[totallackey]

Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...

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.

[BRrollin]

Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...

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?

[totallackey]

Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...

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.

[BRrollin]

Funny...I am looking at a flat screen...with flat images...

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!

[JSS]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[totallackey]

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.

[JSS]

"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.

[totallackey]

"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...

[AATW]

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.

[totallackey]

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.

[BRrollin]

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.

[totallackey]

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.

[BRrollin]

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.

[ChrisTP]

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.

[AATW]

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...

[totallackey]

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.

[BRrollin]

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.”

[totallackey]

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]

[ChrisTP]

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?