gif)
Here's a crazy snippet of information, iphones camera software alters all of it's output. I guess this means if I saw you getting mugged and recorded it for evidence to back you up, you'd refuse my evidence and let the guy get away free of charge? Because the "images are altered"!
-
Denial?
I think not.
Ok.
I still have the ability to imagine...Right now, I am trying to imagine why an RE -adherent would devote some much of their time to a website concerning flat earth...
I'm here because I'm curious about your theories, curious how you think, and because it's good to expand one's mind and experiences. I'm here for the reason I go to any web site or read any book, curiosity. I've learned things, so it's time well spent.
I'm also not an RE-adherent any more than I am a "Falling Down Stairs Hurts-adherent" or a "Humans Are Alive-adherent." Nobody but FE believers says things like "Round Earth Theory" because there is no such thing because other than debating with a Flat Earther, there is just no need to state basic facts.
I find it ludicrous for people who claim to be educated can somehow claim evidence should be imagined or think that imaginary evidence is otherwise valid.
I'm still trying to decide if you are intentionally pretending you don't understand what a thought experiment is, or actually do not understand the concept. Either way, it's not a good sign.
I have a hard time believing you really don't understand how useful it can be to imagine a scenario and it's possible results, and your reactions to them. But you keep saying things like that, which makes me wonder if you really do.
Perhaps you should just go hang out somewhere where they might credit you with the abilities to imagine up evidence, like a RE site...See if you can come up with something new and refreshing...it is getting played out here and I don't care about your imaginary evidence.
That would literally be the entire rest of the internet. Other than the few Flat Earth sites, everywhere else is a "RE site". I can assure you, I spend plenty of time there. As I said above, there is no "Round Earth Theory" as RET is the entirety of science.
And I tried to come up with something new, but you rejected it, refused to even try.
-
Whoa, take it easy. I’m not your enemy.
I was only trying to offer some additional information to help the conversation.
The article discusses some of the neuroscience behind imagination and thoughts, which infers that the subject is more complicated than what you said. That’s all.
The article discusses issues of imagination as it relates to non-concrete ideals and economy.
That is certainly a science in and of itself, however, it is not even tangentially connected to the topics here.
I never stated you were my enemy.
Oh whatever, the article discusses the interplay between imagination informing thought processes, and it is not worth arguing with you over semantics.
This contrarian attitude isn’t useful. You seem to only want to combat even the most basic offers - so I think you are not interested in figuring these things out, just arguing for its own sake.
Well I am not.
You win. I lose. See ya.
-
I still have the ability to imagine...Right now, I am trying to imagine why an RE -adherent would devote some much of their time to a website concerning flat earth...
I'm here because I'm curious about your theories, curious how you think, and because it's good to expand one's mind and experiences. I'm here for the reason I go to any web site or read any book, curiosity. I've learned things, so it's time well spent.
Curiosity results in these expressions?
I think your point is you are refusing to answer, you have made that very clear in how many times you dodged and avoided the question. So yes, it's quite clear.
I'm also not an RE-adherent any more than I am a "Falling Down Stairs Hurts-adherent" or a "Humans Are Alive-adherent." Nobody but FE believers says things like "Round Earth Theory" because there is no such thing because other than debating with a Flat Earther, there is just no need to state basic facts.
You are denying you an RE-adherent?
"basic facts," certainly reads like an RE-adherent expression.
I find it ludicrous for people who claim to be educated can somehow claim evidence should be imagined or think that imaginary evidence is otherwise valid.
I'm still trying to decide if you are intentionally pretending you don't understand what a thought experiment is, or actually do not understand the concept. Either way, it's not a good sign.
Make no mistake, I certainly understand thought experiments.
It is only necessary to engage in flights of fancy when it comes to the issue of whether the earth could possibly be a globe.
I skip the flights of fancy and recognize it to be flat.
I have a hard time believing you really don't understand how useful it can be to imagine a scenario and it's possible results, and your reactions to them. But you keep saying things like that, which makes me wonder if you really do.
When it comes to solving a crime and how it could be committed, then your proposal works.
When it comes to performing a senses on experiment your proposal works.
I do it all the time.
Perhaps you should just go hang out somewhere where they might credit you with the abilities to imagine up evidence, like a RE site...See if you can come up with something new and refreshing...it is getting played out here and I don't care about your imaginary evidence.
That would literally be the entire rest of the internet. Other than the few Flat Earth sites, everywhere else is a "RE site". I can assure you, I spend plenty of time there. As I said above, there is no "Round Earth Theory" as RET is the entirety of science.
And I tried to come up with something new, but you rejected it, refused to even try.
"There is nothing new under the sun." - Solomon
-
You are denying you an RE-adherent?
"basic facts," certainly reads like an RE-adherent expression.
That is your problem to deal with, not anyone elses. Like it or not, you are a tiny minority with a viewpoint that diverges from ALL of science, and the vast majority of non scientists as well. I am no more a "Round Earther" than I am a "1+1=2 Believer". I don't call my self a "2+2=4 Believer" or "3+5=8 Believer" and so on and so on because I count things, or because there are those that say math is wrong. It's just math, 10+20=30 because of how math works not because there is a specific theory about that equation, and the earth is round because of all the evidence collected and backed up by all the theories on how the universe works. It's not a special theory you can just separate from everything else. It's round, or EVERYTHING is wrong. Science didn't create gravity just to explain why the earth was round. "Matter attracts itself" naturally mean large things form a sphere. There's no conspiracy.
Some people think all politicians are lizard people. I don't say I believe in the "Politicians Are Human Theory" because there is no need. It's just not a thing.
RE-adherent, Globulist (however it's spelled), or Round-Earther are your terms. Not mine.
I understand it can get overwhelming to have the whole world seem to be against you, but it's just not really true. You have chosen take a position that goes against what the rest of the world thinks, and of course people will argue with you about it. You are saying they are wrong in a fundamental aspect of the world. You can't choose to tell the world it's wrong, and expect them to consider themselves the outsiders.
It is only necessary to engage in flights of fancy when it comes to the issue of whether the earth could possibly be a globe.
I skip the flights of fancy and recognize it to be flat.
That again is showing the flaw in your thinking. You refuse to even consider the possibility you are wrong. You skip any thoughts or evidence, and simply believe. That's faith, not reason.
You can believe it, but you have to accept that it requires you to abandon everything else with it.
-
No...that shows you to be gullible.
I disagree. We all have a model of reality in our heads.
If a friend arrived from Dubai and I asked him what plane he flew in on and he said
"Oh no, I just flew here myself, I just flapped my arms and here I am"
Then it would be gullible of me to believe him. Because humans famously can't fly unaided. To pick up on JSS's excellent theme, I'm not a "Humans Can't Fly" believer. If there is a small group out in some dusty corner of the internet who believe that humans can fly and call me that then good for them, but most people's model of reality includes the fact that humans can't fly.
If my friend said he flew in on an A380 then it would not be gullible of me to believe him. I know that's a real plane, I know it flies to and from Dubai. He might still be lying of course but I'd have to have some pretty good evidence for that to accuse him and I'd probably want to know why he'd want to lie about something so silly.
So my model of reality includes facts like:
Rockets are a thing - I've seen plenty of film of them taking off and I saw a Shuttle launch back in the day
Satellites are a thing - I use GPS frequently, I have satellite TV which uses a geostationary satellite, I don't have to keep moving my dish. I don't know of any technology which could keep something up in the sky in a fixed position for years, decades even, at a time. I have also observed on trips to countries nearer the equator that the dishes noticeably point up at a much steeper angle. And one time my neighbour put some scaffolding up and it blocked the signal, so I know my dish is getting a signal from something up there. And have good evidence that the something is above the equator as claimed.
The ISS is a thing - it can literally be seen from the ground, plenty of film and pictures of it and taken from it, amateur astronomers have taken photos of the shuttle docking with it. 7 space tourists have paid to go on it.
The earth is a rotating globe - I alluded to the Turning Torso video which clearly demonstrates how things sink below the horizon. We have the Coriolis and Eötvös effects, the ring laser gyroscope which can detect the rotation, Foucault Pendulums, the way star trails rotate in one direction around the North Pole and the opposite direction, around the South Pole in the southern hemisphere and the way star trails look at the equator ( http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html )
So yeah, this model of reality all adds up to it being perfectly credible that craft can be launched to orbit our spinning globe and take photos of it. It's not gullible, it just confirms my model of reality.
The images are altered.
Yes, you keep saying that. But what you are consistently failing to understand, or possibly pretending not to, is that images being altered doesn't make them fake. If your argument is that they are taking photos of a flat earth and altering them to look like it's a globe then
1) Do you have any evidence for that?
2) Why would they do that?
What is the reason for this whole big globe lie? It would make literally no difference to my life. I'd still be able to fly places (well, when we're allowed out of the house), my satellite TV would still work, my GPS would still work (although they may need to rename it to FPS). Nothing about my life would change so why the need for this big "conspiracy" or "cover up"?
-
You are denying you an RE-adherent?
"basic facts," certainly reads like an RE-adherent expression.
That is your problem to deal with, not anyone elses. Like it or not, you are a tiny minority with a viewpoint that diverges from ALL of science, and the vast majority of non scientists as well.
Appeal to numbers reasoning...
Not indicative of a solid base.
I am no more a "Round Earther" than I am a "1+1=2 Believer". I don't call my self a "2+2=4 Believer" or "3+5=8 Believer" and so on and so on because I count things, or because there are those that say math is wrong. It's just math, 10+20=30 because of how math works not because there is a specific theory about that equation, and the earth is round because of all the evidence collected and backed up by all the theories on how the universe works.
"I am not an RE-adherent but let me tell you something...the earth is ROUND buddy, and you best not forget it! All the scientists tell me so and I believe 'em!"
FTFY...nnttm...
It's not a special theory you can just separate from everything else. It's round, or EVERYTHING is wrong. Science didn't create gravity just to explain why the earth was round. "Matter attracts itself" naturally mean large things form a sphere. There's no conspiracy.
Again, your version of how to put together a horse with a cart is obviously:
(https://www.phrases.org.uk/images/cart-before-the-horse.jpg)
...wrong...
Some people think all politicians are lizard people. I don't say I believe in the "Politicians Are Human Theory" because there is no need. It's just not a thing.
Strawman.
RE-adherent, Globulist (however it's spelled), or Round-Earther are your terms. Not mine.
Yeah, my terms used to describe you and your ilk.
I understand it can get overwhelming to have the whole world seem to be against you, but it's just not really true. You have chosen take a position that goes against what the rest of the world thinks, and of course people will argue with you about it. You are saying they are wrong in a fundamental aspect of the world. You can't choose to tell the world it's wrong, and expect them to consider themselves the outsiders.
Here, at tfes.org, you are an outsider.
I don't care what you are anywhere else.
It is only necessary to engage in flights of fancy when it comes to the issue of whether the earth could possibly be a globe.
I skip the flights of fancy and recognize it to be flat.
That again is showing the flaw in your thinking. You refuse to even consider the possibility you are wrong. You skip any thoughts or evidence, and simply believe. That's faith, not reason.
You can believe it, but you have to accept that it requires you to abandon everything else with it.
Not in the least.
-
Whoa, take it easy. I’m not your enemy.
I was only trying to offer some additional information to help the conversation.
The article discusses some of the neuroscience behind imagination and thoughts, which infers that the subject is more complicated than what you said. That’s all.
The article discusses issues of imagination as it relates to non-concrete ideals and economy.
That is certainly a science in and of itself, however, it is not even tangentially connected to the topics here.
I never stated you were my enemy.
Oh whatever, the article discusses the interplay between imagination informing thought processes, and it is not worth arguing with you over semantics.
Semantics has nothing to do with this ffs!
You offered up some BS article from Fast Company discussing the link of imagination and creative thinking to business, not science, and got called out for it.
This contrarian attitude isn’t useful. You seem to only want to combat even the most basic offers - so I think you are not interested in figuring these things out, just arguing for its own sake.
Well I am not.
You win. I lose. See ya.
You are right.
I win.
C'ya...
-
No...that shows you to be gullible.
I disagree. We all have a model of reality in our heads.
Rockets are a thing...
True
Satellites are a thing...
True
The ISS is a thing...
True
The earth is a rotating globe...
False
It's not gullible, it just confirms my model of reality.
Your model of reality established when you were a gullible child and it remains, as evidenced by your refusal to let go of the tendency to remain gullible.
I do not deny rockets.
I do not deny satellites.
I do not deny the ISS.
I deny the earth is a globe...because the earth does not need to be a globe in order for these things to exist.
Not in the least related...at all...
You imagine them to be evidence of sphericity, when they are not.
So it is RE-adherents engaged in the imagining up of evidence, not FE.
The images are altered.
Yes, you keep saying that. But what you are consistently failing to understand, or possibly pretending not to, is that images being altered doesn't make them fake. If your argument is that they are taking photos of a flat earth and altering them to look like it's a globe then
1) Do you have any evidence for that?
2) Why would they do that?
What is the reason for this whole big globe lie? It would make literally no difference to my life. I'd still be able to fly places (well, when we're allowed out of the house), my satellite TV would still work, my GPS would still work (although they may need to rename it to FPS). Nothing about my life would change so why the need for this big "conspiracy" or "cover up"?
People lie for a whole lot of reasons.
Fear for one.
Fake =/= false representation or altered.
Again, you already have NASA personnel on record as having altered numerous images.
-
Again, you already have NASA personnel on record as having altered numerous images.
and this doesn't mean anything, it's a pretty crazy leap going from some photos were 'touched up' to 'the globe is a lie and the world is flat'. I would stop using the altered photos argument you keep trying to push, it's really dumb. It's no secret photos can be and are altered, it's not evidence of a flat earth. It's the equivalent of seeing someones wedding photos of which I did not attend, finding out the photographer upped the contrast differently in some of the photos then claiming the wedding never happened based on that.
*finds out a photo of my cousin at the beach was photoshopped to remove the clouds in the sky*
"Wait a minute, this is completely misrepresented! It's all a lie! There is no longer proof you even went to the beach!"
-
Again, you already have NASA personnel on record as having altered numerous images.
and this doesn't mean anything, it's a pretty crazy leap going from some photos were 'touched up' to 'the globe is a lie and the world is flat'. I would stop using the altered photos argument you keep trying to push, it's really dumb. It's no secret photos can be and are altered, it's not evidence of a flat earth. It's the equivalent of seeing someones wedding photos of which I did not attend, finding out the photographer upped the contrast differently in some of the photos then claiming the wedding never happened based on that.
*finds out a photo of my cousin at the beach was photoshopped to remove the clouds in the sky*
"Wait a minute, this is completely misrepresented! It's all a lie! There is no longer proof you even went to the beach!"
Again, stop with the strawman...
What does a freaking wedding have to do with NASA?
Where did I claim altered pictures are evidence of a flat earth.
I said they are evidence of a lie.
-
Again, you already have NASA personnel on record as having altered numerous images.
and this doesn't mean anything, it's a pretty crazy leap going from some photos were 'touched up' to 'the globe is a lie and the world is flat'. I would stop using the altered photos argument you keep trying to push, it's really dumb. It's no secret photos can be and are altered, it's not evidence of a flat earth. It's the equivalent of seeing someones wedding photos of which I did not attend, finding out the photographer upped the contrast differently in some of the photos then claiming the wedding never happened based on that.
*finds out a photo of my cousin at the beach was photoshopped to remove the clouds in the sky*
"Wait a minute, this is completely misrepresented! It's all a lie! There is no longer proof you even went to the beach!"
Again, stop with the strawman...
What does a freaking wedding have to do with NASA?
Where did I claim altered pictures are evidence of a flat earth.
I said they are evidence of a lie.
It's not a strawman, it's an example of why your point is silly.
Do happen to believe people are on the ISS in orbit around the earth? They take pictures of the earth all the time, not misrepresented. Even if those photos are misrepresented then you'd be also accusing them of lying because they can see the globe themselves. Your claim is this isn't proof of anything because 'images were altered'... replace space with a wedding, replace astronauts with the bride and groom. it's the exact same thing. You're just pointing out the obvious thing that photos and videos can be edited but not putting forward any evidence of lying or misrepresenting a flat earth as a globe. videos are all still evidence, the moon landings were during a time where videos couldn't simply be altered.
Instead of shouting fake or altered maybe back up your claims with something. There are plenty of photos and videos out there that clearly show a globe earth that NASA and other space agencies have said are real. Your claim is they're lying about that. Prove it or stop claiming it.
-
Again, you already have NASA personnel on record as having altered numerous images.
and this doesn't mean anything, it's a pretty crazy leap going from some photos were 'touched up' to 'the globe is a lie and the world is flat'. I would stop using the altered photos argument you keep trying to push, it's really dumb. It's no secret photos can be and are altered, it's not evidence of a flat earth. It's the equivalent of seeing someones wedding photos of which I did not attend, finding out the photographer upped the contrast differently in some of the photos then claiming the wedding never happened based on that.
*finds out a photo of my cousin at the beach was photoshopped to remove the clouds in the sky*
"Wait a minute, this is completely misrepresented! It's all a lie! There is no longer proof you even went to the beach!"
Again, stop with the strawman...
What does a freaking wedding have to do with NASA?
Where did I claim altered pictures are evidence of a flat earth.
I said they are evidence of a lie.
It's not a strawman, it's an example of why your point is silly.
No...it is a strawman...erecting a totally false equivalency then to tear it down...that = a strawman..
Do happen to believe people are on the ISS in orbit around the earth?
I believe people have been in the ISS, yes.
They take pictures of the earth all the time, not misrepresented.
You do not know that.
Even if those photos are misrepresented then you'd be also accusing them of lying because they can see the globe themselves.
You do not know that.
Do the math and prove it.
Prove by the math they can see the globe...
Your claim is this isn't proof of anything because 'images were altered'... replace space with a wedding, replace astronauts with the bride and groom. it's the exact same thing.
No, earth bound objects are not the same as objects above us in the least...
You're just pointing out the obvious thing that photos and videos can be edited but not putting forward any evidence of lying or misrepresenting a flat earth as a globe. videos are all still evidence, the moon landings were during a time where videos couldn't simply be altered.
Now you are either being flat out dishonest or ignorant , especially with the statement videos could not be altered at the time of the supposed moon landing...
Instead of shouting fake or altered maybe back up your claims with something. There are plenty of photos and videos out there that clearly show a globe earth that NASA and other space agencies have said are real. Your claim is they're lying about that. Prove it or stop claiming it.
There are NASA personnel on record stating many images have been altered.
-
Again, you already have NASA personnel on record as having altered numerous images.
and this doesn't mean anything, it's a pretty crazy leap going from some photos were 'touched up' to 'the globe is a lie and the world is flat'. I would stop using the altered photos argument you keep trying to push, it's really dumb. It's no secret photos can be and are altered, it's not evidence of a flat earth. It's the equivalent of seeing someones wedding photos of which I did not attend, finding out the photographer upped the contrast differently in some of the photos then claiming the wedding never happened based on that.
*finds out a photo of my cousin at the beach was photoshopped to remove the clouds in the sky*
"Wait a minute, this is completely misrepresented! It's all a lie! There is no longer proof you even went to the beach!"
Again, stop with the strawman...
What does a freaking wedding have to do with NASA?
Where did I claim altered pictures are evidence of a flat earth.
I said they are evidence of a lie.
It's not a strawman, it's an example of why your point is silly.
No...it is a strawman...erecting a totally false equivalency then to tear it down...that = a strawman..
Do happen to believe people are on the ISS in orbit around the earth?
I believe people have been in the ISS, yes.
They take pictures of the earth all the time, not misrepresented.
You do not know that.
Even if those photos are misrepresented then you'd be also accusing them of lying because they can see the globe themselves.
You do not know that.
Do the math and prove it.
Your claim is this isn't proof of anything because 'images were altered'... replace space with a wedding, replace astronauts with the bride and groom. it's the exact same thing.
No, earth bound objects are not the same as objects above us in the least...
You're just pointing out the obvious thing that photos and videos can be edited but not putting forward any evidence of lying or misrepresenting a flat earth as a globe. videos are all still evidence, the moon landings were during a time where videos couldn't simply be altered.
Now you are either being flat out dishonest or ignorant , especially with the statement videos could not be altered at the time of the supposed moon landing...
Instead of shouting fake or altered maybe back up your claims with something. There are plenty of photos and videos out there that clearly show a globe earth that NASA and other space agencies have said are real. Your claim is they're lying about that. Prove it or stop claiming it.
There are NASA personnel on record stating many images have been altered.
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
-
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
-
I said they are evidence of a lie.
It's not if they're admitting it, is it? :)
-
I said they are evidence of a lie.
It's not if they're admitting it, is it? :)
Not to most of the general populace who accept most everything in life with no questions whatsoever...
To me, an obvious lie...
-
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
From reading the article, it doesn’t seem like this is an example of what I asked for.
“The problem, Simmon said, is all the NASA earth-observing satellites are in low-earth or geostationary orbit, meaning none of them are far enough away to see a full hemisphere. The most familiar pictures of the entire Earth are from the 1960s and 1970s Apollo missions to the moon.”
“As realistic as it looks, the image is a composite of four months of light data collected in 2,300 km (1,429 mi) wide bands as NASA’s Terra satellite orbited from pole to pole, and the earth rotated beneath it.
That data was then stitched together and applied to the surface of a digital ball, then modified in Photoshop.”
So the image is a composite image of multiple satellite images put together and made to look pretty for an iPhone background.
I’m okay with that, because you are claiming that Records exist which support your claim that round earth is faked. But this article supports the opposite.
-
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
From reading the article, it doesn’t seem like this is an example of what I asked for.
“The problem, Simmon said, is all the NASA earth-observing satellites are in low-earth or geostationary orbit, meaning none of them are far enough away to see a full hemisphere. The most familiar pictures of the entire Earth are from the 1960s and 1970s Apollo missions to the moon.”
“As realistic as it looks, the image is a composite of four months of light data collected in 2,300 km (1,429 mi) wide bands as NASA’s Terra satellite orbited from pole to pole, and the earth rotated beneath it.
That data was then stitched together and applied to the surface of a digital ball, then modified in Photoshop.”
So the image is a composite image of multiple satellite images put together and made to look pretty for an iPhone background.
I’m okay with that, because you are claiming that Records exist which support your claim that round earth is faked. But this article supports the opposite.
I know you are okay with claiming you never asked for something you asked for.
But your quote is obvious to see...and you directly asked for what I provided.
This is what you asked for:
"Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering..."
Thank you for your continued disingenuous approach to the whole topic.
Have a great day and best of everything to you and yours!
-
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
From reading the article, it doesn’t seem like this is an example of what I asked for.
“The problem, Simmon said, is all the NASA earth-observing satellites are in low-earth or geostationary orbit, meaning none of them are far enough away to see a full hemisphere. The most familiar pictures of the entire Earth are from the 1960s and 1970s Apollo missions to the moon.”
“As realistic as it looks, the image is a composite of four months of light data collected in 2,300 km (1,429 mi) wide bands as NASA’s Terra satellite orbited from pole to pole, and the earth rotated beneath it.
That data was then stitched together and applied to the surface of a digital ball, then modified in Photoshop.”
So the image is a composite image of multiple satellite images put together and made to look pretty for an iPhone background.
I’m okay with that, because you are claiming that Records exist which support your claim that round earth is faked. But this article supports the opposite.
I know you are okay with claiming you never asked for something you asked for.
But your quote is obvious to see...and you directly asked for what I provided.
This is what you asked for:
"Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering..."
Thank you for your continued disingenuous approach to the whole topic.
Have a great day and best of everything to you and yours!
Okay, you too!
-
It's not a special theory you can just separate from everything else. It's round, or EVERYTHING is wrong. Science didn't create gravity just to explain why the earth was round. "Matter attracts itself" naturally mean large things form a sphere. There's no conspiracy.
Again, your version of how to put together a horse with a cart is obviously:
(https://www.phrases.org.uk/images/cart-before-the-horse.jpg)
...wrong...
This sums up your entire argument.
I'm beginning to think, just as with your failure to understand what a thought experiment is, that analogies are also something that confuses you. Whenever I take time to try and explain a concept, the result is always a simple "WRONG" or a funny picture, or completely missing the point.
In this case you literally got the exact opposite of what I was saying here. You are the one claiming the earth is flat, and will accept no evidence or consider any alternatives because you KNOW you are right and so everything else must be a lie. You have said so many times.
I think you might have a serious case of projection here, as you keep claiming science is all built around the big lie of a round earth, which is the polar opposite of how it works in reality. But I'm not sure how I can explain that to you if you reject everything without reading it.
-
It's not a special theory you can just separate from everything else. It's round, or EVERYTHING is wrong. Science didn't create gravity just to explain why the earth was round. "Matter attracts itself" naturally mean large things form a sphere. There's no conspiracy.
Again, your version of how to put together a horse with a cart is obviously:
(https://www.phrases.org.uk/images/cart-before-the-horse.jpg)
...wrong...
This sums up your entire argument.
I'm beginning to think, just as with your failure to understand what a thought experiment is, that analogies are also something that confuses you. Whenever I take time to try and explain a concept, the result is always a simple "WRONG" or a funny picture, or completely missing the point.
In this case you literally got the exact opposite of what I was saying here. You are the one claiming the earth is flat, and will accept no evidence or consider any alternatives because you KNOW you are right and so everything else must be a lie. You have said so many times.
I think you might have a serious case of projection here, as you keep claiming science is all built around the big lie of a round earth, which is the polar opposite of how it works in reality. But I'm not sure how I can explain that to you if you reject everything without reading it.
Again...trying to tell me I am the one with the case of projection...
Laughable...simply laughable...
You write the following statement you make: "The Earth is ROUND or everything else is WRONG," is not projection...
Sorry dude...
I have considered the other evidence and found it lacking...
Due to specific instances I have pointed to...in numerous threads...
Get a grip on your argumentation...it is hardly worth responding to anymore.
Not that it was to begin with.
-
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
This is not an example of a photo of a flat earth being made to look like a globe and NASA aren't hiding anything here... It's an example of NASA making a composite and telling us so. What about the images they claim are photos and videos of an actual globe earth? I mean come on, I can point to a CGI representation of the globe where they've said it's just a cgi representation and say "it's not a real photo", it doesn't mean real photos are fakes too.
So far you've only given evidence of NASA telling what you think is the truth while saying you don't trust them to tell the truth. *facepalm*
-
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
This is not an example of a photo of a flat earth being made to look like a globe and NASA aren't hiding anything here...
Uh..yes it is...it is exactly that...The guy admits he stitched flat data and applied it to a ball.
-
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
This is not an example of a photo of a flat earth being made to look like a globe and NASA aren't hiding anything here...
Uh..yes it is...it is exactly that...The guy admits he stitched flat data and applied it to a ball.
No he doesn’t say that. Please provide a quote from the article to support your claim.
-
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
This is not an example of a photo of a flat earth being made to look like a globe and NASA aren't hiding anything here...
Uh..yes it is...it is exactly that...The guy admits he stitched flat data and applied it to a ball.
No he doesn’t say that. Please provide a quote from the article to support your claim.
Please provide an example of round data being emitted from any imaging device.
-
Please provide an example of round data being emitted from any imaging device.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommons/5052744618
https://youtu.be/CFrP6QfbC2g
(https://i.insider.com/57e3e5f7b0ef9764008b76ab?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
-
Please provide an example of round data being emitted from any imaging device.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommons/5052744618
https://youtu.be/CFrP6QfbC2g
(https://i.insider.com/57e3e5f7b0ef9764008b76ab?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
-
You make like: "The Earth is ROUND or everything else is is wrong," yet I am the one one with the case of projection...
Sorry dude...
You still do not understand.
What I said is true, and a lot of Flat Earthers agree as well.
If the Earth is Flat, then Newtons theory of gravity has to be completely wrong. Einstein has to be completely wrong. Electromagnetic theories of light and radio have to be wrong. All of astronomy has to be wrong. Anything to do with mapping the earth has to be wrong. Geology has to be wrong. Migration of birds across the globe has to be wrong.
So yes, if the earth is not ROUND than almost all of science has to be wrong.
Now, you can still believe it's flat, but you have to reject all of science too. There is no "Round Earth Theory" you can just simply reject.
It's like saying math is right EXCEPT that 5+5 is actually 11. If you reject the roundness of the earth, you have to reject everything that points to it. Which is everything.
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
Again, a stupid argument. I can't help you here. it's quite clear I made sure to pick the images for 2 reasons, the first being they are from NASA and in this case, NASA is claiming these are actual photos and secondly, because they all quite clearly show via movement or via lighting to be a spinning spheroid. If you cannot perceive 3D objects I feel sorry for you, otherwise I'm assuming now, like every other time you attempt debating, you're just trolling.
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
(https://i.imgur.com/yy3W4ZV.jpg)
Wow, look, a flat human. I wonder how he plans to eat that with his two-dimensional mouth. Probably going to starve.
Do you really look at this and think he is flat because he's on a flat screen?
Yet a photo of a spinning ball is not a ball because your computer display is flat? Seriously? That's pretty impressive levels of denial.
-
Can you give any links to the records of NASA personnel stating this photo tampering? That would be very interesting.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
This is not an example of a photo of a flat earth being made to look like a globe and NASA aren't hiding anything here...
Uh..yes it is...it is exactly that...The guy admits he stitched flat data and applied it to a ball.
No he doesn’t say that. Please provide a quote from the article to support your claim.
Please provide an example of round data being emitted from any imaging device.
Sure! But you first, that’s only fair.
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
Again, a stupid argument. I can't help you here. it's quite clear I made sure to pick the images for 2 reasons, the first being they are from NASA and in this case, NASA is claiming these are actual photos and secondly, because they all quite clearly show via movement or via lighting to be a spinning spheroid. If you cannot perceive 3D objects I feel sorry for you, otherwise I'm assuming now, like every other time you attempt debating, you're just trolling.
How do you perceive 3D via 2D?
Laughable.
I can put a bunch of drawings on paper, compile them, and then watch them move too...
And it is still flat paper.
You are entitled to your feelings about my points...
C'ya...
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
(https://i.imgur.com/yy3W4ZV.jpg)
Wow, look, a flat human. I wonder how he plans to eat that with his two-dimensional mouth. Probably going to starve.
Do you really look at this and think he is flat because he's on a flat screen?
Yet a photo of a spinning ball is not a ball because your computer display is flat? Seriously? That's pretty impressive levels of denial.
Denial of what?
That an image has been faked?
Or imaging devices do not emit round data?
Showing me a picture of an earthbound object I have encountered...again, strawman...
Sure! But you first, that’s only fair.
By the way, there is an imaging device capable of producing spherical data...it's called a 3D printer...
Are you going to tell everyone there is one those attached to the satellite?
I cannot show you the data produced by a 3D printer here...
You'll need to go look at it yourself.
-
[redacted comment using an example related politics, which as Totallackey points out is something that can offend, and it's not really related to this topic so I apologise]
We aren't talking about 3D printing (which has nothing to do with photos, that's a method of printing a 3D model) and there are such things as sensors that show 3D information in an image, one such things being lidar (which happens to be on some NASA satellites I think but I digress). In the end we can form heightmaps too in similar ways. Almost any sensor that emits and detects the bounce is what you could say, a form of 3D detection. radars kind of work in similar ways which people can use to determine the distance to the moon too. In effect what you would do to form 3d information is detecting multiple areas of an object and mapping that to an image, maybe in the form of a heightmap image.
You also have photogrammetry, which is a method of capturing an object or area in full 3D using just photos at multiple angles. It's incredibly accurate. Take a look at the Megascans library, it's quite impressive stuff (or at least in my opinion). https://quixel.com/megascans/home?category=3D%20asset
EDIT: since Totallackey won't reply to any of my comments here I will just assume he cannot refute anything I say. He can use whatever excuse he wants to simply ignore me but if he won't/can't counter my points, he's simply giving up and losing the debate.
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
(https://i.imgur.com/yy3W4ZV.jpg)
Wow, look, a flat human. I wonder how he plans to eat that with his two-dimensional mouth. Probably going to starve.
Do you really look at this and think he is flat because he's on a flat screen?
Yet a photo of a spinning ball is not a ball because your computer display is flat? Seriously? That's pretty impressive levels of denial.
Denial of what?
That an image has been faked?
Or imaging devices do not emit round data?
Showing me a picture of an earthbound object I have encountered...again, strawman...
Sure! But you first, that’s only fair.
By the way, there is an imaging device capable of producing spherical data...it's called a 3D printer...
Are you going to tell everyone there is one those attached to the satellite?
I cannot show you the data produced by a 3D printer here...
You'll need to go look at it yourself.
Oh I see, you think that 3D data actually has to be a 3 dimensional object. Wow. No wonder this is confusing, you haven’t learned what data is.
3D printers don’t print “data.” They print Data, an AI character from Star Trek the Next Generation, that’s why those words are the same. Just kidding, but your reasoning is just like this.
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
(https://i.imgur.com/yy3W4ZV.jpg)
Wow, look, a flat human. I wonder how he plans to eat that with his two-dimensional mouth. Probably going to starve.
Do you really look at this and think he is flat because he's on a flat screen?
Yet a photo of a spinning ball is not a ball because your computer display is flat? Seriously? That's pretty impressive levels of denial.
Denial of what?
That an image has been faked?
Or imaging devices do not emit round data?
Showing me a picture of an earthbound object I have encountered...again, strawman...
Sure! But you first, that’s only fair.
By the way, there is an imaging device capable of producing spherical data...it's called a 3D printer...
Are you going to tell everyone there is one those attached to the satellite?
I cannot show you the data produced by a 3D printer here...
You'll need to go look at it yourself.
Oh I see, you think that 3D data actually has to be a 3 dimensional object. Wow. No wonder this is confusing, you haven’t learned what data is.
3D printers don’t print “data.” They print Data, an AI character from Star Trek the Next Generation, that’s why those words are the same. Just kidding, but your reasoning is just like this.
Oh boy...
Now you are telling us that 3D printers do not emit data.
Yeah, everything you can touch or feel or see is data.
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
(https://i.imgur.com/yy3W4ZV.jpg)
Wow, look, a flat human. I wonder how he plans to eat that with his two-dimensional mouth. Probably going to starve.
Do you really look at this and think he is flat because he's on a flat screen?
Yet a photo of a spinning ball is not a ball because your computer display is flat? Seriously? That's pretty impressive levels of denial.
Denial of what?
That an image has been faked?
Or imaging devices do not emit round data?
Showing me a picture of an earthbound object I have encountered...again, strawman...
Sure! But you first, that’s only fair.
By the way, there is an imaging device capable of producing spherical data...it's called a 3D printer...
Are you going to tell everyone there is one those attached to the satellite?
I cannot show you the data produced by a 3D printer here...
You'll need to go look at it yourself.
Oh I see, you think that 3D data actually has to be a 3 dimensional object. Wow. No wonder this is confusing, you haven’t learned what data is.
3D printers don’t print “data.” They print Data, an AI character from Star Trek the Next Generation, that’s why those words are the same. Just kidding, but your reasoning is just like this.
Oh boy...
Now you are telling us that 3D printers do not emit data.
Yeah, everything you can touch or feel or see is data.
That’s right. They do not emit data.
Or Data, for that matter.
No, data is not the same word as “noun.” Data is not every person, place, or thing. Data is not equivalent to information.
These are the basic definitions here, which shouldn’t require a debate.
Were you homeschooled?
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
(https://i.imgur.com/yy3W4ZV.jpg)
Wow, look, a flat human. I wonder how he plans to eat that with his two-dimensional mouth. Probably going to starve.
Do you really look at this and think he is flat because he's on a flat screen?
Yet a photo of a spinning ball is not a ball because your computer display is flat? Seriously? That's pretty impressive levels of denial.
Denial of what?
That an image has been faked?
Or imaging devices do not emit round data?
Showing me a picture of an earthbound object I have encountered...again, strawman...
Sure! But you first, that’s only fair.
By the way, there is an imaging device capable of producing spherical data...it's called a 3D printer...
Are you going to tell everyone there is one those attached to the satellite?
I cannot show you the data produced by a 3D printer here...
You'll need to go look at it yourself.
Oh I see, you think that 3D data actually has to be a 3 dimensional object. Wow. No wonder this is confusing, you haven’t learned what data is.
3D printers don’t print “data.” They print Data, an AI character from Star Trek the Next Generation, that’s why those words are the same. Just kidding, but your reasoning is just like this.
Oh boy...
Now you are telling us that 3D printers do not emit data.
Yeah, everything you can touch or feel or see is data.
That’s right. They do not emit data.
Or Data, for that matter.
No, data is not the same word as “noun.” Data is not every person, place, or thing. Data is not equivalent to information.
These are the basic definitions here, which shouldn’t require a debate.
Were you homeschooled?
Whether or not I was homeschooled matters not to the fact that things you touch, feel, or see, is of course data.
These things are processed by the most wonderful computer available to each of us, and that is the brain.
Have a great day.
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
(https://i.imgur.com/yy3W4ZV.jpg)
Wow, look, a flat human. I wonder how he plans to eat that with his two-dimensional mouth. Probably going to starve.
Do you really look at this and think he is flat because he's on a flat screen?
Yet a photo of a spinning ball is not a ball because your computer display is flat? Seriously? That's pretty impressive levels of denial.
Denial of what?
That an image has been faked?
Or imaging devices do not emit round data?
Showing me a picture of an earthbound object I have encountered...again, strawman...
Sure! But you first, that’s only fair.
By the way, there is an imaging device capable of producing spherical data...it's called a 3D printer...
Are you going to tell everyone there is one those attached to the satellite?
I cannot show you the data produced by a 3D printer here...
You'll need to go look at it yourself.
Oh I see, you think that 3D data actually has to be a 3 dimensional object. Wow. No wonder this is confusing, you haven’t learned what data is.
3D printers don’t print “data.” They print Data, an AI character from Star Trek the Next Generation, that’s why those words are the same. Just kidding, but your reasoning is just like this.
Oh boy...
Now you are telling us that 3D printers do not emit data.
Yeah, everything you can touch or feel or see is data.
That’s right. They do not emit data.
Or Data, for that matter.
No, data is not the same word as “noun.” Data is not every person, place, or thing. Data is not equivalent to information.
These are the basic definitions here, which shouldn’t require a debate.
Were you homeschooled?
Whether or not I was homeschooled matters not to the fact that things you touch, feel, or see, is of course data.
These things are processed by the most wonderful computer available to each of us, and that is the brain.
Have a great day.
So that’s a yes. Got it.
You’ve committed a basic syllogistic error. All data is information, but not all information is data.
Your brain is not a computer. That analogy is simply contemporary. Much like back in Freud’s day they drew an analogy between emotions and steam engines - since it was the industrial revolution.
Case in point: the words you write in these replies are information, but are entirely vapid, so their data value is zero.
As before, your argument is self-defeating.
Have a great day, too!
-
Wow, look, a flat human. I wonder how he plans to eat that with his two-dimensional mouth. Probably going to starve.
Do you really look at this and think he is flat because he's on a flat screen?
Yet a photo of a spinning ball is not a ball because your computer display is flat? Seriously? That's pretty impressive levels of denial.
Denial of what?
That an image has been faked?
Or imaging devices do not emit round data?
Showing me a picture of an earthbound object I have encountered...again, strawman...
Imaging devices do not emit round data? I'm not even going to bother with that one.
"I have encountered" Once again you are showing that you ignore facts and only care about your beliefs. You dismiss anything YOU don't already accept.
You believe in a picture of a human because you have seen humans, but won't believe in a picture of the earth because you never saw it from space yourself. That's it. That's the limit of your reasoning.
To you the picture doesn't matter, all that matters is if it fits what you want to believe. You scream 'fake' at anything you don't like. That is not an argument, it's dogma.
-
Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
Come on, now you're just being disingenuous. All images are flat, but you can generally tell that the image is of 3D objects and the shape of those objects. The lighting of the image taken from lunar orbit is characteristic of a sphere being lit. And the video is clearly of a sphere rotating.
You can say the images and video are fake, of course, but it's pretty clear what the shape of the object shown in the images is.
I will agree with one thing you said a while back, most people couldn't explain how they know they live on a globe, it's just what they've been taught. But it doesn't take much digging in to, if you understand the science, to know that we do.
-
Wow, look, a flat human. I wonder how he plans to eat that with his two-dimensional mouth. Probably going to starve.
Do you really look at this and think he is flat because he's on a flat screen?
Yet a photo of a spinning ball is not a ball because your computer display is flat? Seriously? That's pretty impressive levels of denial.
Denial of what?
That an image has been faked?
Or imaging devices do not emit round data?
Showing me a picture of an earthbound object I have encountered...again, strawman...
Imaging devices do not emit round data? I'm not even going to bother with that one.
I know you won't.
Cause you cannot...
"I have encountered" Once again you are showing that you ignore facts and only care about your beliefs. You dismiss anything YOU don't already accept.
I dismiss the things you choose to label, "FACTS", due to my mental conditioning, not due to your mental conditioning.
You choose the word, "FACTS," because it is your blanket, your comfy place, your binky...
You believe in a picture of a human because you have seen humans, but won't believe in a picture of the earth because you never saw it from space yourself. That's it. That's the limit of your reasoning.
Strawman.
To you the picture doesn't matter, all that matters is if it fits what you want to believe. You scream 'fake' at anything you don't like. That is not an argument, it's dogma.
Strawman.Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...
Come on, now you're just being disingenuous. All images are flat, but you can generally tell that the image is of 3D objects and the shape of those objects. The lighting of the image taken from lunar orbit is characteristic of a sphere being lit. And the video is clearly of a sphere rotating.
You can say the images and video are fake, of course, but it's pretty clear what the shape of the object shown in the images is.
I will agree with one thing you said a while back, most people couldn't explain how they know they live on a globe, it's just what they've been taught. But it doesn't take much digging in to, if you understand the science, to know that we do.
Come now...
The video is of a ball rotating that resembles a globe earth.
You have no idea whether or not it is genuine.
And that is being disingenuous.
I am writing it could be fake and the reason I write it could be fake is because we have it on undeniable and factual record that NASA has released fake images.
I am not the one being disingenuous.
There are a multitude of explanations that "science," has produced.
None of them are necessarily valid.
As far as math is concerned, the process of casting out 9's is an example of just another way that math could validate anything you want.
-
"I have encountered" Once again you are showing that you ignore facts and only care about your beliefs. You dismiss anything YOU don't already accept.
I dismiss the things you choose to label, "FACTS", due to my mental conditioning, not due to your mental conditioning.
You choose the word, "FACTS," because it is your blanket, your comfy place, your binky...
You should really take a long look in the mirror, you honestly have a serious case of projection here.
Look at what you wrote, you dismiss things because of your mental conditioning? That's not how one reasons.
I dismiss the things you choose to label, "FACTS", due to my mental conditioning
Then you imagine that I believe in a round earth because it comforts me. What is comforting about believing I'm on a tiny ball in a vast universe? Nothing about science is comforting, it's just a collection of data and theories and math to explain it. It can be exciting and interesting, but comforting? No.
What would be comforting is imagining the whole universe was literally built around me, that I and the Earth are special and the center and reason for everything, that the Earth and the universe is a simple and comfy place.
If that is what you believe, no amount of discussion is going to change it, your mind is yours. But you won't be able to debate others either, as your arguments ultimate rest on denial and rejection of anything that does not fit your needs.
I suspect the person you are arguing with here and trying to convince, is yourself.
-
"I have encountered" Once again you are showing that you ignore facts and only care about your beliefs. You dismiss anything YOU don't already accept.
I dismiss the things you choose to label, "FACTS", due to my mental conditioning, not due to your mental conditioning.
You choose the word, "FACTS," because it is your blanket, your comfy place, your binky...
You should really take a long look in the mirror, you honestly have a serious case of projection here.
Look at what you wrote, you dismiss things because of your mental conditioning? That's not how one reasons.
I dismiss the things you choose to label, "FACTS", due to my mental conditioning
Then you imagine that I believe in a round earth because it comforts me.
You cannot even get this right...
Reasoning requires a dismissal of mental conditioning and perhaps bias.
Something you fail to admit.
I never wrote you beleve in a globe because it comforts you, although you probably don't want to ever think you are wrong about anything.
I wrote you believe in a globe because of your failure to acknowledge your bias.
It is your labeling of things as FACTS that is your blanket, your comfort, your binky...
-
The video is of a ball rotating that resembles a globe earth.
You have no idea whether or not it is genuine.
Correct. But you could apply that to any image.
So this is where I come back to my model of reality.
Show me a photo of an elephant walking across the African plain then I'm not going to immediately think it's fake. It could be of course but I know that elephants exist. I know they live in Africa. I'd have no particular reason to suspect fakery.
Show me a picture of an elephant flying then my initial reaction would be that it's fake. Because my model of reality tells me that elephants can't fly.
I've been through why I find photos from satellites credible. My model of reality tells me that we live on a globe earth and we have satellites orbiting it. So sure, why couldn't they be sending images back? Have they been altered? Well, in the sense that colour balance and contrast may have been altered, maybe. But that's the logical equivalent of using a filter on your phone camera, it doesn't mean that the object you're taking a photo of doesn't exist or you weren't really looking at it and taking the photo of it.
Yes, they could be fake, but NASA are absolutely not on record on saying they release "fake" images. Please provide a source where they say that. And the word fake is important here. The aforementioned photo of a flying elephant is fake - elephants can't fly so image of one flying must have been created. The photo of the elephant walking may well have been altered in the sense that maybe the contrast has been changed to make it clearer. But it's still a real image of a real elephant that the person taking the image saw. NASA admit to altering images. They admit to compositing images. These things are not the same as the images being fake and I don't believe you will find a source where they say that they are faking images of earth.
NASA do sometimes release artist impressions of things like exoplanets which we currently don't have the technology to get good images of but when they do that they clearly label them as such.
-
The video is of a ball rotating that resembles a globe earth.
You have no idea whether or not it is genuine.
Correct. But you could apply that to any image.
So this is where I come back to my model of reality.
Show me a photo of an elephant walking across the African plain then I'm not going to immediately think it's fake. It could be of course but I know that elephants exist. I know they live in Africa. I'd have no particular reason to suspect fakery.
Show me a picture of an elephant flying then my initial reaction would be that it's fake. Because my model of reality tells me that elephants can't fly.
I've been through why I find photos from satellites credible. My model of reality tells me that we live on a globe earth and we have satellites orbiting it. So sure, why couldn't they be sending images back? Have they been altered? Well, in the sense that colour balance and contrast may have been altered, maybe. But that's the logical equivalent of using a filter on your phone camera, it doesn't mean that the object you're taking a photo of doesn't exist or you weren't really looking at it and taking the photo of it.
Yes, they could be fake, but NASA are absolutely not on record on saying they release "fake" images. Please provide a source where they say that. And the word fake is important here. The aforementioned photo of a flying elephant is fake - elephants can't fly so image of one flying must have been created. The photo of the elephant walking may well have been altered in the sense that maybe the contrast has been changed to make it clearer. But it's still a real image of a real elephant that the person taking the image saw. NASA admit to altering images. They admit to compositing images. These things are not the same as the images being fake and I don't believe you will find a source where they say that they are faking images of earth.
NASA do sometimes release artist impressions of things like exoplanets which we currently don't have the technology to get good images of but when they do that they clearly label them as such.
Exactly, you are solely relying on your model of reality to predetermine whether any images you are shown are genuine or fake.
That is bias.
Which is fine by me...you can keep it.
I try not to do that, but we are all susceptible to a certain extent.
And NASA is on record as having released fake images.
I provided a link here in this thread.
The title of the article I posted reads: "The guy who created the iPhone’s Earth image explains why he needed to fake it."
There it is...right in the title...the word...fake.
-
The video is of a ball rotating that resembles a globe earth.
You have no idea whether or not it is genuine.
Correct. But you could apply that to any image.
So this is where I come back to my model of reality.
Show me a photo of an elephant walking across the African plain then I'm not going to immediately think it's fake. It could be of course but I know that elephants exist. I know they live in Africa. I'd have no particular reason to suspect fakery.
Show me a picture of an elephant flying then my initial reaction would be that it's fake. Because my model of reality tells me that elephants can't fly.
I've been through why I find photos from satellites credible. My model of reality tells me that we live on a globe earth and we have satellites orbiting it. So sure, why couldn't they be sending images back? Have they been altered? Well, in the sense that colour balance and contrast may have been altered, maybe. But that's the logical equivalent of using a filter on your phone camera, it doesn't mean that the object you're taking a photo of doesn't exist or you weren't really looking at it and taking the photo of it.
Yes, they could be fake, but NASA are absolutely not on record on saying they release "fake" images. Please provide a source where they say that. And the word fake is important here. The aforementioned photo of a flying elephant is fake - elephants can't fly so image of one flying must have been created. The photo of the elephant walking may well have been altered in the sense that maybe the contrast has been changed to make it clearer. But it's still a real image of a real elephant that the person taking the image saw. NASA admit to altering images. They admit to compositing images. These things are not the same as the images being fake and I don't believe you will find a source where they say that they are faking images of earth.
NASA do sometimes release artist impressions of things like exoplanets which we currently don't have the technology to get good images of but when they do that they clearly label them as such.
Exactly, you are solely relying on your model of reality to predetermine whether any images you are shown are genuine or fake.
That is bias.
Which is fine by me...you can keep it.
I try not to do that, but we are all susceptible to a certain extent.
And NASA is on record as having released fake images.
I provided a link here in this thread.
The title of the article I posted reads: "The guy who created the iPhone’s Earth image explains why he needed to fake it."
There it is...right in the title...the word...fake.
He “faked” it by assembling actual images of the Earth from space in order to produce a screen saver.
You appear to be grasping for any piece of argumentation, no matter how poor. I think you may be exhibiting extreme confirmation bias.
If I made a video called Totallackey is an idiot, would that make you an idiot? I mean, it says so right in the title! The word idiot!
Of course not, you are not an idiot because some video has that word in the title. And the word “fake” in this title doesn’t prove a NASA conspiracy.
-
He “faked” it by assembling actual images of the Earth from space in order to produce a screen saver.
Not quite...he assembled scans (not images) of the earth supposedly gathered from space...
You appear to be grasping for any piece of argumentation, no matter how poor. I think you may be exhibiting extreme confirmation bias.
Actually, you are just doing the self-congratulatory post most RE-adherents engage in when lacking anything of relevance...
Helps to remind yourself of how the other guy is doing "poorly..." and the thought..."Better accuse the other guy of confirmation bias, even though I will pull the good old "Everybody knows the earth is ROUND," number out later too...just in case!" approach...
If I made a video called Totallackey is an idiot, would that make you an idiot? I mean, it says so right in the title! The word idiot!
Of course not, you are not an idiot because some video has that word in the title. And the word “fake” in this title doesn’t prove a NASA conspiracy.
I never claimed there was a NASA conspiracy...
Did you just pull that out from the usual place?
Nice backhanded attempt at the insults...
I'm done responding to you.
-
He “faked” it by assembling actual images of the Earth from space in order to produce a screen saver.
Not quite...he assembled scans (not images) of the earth supposedly gathered from space...
You appear to be grasping for any piece of argumentation, no matter how poor. I think you may be exhibiting extreme confirmation bias.
Actually, you are just doing the self-congratulatory post most RE-adherents engage in when lacking anything of relevance...
Helps to remind yourself of how the other guy is doing "poorly..." and the thought..."Better accuse the other guy of confirmation bias, even though I will pull the good old "Everybody knows the earth is ROUND," number out later too...just in case!" approach...
If I made a video called Totallackey is an idiot, would that make you an idiot? I mean, it says so right in the title! The word idiot!
Of course not, you are not an idiot because some video has that word in the title. And the word “fake” in this title doesn’t prove a NASA conspiracy.
I never claimed there was a NASA conspiracy...
Did you just pull that out from the usual place?
Nice backhanded attempt at the insults...
I'm done responding to you.
Yeah we’re both right. They are scans and scans are image files.
But the import of what I said remains: he didn’t fake the images he used, he just made a nice picture out of them for iPhones. This doesn’t mean:
1. The original images are fake
2. The produced image was intended to be scientifically accurate.
So I really don’t know what your point is here.
-
Totallackey, It's crazy how quick you are to believe a NASA guy talking about how he had to "fake it" but also quick to not believe anything else NASA says. ??? What is it dude? Are they liars and fakers or are they not? "The reason NASA are liars is because here is a NASA employee saying so" is basically what you're doing here, not believing NASA because you believe NASA then turning round to the rest of us and trying to point out some percieved confirmation bias.. I'm going to put aside that you'd completely misunderstood the article and that a composited image of earth (of which they are pretty open about) is clearly not evidence that NASA's photos of a globe earth are fake. I mean, I could make a CGI image of a rock I found, that doesn't somehow mean the actual rock is fake.
I've seen CGI images of a flat earth, so there, proof that flat earth is faked. ::)
-
Exactly, you are solely relying on your model of reality to predetermine whether any images you are shown are genuine or fake.
As are you, as is everyone. At the very least we use our model of reality to give us an idea in our head how likely an image is to be real.
Are you suggesting that if you see a picture of an elephant walking through the African plain your first instinct is to research whether it's a real image or fake.
I call bullshit on that.
That is bias.
No, it's just using common sense. If I see a picture of an elephant flying then I have very good reason to suspect it's fake, if I see a picture one walking in its natural habitat I'd have to have pretty good evidence to declare it fake.
And NASA is on record as having released fake images.
The link explains that the image is a composite of real photos from space. Any time you take a panorama your camera is creating a composite image.
That does not mean that the result is fake.
In this case what he did was a bit more elaborate, he also enhanced some of the images he made the composite result with.
But he is not admitting the image is CGI because it is not. The composite is made from real images taken from space by an orbiting satellite.
And I note the satellite orbits over both Poles which rather blows your monopole model out of the water.
Other pictures, and the film you were shown earlier, are not composites.
And what's your take here. You believe NASA are faking all their images, but you also believe that they are perfectly happy with their employees openly giving interviews in which they carefully explain how an image was made? Man, they sure do suck at keeping secrets...
-
Exactly, you are solely relying on your model of reality to predetermine whether any images you are shown are genuine or fake.
As are you, as is everyone. At the very least we use our model of reality to give us an idea in our head how likely an image is to be real.
Are you suggesting that if you see a picture of an elephant walking through the African plain your first instinct is to research whether it's a real image or fake.
I call bullshit on that.
You can save yourself the time on typing the word, "bullshit," relative to the suggestion because of the following:
1) I never brought up that suggestion; and,
B) I would never bring up that suggestion because I am unaware of anyone ever stating in any publication they "faked," an image of an elephant walking through the African plain.
That is bias.
No, it's just using common sense. If I see a picture of an elephant flying then I have very good reason to suspect it's fake, if I see a picture one walking in its natural habitat I'd have to have pretty good evidence to declare it fake.
For the reason I just stated above...yeah...it is bias.
And NASA is on record as having released fake images.
The link explains that the image is a composite of real photos from space. Any time you take a panorama your camera is creating a composite image.
That does not mean that the result is fake.
In this case what he did was a bit more elaborate, he also enhanced some of the images he made the composite result with.
But he is not admitting the image is CGI because it is not. The composite is made from real images taken from space by an orbiting satellite.
And I note the satellite orbits over both Poles which rather blows your monopole model out of the water.
Other pictures, and the film you were shown earlier, are not composites.
And what's your take here. You believe NASA are faking all their images, but you also believe that they are perfectly happy with their employees openly giving interviews in which they carefully explain how an image was made? Man, they sure do suck at keeping secrets...
I never stated they suck at keeping secrets.
Cause they aren't...
Doin it right out in the open.
-
Exactly, you are solely relying on your model of reality to predetermine whether any images you are shown are genuine or fake.
As are you, as is everyone. At the very least we use our model of reality to give us an idea in our head how likely an image is to be real.
Are you suggesting that if you see a picture of an elephant walking through the African plain your first instinct is to research whether it's a real image or fake.
I call bullshit on that.
You can save yourself the time on typing the word, "bullshit," relative to the suggestion because of the following:
1) I never brought up that suggestion; and,
B) I would never bring up that suggestion because I am unaware of anyone ever stating in any publication they "faked," an image of an elephant walking through the African plain.
That is bias.
No, it's just using common sense. If I see a picture of an elephant flying then I have very good reason to suspect it's fake, if I see a picture one walking in its natural habitat I'd have to have pretty good evidence to declare it fake.
For the reason I just stated above...yeah...it is bias.
And NASA is on record as having released fake images.
The link explains that the image is a composite of real photos from space. Any time you take a panorama your camera is creating a composite image.
That does not mean that the result is fake.
In this case what he did was a bit more elaborate, he also enhanced some of the images he made the composite result with.
But he is not admitting the image is CGI because it is not. The composite is made from real images taken from space by an orbiting satellite.
And I note the satellite orbits over both Poles which rather blows your monopole model out of the water.
Other pictures, and the film you were shown earlier, are not composites.
And what's your take here. You believe NASA are faking all their images, but you also believe that they are perfectly happy with their employees openly giving interviews in which they carefully explain how an image was made? Man, they sure do suck at keeping secrets...
I never stated they suck at keeping secrets.
Cause they aren't...
Doin it right out in the open.
Okay, so we agree that the composite image is not evidence that NASA faked space images, precisely because you originally implied that the person faked the images of space, and it was then shown that this is false, and you effectively conceded this point above.
So I presume you desire to abandon this discussion, since the only evidence supplied which supported your position was overturned?
In that case, we can close out the thread with a satisfying conclusion:
“Supposed evidence of NASA faked images shown to be erroneous.”
-
Okay, so we agree that the composite image is not evidence that NASA faked space images, precisely because you originally implied that the person faked the images of space, and it was then shown that this is false, and you effectively conceded this point above.
The guy writes he "faked," an image.
The article describes how he faked it.
This demonstrates NASA releases faked images and one process for how they fake them.
[/quote]
-
Context is everything. he put together a cool image, openly admitting so, for the sake of having a cool image. He then tries to explain the a target audience what went into making that image happen. What about the photos that NASA claim are real photos of earth that aren't composited, CGI or otherwise?
If say, I make a pie and I imprint the sides with a knife and make it look like I used a fork, I made the pattern by 'faking' it. does that somehow make the whole pie not true and does it somehow mean I am some kind of fraudster?
-
Okay, so we agree that the composite image is not evidence that NASA faked space images, precisely because you originally implied that the person faked the images of space, and it was then shown that this is false, and you effectively conceded this point above.
The guy writes he "faked," an image.
The article describes how he faked it.
This demonstrates NASA releases faked images and one process for how they fake them.
[/quote]
My brother wants to be very cool. So I recommended he go hang out in a refrigerator.
I’ll explain why the above is relevant in a moment :)
You are engaging in what’s called a definitional retreat. You accuse NASA of faking their space images - because you don’t think they’ve been to space. The evidence you put forward was refuted (it looks like you didn’t read the article carefully). So rather than acknowledging the error, which would be rather adult of you, and moving on to more fruitful lines of reasoning, you are now attempting to cling to the fact that SOMETHING was faked. So it’s still good. Right guys? Still works?
....guys?
Nope. This is a poor pivot, even for you. If we permit the redefinition of a conversation’s salient term then we won’t be making good use of our time. Our discussions will twirl through infinite semantical loops while poor-intentioned actors equivocate.
Not interested. Find evidence or GTFO.
-
Okay, so we agree that the composite image is not evidence that NASA faked space images, precisely because you originally implied that the person faked the images of space, and it was then shown that this is false, and you effectively conceded this point above.
The guy writes he "faked," an image.
The article describes how he faked it.
This demonstrates NASA releases faked images and one process for how they fake them.
[/quote]
Hi,
Was curious to know why you ascribe legitimacy to a guy or an article talking about a guy who says he faked NASA images VS. the thousands and thousands of pictures taken from space from the hundreds of astronauts (scientists, teachers, etc..) whom say they have been to space and took the pictures?
If your looking at this without applying any confirmation bias, how do you know that one is more legitimate than the other?
Why is it not reasonable to ascribe legitimacy the other way around, i.e. to the hundreds of astronauts whom say they have been to space with their pictures of space?
Thanks.
-
Not interested. Find evidence or GTFO.
Well, since you are the one not interested....
And, since you are the one who has a defined positional worldview antithetical to the forum's positional stance, it would be you who should be gtfo'in...
Just sayin...
Only a person with their back to the wall would claim the word "fake," doesn't really mean the word fake.
-
Hi,
Was curious to know why you ascribe legitimacy to a guy or an article talking about a guy who says he faked NASA images VS. the thousands and thousands of pictures taken from space from the hundreds of astronauts (scientists, teachers, etc..) whom say they have been to space and took the pictures?
First, there slightly over 500 people claiming to have been in space.
Of those, only thirty have ever been claimed to have traveled farther away from the earth than the ISS.
If your looking at this without applying any confirmation bias, how do you know that one is more legitimate than the other?
Why is it not reasonable to ascribe legitimacy the other way around, i.e. to the hundreds of astronauts whom say they have been to space with their pictures of space?
Thanks.
I already admit confirmation bias.
You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.
Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.
-
Not interested. Find evidence or GTFO.
Well, since you are the one not interested....
And, since you are the one who has a defined positional worldview antithetical to the forum's positional stance, it would be you who should be gtfo'in...
Just sayin...
Only a person with their back to the wall would claim the word "fake," doesn't really mean the word fake.
The zetetic method isn’t a worldview, it is a process. The associated worldview might be denialism, with the corresponding antithetical worldview being skepticism.
Anyway, back to your fart plumes. Still waiting for any evidence that plume containment means anything other than when you self Dutch oven with the bedsheets.
I know you won’t find any, which is why you keep stalling and deflecting.
-
I already admit confirmation bias.
You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.
Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.
I am curious, do you believe people have been to the top of Mt. Everest? I assume you have never been to the summit yourself to verify it exists.
Why believe mountain climbers, but not astronauts?
How can you tell which group is lying and which is telling the truth?
-
I already admit confirmation bias.
You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.
Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.
I am curious, do you believe people have been to the top of Mt. Everest? I assume you have never been to the summit yourself to verify it exists.
Why believe mountain climbers, but not astronauts?
How can you tell which group is lying and which is telling the truth?
We have already had similar dialogue earlier.
You are writing of an earth-bound scenario, attempting to compare it to something to which I nor you have potential access.
I can travel (if wish) to the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Himalayan, ranges, and witness the summits.
I'm using my confirmation bias, the same way you use yours.
Pardon me if this offends you.
On second thought, don't pardon me.
Own your emotions and/or sensibilities and ask,"Why would I allow the different opinion someone has regarding the legitimacy of photographs affect me so much that I must spend days arguing that it is and must be illegitimate?"
-
I already admit confirmation bias.
You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.
Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.
I am curious, do you believe people have been to the top of Mt. Everest? I assume you have never been to the summit yourself to verify it exists.
Why believe mountain climbers, but not astronauts?
How can you tell which group is lying and which is telling the truth?
We have already had similar dialogue earlier.
You are writing of an earth-bound scenario, attempting to compare it to something to which I nor you have potential access.
I can travel (if wish) to the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Himalayan, ranges, and witness the summits.
I'm using my confirmation bias, the same way you use yours.
Pardon me if this offends you.
On second thought, don't pardon me.
Own your emotions and/or sensibilities and ask,"Why would I allow the different opinion someone has regarding the legitimacy of photographs affect me so much that I must spend days arguing that it is and must be illegitimate?"
I'm not offended, I wouldn't care what you think normally, but you are using your opinion to tell others that pictures from space are fake and astronauts are liars.
Once you do this, then you have to back those statements up.
If you simply want to say "I believe the world is flat" that is fine, but the moment you start calling others wrong, and claiming things as fact, then you need to explain your reasons or provide evidence.
Asking questions like I did is the entire reason for this thread, it's why we are both here, is it not?
So back to the discussion, yes you could get to Mt Everest with a lot of work, but you could also reach the edge of space and see the curve with a lot of work. Both would take money and physical conditioning, but there is no reason you could not do both.
-
I already admit confirmation bias.
You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.
Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.
I am curious, do you believe people have been to the top of Mt. Everest? I assume you have never been to the summit yourself to verify it exists.
Why believe mountain climbers, but not astronauts?
How can you tell which group is lying and which is telling the truth?
We have already had similar dialogue earlier.
You are writing of an earth-bound scenario, attempting to compare it to something to which I nor you have potential access.
I can travel (if wish) to the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Himalayan, ranges, and witness the summits.
I'm using my confirmation bias, the same way you use yours.
Pardon me if this offends you.
On second thought, don't pardon me.
Own your emotions and/or sensibilities and ask,"Why would I allow the different opinion someone has regarding the legitimacy of photographs affect me so much that I must spend days arguing that it is and must be illegitimate?"
I'm not offended, I wouldn't care what you think normally, but you are using your opinion to tell others that pictures from space are fake and astronauts are liars.
Once you do this, then you have to back those statements up.
I have.
I posted an article where the person admitted he faked the image.
If you simply want to say "I believe the world is flat" that is fine, but the moment you start calling others wrong, and claiming things as fact, then you need to explain your reasons or provide evidence.
Don't need to to do anything, but I have anyway.
Asking questions like I did is the entire reason for this thread, it's why we are both here, is it not?
I'm fairly certain as to why I am here...
I'm not so sure as to why you are here.
I mean, we have this:
I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?
Asked in this thread (and answered by me):
Never has been my stance.
If I tell you the CPU in your phone is made up of a billion tiny switches so small you can't see them, all flicking on and off a billion times a second and it's made from silicon, do you think I'm telling the truth?
Perhaps.
It is an earthbound object and something like this could be verified if I really thought it important.
So, the reasons for you being here are certainly up for debate, because it is apparent you don't or can't comprehend answers to questions you have already proferred.
So back to the discussion, yes you could get to Mt Everest with a lot of work, but you could also reach the edge of space and see the curve with a lot of work. Both would take money and physical conditioning, but there is no reason you could not do both.
Yeah, right...
LOL!!!
Here is the most fanfreakingfantastic claim ever made on tfes.org!
Unbelievable...
-
So back to the discussion, yes you could get to Mt Everest with a lot of work, but you could also reach the edge of space and see the curve with a lot of work. Both would take money and physical conditioning, but there is no reason you could not do both.
Yeah, right...
LOL!!!
Here is the most fanfreakingfantastic claim ever made on tfes.org!
Unbelievable...
You can climb Mt. Everest if you have the money.
You can travel in a hot air balloon capable of hitting 65,000 feet if you have the money.
Neither are easy, but both are possible and have been done by many people.
So if you believe in Mt Everest because it's possible for you to see it, then you should believe in pictures from 65,000ft because that is also possible for you to do.
-
So back to the discussion, yes you could get to Mt Everest with a lot of work, but you could also reach the edge of space and see the curve with a lot of work. Both would take money and physical conditioning, but there is no reason you could not do both.
Yeah, right...
LOL!!!
Here is the most fanfreakingfantastic claim ever made on tfes.org!
Unbelievable...
You can climb Mt. Everest if you have the money.
Which I wrote.
You can travel in a hot air balloon capable of hitting 65,000 feet if you have the money.
The Karman line, defined by RE-adherents to be the edge of space is at 100km, well above 65,000 feet.
Neither are easy, but both are possible and have been done by many people.
Put an actual number in place of the word "many."
That way, we can all put a picture next to your mental definition of the word, "many,"; thus, in turn, finding out it is more akin to "few," as offered by Oxford and Webster.
-
You can climb Mt. Everest if you have the money.
Which I wrote.
You can travel in a hot air balloon capable of hitting 65,000 feet if you have the money.
The Karman line, defined by RE-adherents to be the edge of space is at 100km, well above 65,000 feet.
Neither are easy, but both are possible and have been done by many people.
Put an actual number in place of the word "many."
That way, we can all put a picture next to your mental definition of the word, "many,"; thus, in turn, finding out it is more akin to "few," as offered by Oxford and Webster.
1. What is many? In a balloon? A dozen? On rockets? Hundreds.
2. Who said anything about the Karman line? 65,000ft is high enough to see the curve if it exists. Of course a balloon can't get you into space where there is no air.
3. We both know you will never ACTUALLY climb Mt Everest. But your argument is it is POSSIBLE so you believe it. Well a balloon at 65,000ft is POSSIBLE too. So it doesn't matter how many people did it.
Which brings us back to reasons for dismissing astronauts testimony and photographs but accepting Mt Everest as simply one supports your beliefs, and one does not. That isn't logic or science, it's faith.
Saying you believe Mt Everest because it's possible for you to see it in person is not a very good standard of evidence. You will never go there, never see the summit for yourself, but I hope you admit that it's a real mountain.
-
Hi,
Was curious to know why you ascribe legitimacy to a guy or an article talking about a guy who says he faked NASA images VS. the thousands and thousands of pictures taken from space from the hundreds of astronauts (scientists, teachers, etc..) whom say they have been to space and took the pictures?
First, there slightly over 500 people claiming to have been in space.
Of those, only thirty have ever been claimed to have traveled farther away from the earth than the ISS.
If your looking at this without applying any confirmation bias, how do you know that one is more legitimate than the other?
Why is it not reasonable to ascribe legitimacy the other way around, i.e. to the hundreds of astronauts whom say they have been to space with their pictures of space?
Thanks.
I already admit confirmation bias.
You show confirmation bias yourself, when you type "hundreds of astronauts...with their pictures of space," with absolutely no facts to back to back that statement up.
Most RE-adherents won't though, so its nothing new.
Hi,
In the Flat Earth Theory forum section, I posted a recommendation for Flat Earthers to "stress test" their theory that Space Travel is a conspiracy hoax during the May 27 manned SpaceX launch to the ISS.
This would present Flat Earthers with a golden opportunity to observe the launch, and track the trajectory and telemetry of said launch, including tracking each of the stages of the rocket with Dragon capsule all the way to ISS.
Flat Earthers contend that rockets launch but then ditch in the ocean thus, never reaching space. This could be an opportunity to track everything from start to finish to test against your theory. Additionally, if space travel is a hoax or a conspiracy and a Dragon capsule suddenly appeared to land on Earth, where did it originally come from, if not from space? These are examples of things Flat Earth members could try and observe to test their theory.
Flat Earthers could even use high powered telescopes to track the ISS object orbiting overhead.
See details in that particular thread.
Thank you.