Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2020, 11:06:52 AM »
It could be, but even that is altered, as is obvious to the objective viewer.

Is there any qualification to this, other than you say so?
Yes.

NASA stating the images are altered.
Well, a scanner on a satellite doesn't take a single image of a hand.

It runs over select areas and then turns out a stitched image.

I can select the areas of my hand that I want to scan, could scan all fingers and thumb separately from the palm, and stitch them together later to make a stitched image.

If I did this, would you assert that I had not actually scanned it?
Of course you scanned it.

You just qualified in your post you scanned it.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

GoldenEagle

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2020, 11:22:41 AM »
Hi,

With the Zetetic method of observation and experimentation to get to truth, what is the critical thought process amongst the Flat Earth community to determine which pictures/ photos they believe are real vs. fake?

For example, in another post regarding ice wall discussion, a picture of a small section of an Antarctic ice wall was provided from a Flat Earther, that was taken from on-line content. The immediate assumption from FE'er is that it is real.

On the flip side, on-line content showing pictures of Earth from space or pictures on the moon are immediately deemed from FE'ers as fake with a conspiracy theory behind it, but no real proof.

Thank you.
I would surmise the zetetic method as applied to pictures is to take note of the difference between the words, "picture," and "image."

NASA generally releases "images."


How do you know which are pictures and which are images?
NASA generally informs you which are images.

Most of NASA's stuff are images created by things such as scanners, not point and shoot cameras.
Generally? So not always, then?
Correct.
Seriously, what do you define as the difference between the two?
One is a picture taken by a camera, the other is an image not taken by a camera.
Are you expecting all pictures from space to be taken on roll film, sheet film, or glass plates?
Nope. I have no expectations.


This line of reasoning without hard evidence / without facts is why it's so obvious that the Flat Earth Movement is steeped with Confirmation Bias.

It's a perfect example and a case study of stating things as fact without having direct knowledge, evidence, or facts. Thus, it is what a Confirmation Bias looks like.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 11:26:02 AM by GoldenEagle »

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2020, 11:27:44 AM »

This line of reasoning without hard evidence / without facts is why it's so obvious that the Flat Earth Movement is steeped with Confirmation Bias.
Do a search for facts on what type of imaging is available on satellites.

You will find I am the one who is correct here and you are the one who is clearly wrong.
It's a perfect example and a case study of stating things as fact without having direct knowledge or evidence. Its personal opinion that fits into the Flat Earth narrative and thus what Confirmation Bias looks like.
I agree you are not stating facts and have no direct contradictory evidence to anything I have written.

Hence the nature of your reply, which clearly lacks any substance.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2020, 01:11:51 PM »
Totallackey, so you take NASA's statements at face value and accept that photos they take are actually photos and images they have created are indeed images they've created? If so, what about the photos of the earth as a full image from extremely far away? Like this one;

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-camera-snaps-stunning-view-of-earth-and-moon-video/

The claim here is that it is in fact a photo according to NASA. Not a composite of many images or scanned data stitched together. If you deny this and call it fake, it's the same as claiming conspiracy, the same as claiming NASA and the US government are liars... Which is fine and all if you want to make that claim but you've been reluctant in the past to admit this.

Also verifiable by other countries scientists, so it isn't just NASA claiming this is a photo, other countries have snapped photos of earth from afar like China;

https://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2018/20180614-longjiang-2-earth-pics.html

So photos of earth from far away are verifiable. You could say it's a different angle or distance but it's really no different from say for example, me taking a photo out my apartment window of the nearby mountain, no one can take the same photo without my permission but other people can take photos from similar angles and distances and verify that you can infact take a photo of that mountain from that far.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2020, 01:52:35 PM »
Totallackey, so you take NASA's statements at face value and accept that photos they take are actually photos and images they have created are indeed images they've created? If so, what about the photos of the earth as a full image from extremely far away? Like this one;

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-camera-snaps-stunning-view-of-earth-and-moon-video/


The claim here is that it is in fact a photo according to NASA. Not a composite of many images or scanned data stitched together. If you deny this and call it fake, it's the same as claiming conspiracy, the same as claiming NASA and the US government are liars... Which is fine and all if you want to make that claim but you've been reluctant in the past to admit this.

Also verifiable by other countries scientists, so it isn't just NASA claiming this is a photo, other countries have snapped photos of earth from afar like China;

https://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2018/20180614-longjiang-2-earth-pics.html

So photos of earth from far away are verifiable. You could say it's a different angle or distance but it's really no different from say for example, me taking a photo out my apartment window of the nearby mountain, no one can take the same photo without my permission but other people can take photos from similar angles and distances and verify that you can infact take a photo of that mountain from that far.
And here is where we are going to differ.

You believe there is such a thing as outer space.

I do not.

"The Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) takes images of the sunlit side of Earth for various Earth science monitoring purposes in ten different channels from ultraviolet to near-infrared. Ozone and aerosol levels are monitored along with cloud dynamics, properties of the land, and vegetations."

Even the pictures supposedly take from a fictional million miles away are altered.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2045
    • View Profile
Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2020, 02:19:58 PM »
And here is where we are going to differ.
You believe there is such a thing as outer space.
I do not.

....which renders all of your arguments about types of imaging and photography from space totally moot.

It's as if you're arguing about seafaring methods of navigation, but you don't believe the oceans and seas exist.

Or quibbling about whether the lumberjack used a chainsaw or a handsaw when you don't believe there's a forest.   
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2020, 03:01:14 PM »
NASA stating the images are altered.
Right. But when you say altered. What do you mean and what do you see as the significance of that?
If you mean that the images they produce are not always what you'd see if you were where the craft they're taken from is then sure, that's true. Sometimes they're making images with only certain wavelengths for various reasons. Sometimes images are enhanced in various ways to make them clearer. You can do these sorts of things on your phone these days - you can apply a filter which means that if you take a selfie then it might look a bit airbrushed and wouldn't look like you. But...it doesn't mean that you weren't there when the selfie was taken. An image with a filter applied still requires you to be there. This is where things like "Aha! See! They admit it's a composite" make no sense.
Yeah. It's a composite. Of pictures they took from space. Like the panorama you took is a composite of photos you took...wherever you took them. You still needed to be there to take the photos.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 03:22:46 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2020, 03:23:28 PM »
And here is where we are going to differ.
You believe there is such a thing as outer space.
I do not.

....which renders all of your arguments about types of imaging and photography from space totally moot.
No it doesn't.

That is just ridiculous.
It's as if you're arguing about seafaring methods of navigation, but you don't believe the oceans and seas exist.
Again, setting up a strawman to knock it down.
Or quibbling about whether the lumberjack used a chainsaw or a handsaw when you don't believe there's a forest.
Nice try.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2020, 03:27:59 PM »
NASA stating the images are altered.
Right. But when you say altered. What do you mean and what do you see as the significance of that?
If you mean that the images they produce are not always what you'd see if you were where the craft they're taken from is then sure, that's true. Sometimes they're making images with only certain wavelengths for various reasons. Sometimes images are enhanced in various ways to make them clearer. You can do these sorts of things on your phone these days - you can apply a filter which means that if you take a selfie then it might look a bit airbrushed and wouldn't look like you. But...it doesn't mean that you weren't there when the selfie was taken. An image with a filter applied still requires you to be there. This is where things like "Aha! See! They admit it's a composite" make no sense.
Yeah. It's a composite. Of pictures they took from space. Like the panorama you took is a composite of photos you took...wherever you took them. You still needed to be there to take the photos.
Altered is altered.

Somebody from a position that has no clue about what anything looks like from the position where the image is supposedly captured applying their sense of what it should look like is nowhere near the analogy you offer.

I take a photo with my phone and applying filters and making a composite or panoramic view is fundamentally based on my having a more firm grasp of the subject matter.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2020, 03:39:59 PM »
I take a photo with my phone and applying filters and making a composite or panoramic view is fundamentally based on my having a more firm grasp of the subject matter.
No. It's fundamentally based on you being in front of the object you're taking a photo of.
When I took panoramas at the Grand Canyon I was able to do that because I was at the Grand Canyon. My camera did the clever bit, stitching the images together, but I still had to physically be there.
And this is completely different from me digitally making an image of the Grand Canyon somehow without actually being there.
I believe you are accusing NASA of doing the latter when actually they're doing the former.

And we do have plenty of photos of the whole earth which aren't composites going back as far as the Apollo missions.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2020, 02:46:10 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2020, 02:16:34 PM »
What direct knowledge or fact-based evidence do flat Earthers have that pictures from space showing a round earth are fake?
You are not paying attention to what I'm saying. I told you in my first response here (and twice more afterwards) that this presumption of yours is false.

If you don't read my words, I won't waste my time writing them out for you. Show some basic courtesy, or be prepared to receive none back.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2020, 02:20:29 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

GoldenEagle

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2020, 09:20:22 PM »
What direct knowledge or fact-based evidence do flat Earthers have that pictures from space showing a round earth are fake?
You are not paying attention to what I'm saying. I told you in my first response here (and twice more afterwards) that this presumption of yours is false.

If you don't read my words, I won't waste my time writing them out for you. Show some basic courtesy, or be prepared to receive none back.


I read what you said in your previous response that it's not that all claim images are false, but rather that they're not particularly trustworthy due to their unverifiable nature.

I get that.

But, then your fellow Flat Earthers like totallackey say things like: even the pictures supposedly taken from a fictional million miles away are altered.

So, totallackey is stating two things: that the pictures taken far away are fictitious and that they are altered.

How can Flat Earthers state this as a fact if to your point there is the aspect of unverifiable nature?

*

Online GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2020, 10:57:21 PM »
FE'ers do claim photos from the moon and from space are false
This part.

The argument is not that all claim images are false, but rather that they're not particularly trustworthy due to their unverifiable nature. Further to that, they are rarely conclusive either way even if we ignored their other problems.

Pictures of the Earth taken from far enough away unequivocally show the Earth to be a globe. And there are a lot. From Apollo missions, from DSCOVR, from geostationary satellites (not only NASA's)...

Someone who claims the Earth is flat also claims these pictures are false. That's a logical equivalence.

By contrapositive, someone who says these pictures might be real also says the Earth might be round.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

*

Online GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2020, 01:59:10 PM »
FE'ers do claim photos from the moon and from space are false
This part.

The argument is not that all claim images are false, but rather that they're not particularly trustworthy due to their unverifiable nature. Further to that, they are rarely conclusive either way even if we ignored their other problems.

Pictures of the Earth taken from far enough away unequivocally show the Earth to be a globe. And there are a lot. From Apollo missions, from DSCOVR, from geostationary satellites (not only NASA's)...

Someone who claims the Earth is flat also claims these pictures are false. That's a logical equivalence.

By contrapositive, someone who says these pictures might be real also says the Earth might be round.

I'll elaborate a little on this.

Let's take for example the solar eclipse of December 26, 2019.

It was independently captured by Russia's Elektro-L No.2 and by Japan's Himawari 8, both being satellites in a geostationary orbit.

You can find a movie made from the Japanese satellite's images on that day here : http://himawari8-dl.nict.go.jp/himawari8/movie/720/20191226_pifd.mp4 . You can also view an interactive animation here (disable shorelines for more clarity).

The Russians don't offer videos or interactive animations, just a FTP with their pictures : ftp://ftp.ntsomz.ru/ELECTRO_L_2/2019/December/26/ (relevant folders are 0600 through 0800).

We can verify that everything matches : the shape and movement of the clouds, the location of the eclipse. And these pictures are obviously only compatible with a round Earth model, and not compatible at all with any flat Earth model. They are very, very conclusive.

So, there are really only two options.

Option 1, these images are real, and not significantly altered other than for color enhancement. Which, a bit like HDR or color filters on your camera, can change things like contrast and make the picture generally look better, but will not show a cube where there is a sphere or a banana where there is an apple. The Earth is a globe, end of story.

Option 2, these images are fake, or at least have their geometry very significantly altered to match how it would look on a sphere. Then there is an international conspiracy that involves the Russian and Japanese governments to make everything look consistent.

It's anyone's choice to believe in and defend either option. But it's not logically possible to both claim the Earth is flat, and not to claim pictures taken from geostationary satellites are fake.

NB: I chose an eclipse because it's more spectacular and I like eclipses, but you could also check and compare for virtually any other time and date.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #34 on: April 04, 2020, 04:26:34 PM »
How can Flat Earthers state this as a fact if to your point there is the aspect of unverifiable nature?
I dunno, but I once met a RE'er who constantly mixed up velocity and acceleration. How can Round Earthers claim to be serious when they make such simple mistakes?!

To spell my point out to you: you're trying to project the views of an indivudual onto a movement, and demand that others defend those views. It's not gonna happen. If you have a problem with something TL said, take it up with TL.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

GoldenEagle

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2020, 07:03:41 PM »
How can Flat Earthers state this as a fact if to your point there is the aspect of unverifiable nature?
I dunno, but I once met a RE'er who constantly mixed up velocity and acceleration. How can Round Earthers claim to be serious when they make such simple mistakes?!

To spell my point out to you: you're trying to project the views of an indivudual onto a movement, and demand that others defend those views. It's not gonna happen. If you have a problem with something TL said, take it up with TL.


You asked the original question and then I replied to help clarify. And, now it seems your annoyed with my reply.

Your "I dunno" is clear to me and so hopefully your fellow Flat Earther (TL) can clarify.

I know that I will likely get a warning or get kicked off the site for saying this (and am ok with it)... but Pete, your only part of this FE movement because it makes you feel important and special as a moderator. But otherwise, you really don't bring much to the table. While I dont agree with Tom, I do have respect for him in that at least he joins in debates in a constructive manner. Your approach to a debate is you always seem annoyed and angry, too thin-skinned. You tend to nit pick questions as a kind of way to distract from the debate flow.

You always seem kind of angry.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2020, 07:11:31 PM by GoldenEagle »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11077
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2020, 09:32:14 AM »
You asked the original question and then I replied to help clarify.
I didn't. I haven't asked any questions here that weren't rhetorical.

And, now it seems your annoyed with my reply.
You mistake pointing out a glaring hole in your argument for an expression of annoyance. Try to separate ideas and beliefs from emotions, it will help you along here.

I know that I will likely get a warning or get kicked off the site for saying this (and am ok with it)... but Pete, your only part of this FE movement because it makes you feel important and special as a moderator. But otherwise, you really don't bring much to the table. While I dont agree with Tom, I do have respect for him in that at least he joins in debates in a constructive manner. Your approach to a debate is you always seem annoyed and angry, too thin-skinned. You tend to nit pick questions as a kind of way to distract from the debate flow.

You always seem kind of angry.
I assure you I rarely am angry when I post here (or, rather, that I normally avoid posting here if something upsets me). I don't dance around subjects, and when you say stupid things, I simply point it out. After 10 years of hearing RE'ers raise the same non-starter issues while thinking they're original, responding to them becomes a bit robotic for many of us. Try to read my posts in a matter-of-fact tone - it might help.

As to what I bring to the table, you haven't been here long enough to really be able to assess that. You're welcome to dislike my posts (but please express that in the appropriate board, and not in the middle of other threads), but there's much more to my work here than forum posting. I'd argue that this is the source of your confusion - you're trying to judge me by solely looking at a task I consider low priority.

That said, this place has some rules, and it's also my job to enforce them. If you want to make personal comments, take it to CN/AR. You're on three warnings, so mods will be able to issue short bans at their discretion now. I want to be super clear here: you are completely welcome to talk about how terrible I am and how much you think you're wItNeSsInG DK or whatever. But you are expected to do so in the right place, without disrupting an existing discussion thread. If you need help understanding the rules, drop me or one of the other mods a message, and we'll clarify.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2020, 09:35:20 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2020, 10:19:11 AM »
I take a photo with my phone and applying filters and making a composite or panoramic view is fundamentally based on my having a more firm grasp of the subject matter.
No. It's fundamentally based on you being in front of the object you're taking a photo of.
Well, I don't know how you are going to have a more firm grasp of the subject matter at hand than by being an eyewitness to that which you are witnessing in front of your face.
When I took panoramas at the Grand Canyon I was able to do that because I was at the Grand Canyon. My camera did the clever bit, stitching the images together, but I still had to physically be there.
And this is completely different from me digitally making an image of the Grand Canyon somehow without actually being there.
I believe you are accusing NASA of doing the latter when actually they're doing the former.

And we do have plenty of photos of the whole earth which aren't composites going back as far as the Apollo missions.
Simply false.

Every image of the earth issued by NASA is altered.
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2045
    • View Profile
Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2020, 10:37:26 AM »
Every image of the earth issued by NASA is altered.

...even the ones that were on the front pages of newspapers in 1969 to 1972, when the Apollo missions took place?

What alterations do you assert were done, beyond cropping and filtering for colour correction?


I have, in another room, a copy of Full Moon, published by Random House a good few years ago. The foreword states, that for publication, the team were given access to the original negatives and transparencies for scanning into publication format. So these weren't actually "issued by NASA" ....
« Last Edit: April 06, 2020, 10:39:56 AM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake
« Reply #39 on: April 06, 2020, 11:24:56 AM »
Every image of the earth issued by NASA is altered.

...even the ones that were on the front pages of newspapers in 1969 to 1972, when the Apollo missions took place?

What alterations do you assert were done, beyond cropping and filtering for colour correction?


I have, in another room, a copy of Full Moon, published by Random House a good few years ago. The foreword states, that for publication, the team were given access to the original negatives and transparencies for scanning into publication format. So these weren't actually "issued by NASA" ....
As a flat earther, I hold the images were altered to depict a globe.

We aren't writing about a full moon here, but where did the images come from again?
I didn't say (conversion of) thermal energy wasn't involved at all.
A rocket does not create thrust by converting thermal energy.