[Ghost of V]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

Like I said earlier, this is techno-babble. It means nothing.

[Rama Set]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

Like I said earlier, this is techno-babble. It means nothing.

Oh so you just don't like the answer. Ah well you can't win them all can you?  Just please do not complain that no answer was given when one obviously was.

[markjo]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

[Ghost of V]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

[Rama Set]

You may have noticed that no one in this thread has disagreed that NASA edits photos. All that is being contested is your odd and somewhat nonsensical assertion that photo-editing is nefarious. You have completely failed to support that idea.

[markjo]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

[Ghost of V]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.

[Rama Set]

So they do not try and hide it and answer any questions about it. You take this as a sign of guilt. Well could you please tell me how an innocent party behaves when the edit photos?

[Ghost of V]

So they do not try and hide it and answer any questions about it. You take this as a sign of guilt. Well could you please tell me how an innocent party behaves when the edit photos?

Why would an innocent party have to edit photos to begin with? 

[rottingroom]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.

I don't have any reason to think that just about every photo isn't doctored. I doctor almost 100% of the photos in my personal library. So what?

[Rama Set]

So they do not try and hide it and answer any questions about it. You take this as a sign of guilt. Well could you please tell me how an innocent party behaves when the edit photos?

Why would an innocent party have to edit photos to begin with? 

You have been given multiple reasons in this thread.

[markjo]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.

Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?

[Gulliver]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.

Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?

And isn't it ridiculous for anyone to assume a malicious intent from any doctoring?

[Ghost of V]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.

Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?

I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.

[Rama Set]

Editing a photo does not mean you have something to hide either. So do you have anything that can show NASA's nefarious intent or can we drop this?

[rottingroom]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.

Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?

I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.

Yes you have.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61743.0#.U7y2kcvn8m8

[Ghost of V]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.

Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?

I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.

Yes you have.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61743.0#.U7y2kcvn8m8

There's still the possibility that my photo was cropped into a pre-existing NASA photo of Earth deliberately to discredit Flat Earth Theory.

[rottingroom]

No Vauxhall there really isn't.

[Shmeggley]

Yes. She clearly states what she was covering up in the photo...

So you're saying that the fact that NASA is revealing exactly how and why an image is being manipulated is evidence that they're hiding something? 

I am simply trying to demonstrate that photo-editing is not beneath NASA. I think I was successful when demonstrating this. Obviously, NASA can edit photos and does so frequently. Maybe RE'ers will stop and think about my words before they claim that NASA is completely innocent again (but I doubt it).

Perhaps you should try demonstrating how editing photos makes NASA untrustworthy, especially when they explain how and why they edit the photos.

They explain how and why when confronted with evidence of their doctoring. They don't give explanations otherwise. That's the sign of a guilty party.

Do you explain how and why you doctor every one of your photos?

I have never doctored a photo in my life. I have nothing to hide.

Did you forget this already?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61615.msg1614468#msg1614468

I cropped myself out of the photo because I didn't want to reveal my face. I request you take that down, please. I will report you.

[Gulliver]

...
Did you forget this already?
,,,

Excellent counterexample. Doctoring need not be malicious. Amusing that NASA maliciously doctors evidence is ridiculous.