[Roundy]

Mods, hasn't this ridiculous video been debunked thoroughly enough that a thread featuring it automatically belongs in Angry Ranting by now?

[AMann]

Doing things like combining multiple pictures to create a larger picture from satellites too low in orbit to see the entire Earth is not doctoring, it's editing. The same can be said of using parts of multiple pictures to create an image of the Earth without cloud cover. Not only is this editing publicized in the pictures it's done in, it is not done to every picture and even the pictures used to create the larger pictures are still available for view. There are still thousands of unedited pictures of Earth taken from space. Simply claiming they are fabrications because you do not want them to be real is denialism, it doesn't make them any less than the damning evidence against the flat Earth fallacy that they are. It only shows you are close-minded.

They are literally fabrications and you just said so yourself.

Photos can be (and are) manipulated and are therefore not admissible as evidence.

Not to mention that of all the points given about why the Earth is a round and not flat, you only choose the one that you simply claim is manufactured.

I chose the proclaimed #1 "reason" of the video - apparently the main pillar of RET - and pointed out that it is indisputably manufactured. You've since agreed. What's the problem?

I did not say they were fabrications. I said some of them were edited by combining photos. There is a very big difference. In one, the pictures are completely made up. In the other, all the original photos still exist and are available to view.

Photos can be manipulated, but there is always evidence of tampering. This is why photos certainly are admissible as evidence. They are used in every courtroom in the world. They are used in showing evidence for scientific papers. If you want to dismiss a photo, you need to actually show that it is fake.

The problem with taking the position that photos can be manipulated and therefore nothing else is true is that photographic evidence is not even the basis for our knowledge that the Earth is round. It is simply the most straight-forward and impossible to deny unless someone simply claims forgery. Since there is no forgery, it is only denialism.

It has been known that the Earth is round for thousands of years prior to any space program. The evidence is there and is irrefutable.

[AMann]

Mods, hasn't this ridiculous video been debunked thoroughly enough that a thread featuring it automatically belongs in Angry Ranting by now?

If only it had actually been debunked. I saw prior threads involving the first video and they failed to debunk it. The debunking constituted denials and outright lies, nothing more.

[Bookish Neptune]

That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?

lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.

If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.

Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.

All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.

THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!

When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.

Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!

You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.

If I am wrong I will shutup.

I said there were millions of photos of Earth, not that there were millions of photos of the complete Earth. The composites themselves are often made of hundreds of photos themselves. And yes, every photo from the ISS is a photo of Earth and included in the millions of photos taken from space of Earth.

Shall I simply give you the link to NASA's website so you can browse pictures? I figure that is something simple enough that you do not need me to hold your hand.

No I have already done that. I am asking you to. Under those conditions above.

Just 10 photos of the whole earth from space. It's that simple.

You've changed your wording and tone a little but haven't provide just 10 pictures of the earth from space.

You said millions. So hey I am giving you only 10.

Again when you can't find even 10 supposed photos of the earth you must ask why.

I've done my research. I have only found 5 on the NASA website. I am asking you to find just 10.

You say surely they must be there but you'll see they are not. But please provide us just 10 real photos of the earth from NASA.

You say it's not hard, so let's see it.

[AMann]

That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?

lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.

If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.

Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.

All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.

THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!

When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.

Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!

You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.

If I am wrong I will shutup.

I said there were millions of photos of Earth, not that there were millions of photos of the complete Earth. The composites themselves are often made of hundreds of photos themselves. And yes, every photo from the ISS is a photo of Earth and included in the millions of photos taken from space of Earth.

Shall I simply give you the link to NASA's website so you can browse pictures? I figure that is something simple enough that you do not need me to hold your hand.

No I have already done that. I am asking you to. Under those conditions above.

Just 10 photos of the whole earth from space. It's that simple.

You've changed your wording and tone a little but haven't provide just 10 pictures of the earth from space.

You said millions. So hey I am giving you only 10.

Again when you can't find even 10 supposed photos of the earth you must ask why.

I've done my research. I have only found 5 on the NASA website. I am asking you to find just 10.

You say surely they must be there but you'll see they are not. But please provide us just 10 real photos of the earth from NASA.

You say it's not hard, so let's see it.

Saying that I changed my wording to compensate for your misunderstanding of what I said is rather devious of you lol

Your question has nothing to do with this topic. If you found 5 complete pictures, then you have found some complete pictures. Congrats - you can see that the Earth is round. Asking someone else to find more for you simply because you don't think it can be done only shows that you have no argument at all. You are simply pushing the photo issue even though the fact that the Earth is round has been known thousands of years prior to the space program and the invention of the camera.

Challenging someone to find you pictures when you have already found some only shows the degree to which you wish to hold onto your fallacy.

If you have no argument, you can stay out of the discussion.

[Bookish Neptune]

That video is just embarrassing, even by RET standards. It's fallacies from beginning to end. The #1 reason we know the Earth is round is because we have pictures of it? Does this mean RET endorses the existence of the Loch Ness monster, aliens, ghosts, and bigfoot?

lol
How many pictures of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts and bigfoot are there out there? I do not have an exact answer, but I will say 100 (and that is probably generous). How many of these pictures have not yet been shown to be frauds? 0. There are no viable photos of Loch Ness, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
How many pictures of Earth from space are there? Millions. And while there are always some people who can put up manufactured pictures, the pictures from reputable sources do not have a single picture that has been shown to be a fabrication.

If that is your best retort to the video, you do not have much of an argument... only denialism.

Can you point us to only 10? I know of only at most 5 that NASA claims to be an actual photo.

All others are composites and NASA very clearly tells you. So the challenge is to provide us and yourself at least 10 actual photographs of the earth from space.

THE ENTIRE PLANET! NOT PARTIAL IMAGES FROM THE ISS!

When you find out that you will not find even 10 photos I'd like to hear what you think about that.

Provide the links from NASA of at least 10 actual photos of earth from space. From NASA... from the NASA website!

You say there are millions. I am challenging you to put up or shutup.

If I am wrong I will shutup.

I said there were millions of photos of Earth, not that there were millions of photos of the complete Earth. The composites themselves are often made of hundreds of photos themselves. And yes, every photo from the ISS is a photo of Earth and included in the millions of photos taken from space of Earth.

Shall I simply give you the link to NASA's website so you can browse pictures? I figure that is something simple enough that you do not need me to hold your hand.

No I have already done that. I am asking you to. Under those conditions above.

Just 10 photos of the whole earth from space. It's that simple.

You've changed your wording and tone a little but haven't provide just 10 pictures of the earth from space.

You said millions. So hey I am giving you only 10.

Again when you can't find even 10 supposed photos of the earth you must ask why.

I've done my research. I have only found 5 on the NASA website. I am asking you to find just 10.

You say surely they must be there but you'll see they are not. But please provide us just 10 real photos of the earth from NASA.

You say it's not hard, so let's see it.

Saying that I changed my wording to compensate for your misunderstanding of what I said is rather devious of you lol

Your question has nothing to do with this topic. If you found 5 complete pictures, then you have found some complete pictures. Congrats - you can see that the Earth is round. Asking someone else to find more for you simply because you don't think it can be done only shows that you have no argument at all. You are simply pushing the photo issue even though the fact that the Earth is round has been known thousands of years prior to the space program and the invention of the camera.

Challenging someone to find you pictures when you have already found some only shows the degree to which you wish to hold onto your fallacy.

If you have no argument, you can stay out of the discussion.

You said millions. I'm only asking for 10 that's the argument that YOU put out here. Millions. You said it not me.

Again I ask you, don't you find it rather strange only 5 supposed images have been provided from nasa?

We observe all other bodies in space from earth and we really do have millions of this pictures. Yet NASA can only provide with 5 pictures?

You are ok with that? Well will you be when you actually discover that?

No more than 5 supposed images is a little fishy don't ya think?

Billions of dollars a year and we have been provided, yet again, only 5 supposed images from space...

If you believe that then your an easy sale.

Still waiting to see just 10!

[Tom Bishop]

The point the poster above is making is that if we have a legitimate space program which has sent many space ships out into space, many which have escaped earth orbit to explore the solar system, why are there so few pictures of the earth as a whole?

It doesn't make sense. That would be one of the obvious things to take when you're putting billions of dollars into a space probe with cameras on it.

[andruszkow]

http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/sat_img.php?area=fd_

This satellite takes an image of earth every 30 minutes.

5 images of earth? Fairytales. You should really be building theories around reality, not your reality around theories

[Rayzor]

The point the poster above is making is that if we have a legitimate space program which has sent many space ships out into space, many which have escaped earth orbit to explore the solar system, why are there so few pictures of the earth as a whole?

It doesn't make sense. That would be one of the obvious things to take when you're putting billions of dollars into a space probe with cameras on it.

There are millions of full disk images of the Earth taken from space,   Since the mid 1970's geostationary weather satellites have been taking full disk images at least every half hour or so, and the latest ones are full colour high resolution full disk images every few minutes.

My rough estimate is somewhere about  4 or 5 million full disk images of the Earth have been taken from space.

[Bookish Neptune]

http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/sat_img.php?area=fd_

This satellite takes an image of earth every 30 minutes.

5 images of earth? Fairytales. You should really be building theories around reality, not your reality around theories

Sorry try again. You posted a link that clearly explains these are composites.

Composites are not real photos. They are composites.

Again, yes its true NASA only shows us 5 supposed images from space of the entire planet.

And to be honest its not even that many.

I am still waiting for this to be disputed.

If the RE believers believe in NASA and all that has come along with it, then you must ask yourself how come so little actual photos?

Either provide more than just a few examples of true photos or atleast attempt to explain why...

Pleas refrain from posting links to composites. Composites are not photos, nor do they claim to be.

It is comical that most if not all RE's don't even know this fact.

You guys know so much about your beloved NASA organization, yet don't even know the true score.

You've been deceived with little pixels on a screen all your life and consider yourself an expert.

I know more about your fake NASA program, yet do not subscribe to it. Simply because I know so much. If took the time to research you would see these anomolies.

Instead you watch NOVA and the discovery channel and accept that as fact.

With that in mind I'd like to remind you of a quote from t.v. you often hear....

"We now return you to your REGULAR PROGRAMMING."

Go ahead RE's your programming is waiting for you...

[Bookish Neptune]

The point the poster above is making is that if we have a legitimate space program which has sent many space ships out into space, many which have escaped earth orbit to explore the solar system, why are there so few pictures of the earth as a whole?

It doesn't make sense. That would be one of the obvious things to take when you're putting billions of dollars into a space probe with cameras on it.

There are millions of full disk images of the Earth taken from space,   Since the mid 1970's geostationary weather satellites have been taking full disk images at least every half hour or so, and the latest ones are full colour high resolution full disk images every few minutes.

My rough estimate is somewhere about  4 or 5 million full disk images of the Earth have been taken from space.

No you are wrong. Those that you are calling full color are composites as well. NASA says so not me.

Here, I will provide the link from NASA.

NOAA now has "the keys" to this satellite.

In the following link it clearly says these are composites. They are not photos.

Try again...

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/

[Bookish Neptune]

In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:

"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"

COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!

Why so many composites?

[Rayzor]

In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:

"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"

COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!

Why so many composites?

Every digital camera does the much the same.  There are red green and blue CCD sensing elements,  so using your logic,  every digital picture ever taken is a composite, and therefore not **real**

The weather satellites use multiple portions of the em spectrum to identify different aspects of  atmospheric activity.   

In total Himawari-8 uses  16 different spectral bands,  10 of which are in the infrared.   and 6 in the visible portion of the spectrum.

[Bookish Neptune]

In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:

"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"

COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!

Why so many composites?

Every digital camera does the much the same.  There are red green and blue CCD sensing elements,  so using your logic,  every digital picture ever taken is a composite, and therefore not **real**

The weather satellites use multiple portions of the em spectrum to identify different aspects of  atmospheric activity.   

In total Himawari-8 uses  16 different spectral bands,  10 of which are in the infrared.   and 6 in the visible portion of the spectrum.

No. Not my logic. NASA's logic. It clearly says "by combining 3 seperate images". Using seperate images and combining them is the definition of COMPOSITE.

Here is a composite image from nasa. Not a photo. Don't let the word "high definition" fool you.

It clearly says it is a composite.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/lro-earthrise-2015

As laughable as that picture looks, all other NASA images look the same.

NASA has provided us only 2 supposed photos from 1972 to 2015. How can this be?

[Rayzor]

In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:

"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"

COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!

Why so many composites?

Every digital camera does the much the same.  There are red green and blue CCD sensing elements,  so using your logic,  every digital picture ever taken is a composite, and therefore not **real**

The weather satellites use multiple portions of the em spectrum to identify different aspects of  atmospheric activity.   

In total Himawari-8 uses  16 different spectral bands,  10 of which are in the infrared.   and 6 in the visible portion of the spectrum.

No. Not my logic. NASA's logic. It clearly says "by combining 3 seperate images". Using seperate images and combining them is the definition of COMPOSITE.

Here is a composite image from nasa. Not a photo. Don't let the word "high definition" fool you.

It clearly says it is a composite.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/lro-earthrise-2015

As laughable as that picture looks, all other NASA images look the same.

NASA has provided us only 2 supposed photos from 1972 to 2015. How can this be?

Himawari-8 has nothing to do with NASA,   why do you keep referring back to them all the time?

The images from Himawari-8 and other weather satellites are just as valid as pictures taken with any digital camera.  Why the obsession with composite,  all digital colour images are composite.



I could reduce the size, but then I suspect you'd claim the image is not original size.
It takes one of the above images every 10 minutes, as well as all the other spectral bands.

[Bookish Neptune]

In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:

"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"

COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!

Why so many composites?

Every digital camera does the much the same.  There are red green and blue CCD sensing elements,  so using your logic,  every digital picture ever taken is a composite, and therefore not **real**

The weather satellites use multiple portions of the em spectrum to identify different aspects of  atmospheric activity.   

In total Himawari-8 uses  16 different spectral bands,  10 of which are in the infrared.   and 6 in the visible portion of the spectrum.

No. Not my logic. NASA's logic. It clearly says "by combining 3 seperate images". Using seperate images and combining them is the definition of COMPOSITE.

Here is a composite image from nasa. Not a photo. Don't let the word "high definition" fool you.

It clearly says it is a composite.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/lro-earthrise-2015

As laughable as that picture looks, all other NASA images look the same.

NASA has provided us only 2 supposed photos from 1972 to 2015. How can this be?

Himawari-8 has nothing to do with NASA,   why do you keep referring back to them all the time?

The images from Himawari-8 and other weather satellites are just as valid as pictures taken with any digital camera.  Why the obsession with composite,  all digital colour images are composite.



I could reduce the size, but then I suspect you'd claim the image is not original size.
It takes one of the above images every 10 minutes, as well as all the other spectral bands.

That satellite uses a multispectral imager. Hardly the same as a digital camera.

Plus you are taking the word composite out of context. As I said composite means taking several images and using a different device to construct an image.

Most people are under the illusion that all these photos are actual photos. They are not. They are composites.

Even the pic you posted is a composite. If you read into that pic, they tell us that that is the first "true-color" image provided by that satellite.

True-color doesn't mean real photo. It simply means manipulated to appear as our eyes would likely see it if we were in space looking at that object.

Manipulation, composition, layered spectrums, none of these are photos.

And why do I keep bringing up NASA? Because NASA if the mother of all fake space.

Everything since the conception of NASA is fraudulent as well.

Why does NASA only provide 2 actual supposed photos from 1972 -2015?

This statement is on the NASA website. It's there words not mine.

But since you don't want to talk about NASA please provide us with an actual photo of the entire earth from another space agency.

The one above IS NOT an actual photo.

[Rayzor]

The one above IS NOT an actual photo.

In what way is it not an actual photo?   I can verify cloud formations and weather events  that corresponds perfectly with the satellite images in real time.

You asked for a photo, then start back-pedalling,  asking for an image that is not a composite.   

Show me a digital colour photo that is NOT a composite.   It can be a picture of anything,  even of your cat if you like.

[Bookish Neptune]

The one above IS NOT an actual photo.

In what way is it not an actual photo?   I can verify cloud formations and weather events  that corresponds perfectly with the satellite images in real time.

You asked for a photo, then start back-pedalling,  asking for an image that is not a composite.   

Show me a digital colour photo that is NOT a composite.   It can be a picture of anything,  even of your cat if you like.

Backpeddling? I clearly told you that the image you provided was not an actual photo taken from a camera. It is indeed a composite.

I cannot be any more clear than that.

You say those images are the same as a digital camera.

I say they are not. That image you posted was taken using a multispectral imager. Not a camera and not a digital camera.

And you are still using composite in the wrong context.

So let me try it. I just took a picture with my phone. It must be a multispectral image...

[andruszkow]

Rayzor 1 - 0 Bookish Nature

You can't keep altering the preconditions of your request to fit whatever you have planned as a reply.

You need to start wrapping your theory around reality, instead of creating your reality around a theory.

[Rayzor]

The one above IS NOT an actual photo.

In what way is it not an actual photo?   I can verify cloud formations and weather events  that corresponds perfectly with the satellite images in real time.

You asked for a photo, then start back-pedalling,  asking for an image that is not a composite.   

Show me a digital colour photo that is NOT a composite.   It can be a picture of anything,  even of your cat if you like.

Backpeddling? I clearly told you that the image you provided was not an actual photo taken from a camera. It is indeed a composite.

I cannot be any more clear than that.

You say those images are the same as a digital camera.

I say they are not. That image you posted was taken using a multispectral imager. Not a camera and not a digital camera.

And you are still using composite in the wrong context.

So let me try it. I just took a picture with my phone. It must be a multispectral image...

I daresay the imaging system in the Himawari-8 cost a bit more than your digital camera,  but the underlying principles are the same,    Lenses focus an image onto a sensor array via filters,   there are multiple sensor arrays in the Satellite,  but your camera has multiple RGB filters in front of the CCD sensors just the same.   Your camera then opens the shutter for whatever integration time, and then clocks out the pixels into memory for the cpu to process  the image,  doing colour correction,  gamma correction,  luminance correction,  white balance and combines the Red Green and Blue  pixels into a composite digital image.   Much the same as what happens on the satellite,  except yours probably doesn't have cryogenically cooled super sensitive IR sensors,  and their on board processing is probably a bit more sophisticated than a consumer grade Nikon. 

But all that is irrelevant,  you've made up your mind to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your view of the world,  that's fine by me,  it won't change your life or mine.   

Say hi to Sceptimatic for me.