[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying it is most likely not CGI

Do you think the image I posted was CGI?

Or the product of many talented individuals using whatever process was available at the time to create an image that was life-like and believable?

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?

The Soviets were tracking the mission, heck i'm kidding the entire world does. This requires all the country that was tracking it to be in league of NASA or NASA did send an unmanned object to the Moon. Which would brings the question, why wouldn't they send a manned one like they claimed? There were already a speech prepared for them in case they don't make it back to Earth.

We also have the retro reflectors placed on the Moon and brought back Moon rocks, which tasks may seem to be too hard for a machine of that era.

[CableDawg]

Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.

Yet you will stand on "I saw it with my own eyes." or something similar as your only proof for flat Earth.

How is this not a subjective argument?

What objective evidence has any flat Earth supporter ever produced which proves, beyond a doubt, that Earth is flat?

You can't have it both ways.  You can't deny one person's argument, due to subjectivity, when your own arguments are based in subjectivity.

[CableDawg]

Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.

He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.

Irrelevant.

Incorrect.

No one said it was CGI.



This is a still from "2001: A Space Odyssey," Circa 1968.

Don't discount what is possible to do for a group of highly motivated individuals. The idea that it would be just too darn hard to pull off, or inconceivable that someone would even try, is basically the first line of defense for every unthinkable thing that has ever been done.

It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?

Just less than 2 years was spent on creating 205 special effects shots for this movie, for an average of 100 special effects shots completed per year.

The math is simple.

At an average of 100 effect shots per year it would have taken 142 years to produce 14,233 photos.  Even if you increase the average to 200 per year it would still have taken 71 years to complete.

Or NASA had 1,425 people on board whose only job was to produce one photo per year over the course of 10 years. 

I'm guessing that you'll go with the second option.  Did they each have their own computer to make this happen?  Considering the cost of computers during this time, that must have been where all the money allocated to NASA went.  They didn't really launch rockets or send people to the moon.  They spent all the money on computers so that 1,500 people could produce some fake pictures for a few years.  This is the most logical train of thought.

[juner]

Yet you will stand on "I saw it with my own eyes." or something similar as your only proof for flat Earth.

How is this not a subjective argument?

What objective evidence has any flat Earth supporter ever produced which proves, beyond a doubt, that Earth is flat?

You can't have it both ways.  You can't deny one person's argument, due to subjectivity, when your own arguments are based in subjectivity.

I would legitimately be interested in how you jumped to so many conclusions as to what I think based on this conversation. What subjective argument have I made? You are simply making up things at this point.

Just less than 2 years was spent on creating 205 special effects shots for this movie, for an average of 100 special effects shots completed per year.

The math is simple.

At an average of 100 effect shots per year it would have taken 142 years to produce 14,233 photos.  Even if you increase the average to 200 per year it would still have taken 71 years to complete.

Or NASA had 1,425 people on board whose only job was to produce one photo per year over the course of 10 years. 

I'm guessing that you'll go with the second option.  Did they each have their own computer to make this happen?  Considering the cost of computers during this time, that must have been where all the money allocated to NASA went.  They didn't really launch rockets or send people to the moon.  They spent all the money on computers so that 1,500 people could produce some fake pictures for a few years.  This is the most logical train of thought.

So your assertion is that the shots made for the movie represent the absolute capacity of what could be achieved? At least the capacity where you could extrapolate some generic figures and apply them outside of the context of making this movie? You'll need to provide some evidence of your position on this one... I will hand it to you round earthers, you have really stepped up your mental gymnastic game.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?

The Soviets were tracking the mission, heck i'm kidding the entire world does. This requires all the country that was tracking it to be in league of NASA or NASA did send an unmanned object to the Moon. Which would brings the question, why wouldn't they send a manned one like they claimed? There were already a speech prepared for them in case they don't make it back to Earth.

We also have the retro reflectors placed on the Moon and brought back Moon rocks, which tasks may seem to be too hard for a machine of that era.

https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+rocks+fake&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

These moon rocks?

[rabinoz]

It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?

The Soviets were tracking the mission, heck i'm kidding the entire world does. This requires all the country that was tracking it to be in league of NASA or NASA did send an unmanned object to the Moon. Which would brings the question, why wouldn't they send a manned one like they claimed? There were already a speech prepared for them in case they don't make it back to Earth.

We also have the retro reflectors placed on the Moon and brought back Moon rocks, which tasks may seem to be too hard for a machine of that era.

https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+rocks+fake&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

These moon rocks?

These  moon  rocks?
Read all about it!
Part of Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof. Make of it what you will!

Neither NASA, nor the US Astronauts gave that rock to anyone. It was a US ambassador.
All 135 Apollo Moon Rocks that were handed out to nations were very small and massed at 1.1 grams. This fake rock massed 89 grams! It was also glued to a piece of cardboard.
The official Apollo Moon Rocks were encased in plastic globes.
The actual real Apollo moon Rocks are safe at the National Museum in Holland and are still there.
Here's the original story. Make sure you read ALL of it:  USA Today Fake Moon Rock 2009.

[Rounder]

The guy in your video makes two really telling points.
1. About the "Apollo photos/videos are fake" crowd he says this: "When you listen to them, they seem not to know very much about photography, or video, or lighting, or even perspective; and I think they're hoping you don't either."  He's probably never been HERE in particular, but I think he would find plenty of justification for making that statement if he ever did visit here.

2. After examining the tech and devices that existed at the time and extrapolating from that to the hypothetical hardware that would have been required to actually make and televise the supposed Stanley Kubrick fake moon film in such a way as to make it look the way it looked on TV, he says this: "Once you're forced to hypothesize whole new technologies to keep your conspiracy possible, you've stepped over into the realm of magic. It demands a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know."  In the same vein, he points out that while moon hoaxers mock the tech of the day as insufficient for the job of an actual moon landing, they conveniently ignore that the same tech would not have been up to the job of pulling off the fake.

[Rama Set]

Yet you will stand on "I saw it with my own eyes." or something similar as your only proof for flat Earth.

How is this not a subjective argument?

What objective evidence has any flat Earth supporter ever produced which proves, beyond a doubt, that Earth is flat?

You can't have it both ways.  You can't deny one person's argument, due to subjectivity, when your own arguments are based in subjectivity.

I would legitimately be interested in how you jumped to so many conclusions as to what I think based on this conversation. What subjective argument have I made? You are simply making up things at this point.

Just less than 2 years was spent on creating 205 special effects shots for this movie, for an average of 100 special effects shots completed per year.

The math is simple.

At an average of 100 effect shots per year it would have taken 142 years to produce 14,233 photos.  Even if you increase the average to 200 per year it would still have taken 71 years to complete.

Or NASA had 1,425 people on board whose only job was to produce one photo per year over the course of 10 years. 

I'm guessing that you'll go with the second option.  Did they each have their own computer to make this happen?  Considering the cost of computers during this time, that must have been where all the money allocated to NASA went.  They didn't really launch rockets or send people to the moon.  They spent all the money on computers so that 1,500 people could produce some fake pictures for a few years.  This is the most logical train of thought.

So your assertion is that the shots made for the movie represent the absolute capacity of what could be achieved? At least the capacity where you could extrapolate some generic figures and apply them outside of the context of making this movie? You'll need to provide some evidence of your position on this one... I will hand it to you round earthers, you have really stepped up your mental gymnastic game.

It is completely reasonable to think that 2001 was at or near the cutting edge of such visual effects, considering it was marveled at as a major cinematic achievement. What reason is there to think these reactions are unreasonable? 

Unlike FEers we will not posit a secret conspiracy to keep cutting edge photo manipulation away from the public eye, without evidence.

[juner]

It is completely reasonable to think that 2001 was at or near the cutting edge of such visual effects, considering it was marveled at as a major cinematic achievement. What reason is there to think these reactions are unreasonable? 

Unlike FEers we will not posit a secret conspiracy to keep cutting edge photo manipulation away from the public eye, without evidence.

Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.

[rabinoz]

Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.

Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.

These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
and
Moon Base Clavius and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.

Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . .  have no evidence."

[juner]

Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.

Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.

These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
and
Moon Base Clavius and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.

Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . .  have no evidence."

I get that you round earthers don't do logic very well, but please make an attempt. I'd suggest starting at the beginning of this thread, and then point out any claim made by a FE proponent that would put the onus on us. I have faith that you'll realize there were no claims made by us (hint: see the OP). You'll find the only claim that needs supporting evidence was made by the RE side. You'll also see the only thing provided is conjecture.

I really don't understand what's so difficult about this, but I imagine you'll keep dodging like RErs are known to do.

[Rounder]

I'd suggest starting at the beginning of this thread, and then point out any claim made by a FE proponent that would put the onus on us...

You are a former moderator here, Junker, surely you are familiar with the Wiki?  Long before this thread began, and before many of us RE folks arrived here, your wiki made the following claims:

People have been into space. How have they not discovered that the earth is flat?
The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration. This likely began during the Cold War's 'Space Race', in which the USSR and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the other's supposed achievements.

Project Apollo
The Apollo program was a fraudulent NASA spaceflight endeavor which allegedly landed the first men on the moon.

You can't say "We're not making any claims" when you have a whole section of the site devoted to making claims.

[TotesNotReptilian]

You can't say "We're not making any claims" when you have a whole section of the site devoted to making claims.

His point is that they haven't made any claims in this particular thread. The point of this thread was to prove that the photos couldn't be faked, not to debunk evidence that they are fake.

In general, I agree with rabinoz: the burden of proof is on flat earthers to show evidence that these images are faked. (Which they haven't, as far as I can tell. You would think that a website like this would be full of evidence... it's conspicuously empty.)

However, for the purpose of this thread, I agree with junker: the burden of proof is on the people claiming that the photos could not have been faked. If you want to backtrack to the original "but there is no evidence that they are faked to begin with" argument, that's fine. But it defeats the purpose of this thread.

[Unsure101]

Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.

Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.

These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
and
Moon Base Clavius and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.

Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . .  have no evidence."

Rab, from a quick scan of the debate forum, the majority of the threads are started by Round Earthers making claims and Flat Earthers demanding evidence. There are minimal threads started by FEs, with the exception of Intikam, and they usually end up with REs making counter claims and the FEs again demanding evidence.
The only place where FEs make their claims is in the other forums where debate is discouraged.
If you think about it, the whole site is a perfect FE environment as essentially the FEs can make their claims without rebuttal and the REs have to support their claims with evidence that the FEs refuse to accept.

Then again, the website is called The Flat Earth society.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The only place where FEs make their claims is in the other forums where debate is discouraged.
If you think about it, the whole site is a perfect FE environment as essentially the FEs can make their claims without rebuttal and the REs have to support their claims with evidence that the FEs refuse to accept.

I doubt that's by design. That's just what naturally happens when one side is completely incapable of supporting their side of the argument. They retreat to a safe place.

Edit:

I'm starting to get an inkling that you're not who you say you are... Send us a video of your eyes so we can see if they transform or not.

I have special eyes, and a minor skin condition.

[Unsure101]

I doubt that's by design. That's just what naturally happens when one side is completely incapable of supporting their side of the argument. They retreat to a safe place.

I wonder how many FEs would comment on a forum dedicated to a round earth?

I have special eyes, and a minor skin condition.

You lied to us, you totesAREreptilian!!

[Venus]

Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.

He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.

Irrelevant.

Incorrect.

No one said it was CGI.



This is a still from "2001: A Space Odyssey," Circa 1968.

Don't discount what is possible to do for a group of highly motivated individuals. The idea that it would be just too darn hard to pull off, or inconceivable that someone would even try, is basically the first line of defense for every unthinkable thing that has ever been done.

It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?

This hardly looks like a PHOTOGRAPH !!!

[CableDawg]

Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.

Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.

These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
and
Moon Base Clavius and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.

Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . .  have no evidence."

I get that you round earthers don't do logic very well, but please make an attempt. I'd suggest starting at the beginning of this thread, and then point out any claim made by a FE proponent that would put the onus on us. I have faith that you'll realize there were no claims made by us (hint: see the OP). You'll find the only claim that needs supporting evidence was made by the RE side. You'll also see the only thing provided is conjecture.

I really don't understand what's so difficult about this, but I imagine you'll keep dodging like RErs are known to do.

We do actual logic perfectly fine.

We don't do your logic at all.  That is where the conflict and disconnect exists.

[Venus]

It is completely reasonable to think that 2001 was at or near the cutting edge of such visual effects, considering it was marveled at as a major cinematic achievement. What reason is there to think these reactions are unreasonable? 

Unlike FEers we will not posit a secret conspiracy to keep cutting edge photo manipulation away from the public eye, without evidence.

Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.

I am still waiting for a half decent answer from any FE'er which proves the 14,233 photos from the Apollo missions are fake.

I very much doubt that any of you have even visited the link (after all you don't want to risk having to admit you were wrong by looking at absolutely amazing photos which might convince you that the earth really is a sphere!!)

1. Man DID go to the moon ... in fact SIX of the Apollo missions landed on the moon, and a total of 12 men have walked on the moon !!
AND
2. The earth is a sphere,

The "evidence" that proves 1. and 2. above are the 14,223 photographs taken by the Apollo missions and uploaded to the NASA flickr account.

I believe that we are agreed that no CGI was available at that time (1968-1972), which would have been capable of creating these photographs.
However even I will admit that perhaps some incredibly skilled artists could have drawn or painted some of them, but my view is that these photos are real.

So I am still waiting for you to point out which of these 14,223 photos are faked, and how they are faked.
You might want to especially focus (no pun intended!) on the photos which show the earth either from the Apollo spacecraft or from the moon.

NASA has uploaded these photos to flickr, so are obviously claiming that they are real.
Whereas you (FE'ers) claim they are fake... so the burden of proof is for you to show us how have they been faked... I want links to the exact photos, descriptions of the exact anomalies in the photos and an explanation of how these anomalies prove the photo or photos are faked.

Over to you !!

PS I might remind you that in a court of law a video or photos of a robbery or murder happening or of a person leaving the scene (eg CCTV surveillance) is accepted as proof and thousands and thousands of convictions have been made on the basis of CCTV footage. The burden of proof would be on the defendant's lawyer to prove that the CCTV footage had been tampered with in some way to have it removed from the court case.

The ball is in your court !