[Action80]

In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an sudio here on earth.

The OP said "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water.", and you seem to be lacking a substantive argument.

Claiming that it "could have" been done in a studio is not a substantive argument. So ...

Do you have a substantive argument to make?

Yes, the timelapse, as admitted by the OP, could have just as well been recreated in a studio here on earth.

Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth.

I guess we are done here.

I said that… clearly in reference to the specks specifically.

Oh, just the specks could be faked or could be recreated here on earth...hmmm... Interesting.
I guess I'll notify the producers of Star Trek, TNG, or even Universal Pictures that they indeed can not do the exact same level of recreation involving a spinning globe depicting various landmasses, reflected light off the surface, etc...oh wait...shoot...THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE IT!!!

Damn...too late...

I know you’re doing this on purpose though.

Yes, I am purposefully pointing out your claim regarding the ability of this footage to have been recreated here on earth. 

Even Pete or Tom would be amazed at this level of deflection.

If by deflection, you mean pointing out all the bs claims you are making regarding how legitimate this looks, then yes, I am deflecting.
But Pete and/or Tom are certainly free to chime in regarding their amazement.

I am certain there are others for whom you consider yourself just as qualified to write on their behalf, as well.

A little arrogant, but hey, wth.

If I’m understanding correctly, what you’re NOW claiming is that footage, as presented, looks completely legitimate and has no flaws EXCEPT that it “could be faked”.

Which is not what I was originally talking about.

Like I said, this something you can easily recreate on earth.

Um, yeah...you were...

[Action80]

That was the entire gist of my analogy, pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment. Why don't you apply that standard to flat earth?

What hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy is you dismissing RE evidence because two people came up with different ideas for some noise, yet you consistently reject that argument when confronted with the fact that there are a dozen FE maps and conflicting theories none of which are compatible at all.

That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses.  Is that more clear?

If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.

Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.

If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.

Denial isn't a counterargument.

It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.

So far I haven't seen any explanation from you on what is wrong with that video other than you claiming it's fake.  Please elaborate on your evidence?

All I saw was you offering a possible explanation.

In other words, you don't know either.

In the end, we have an admission the video could have been a recreation that could have been just as well done in an studio here on earth.

You have claimed this video is faked and have been asked to provide evidence as to why you think it's fake.

So far all you have come up with is that there is some noise or dust in the camera feed.  Why does that make it fake?  Does noise not exist in cameras?  Dust isn't real? Is every video with noise or dust in the lens fake? If not, why is this one special?

Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.

Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake?  I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.

My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.

Don't you have some internet etiquette guidelines to write or something?

[JSS]

That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses.  Is that more clear?

If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.

So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?  Just like you did for the explanations for the camera noise? I've never seen you take such a position.

Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.

If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.

Denial isn't a counterargument.

It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.

It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence.  A simple denial in the end is just denial.

Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.

Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake?  I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.

My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.

You simply repeated yourself here, saying it is faked because it could be faked. That was, and still is a circular argument. Do you not understand what a circular argument is?

Anything could be faked, that's not a valid reason. Football players COULD all be Disney-built animatronics, but that doesn't mean they are.

Again, other than you simply saying it CAN be faked, do you have any supporting evidence the video is faked?

[SteelyBob]

My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.

Don't you have some internet etiquette guidelines to write or something?

Any video or picture could be faked, with enough resources. The issue for the ‘it’s fake’ argument is the volume and quality of imagery out there - it would take a lot of people, all working in silence, to make this stuff.

But the key point here is that you claimed there was a particular problem with the footage that indicated it was fake. The burden is therefore on you to say how the image differs from what you would expect to see if the earth was a globe and you had a camera on a geo-stationary satellite. That’s very different from saying ‘it could be faked’. We all get that it’s fakeable, that’s not the point.

[Action80]

That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses.  Is that more clear?

If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.

So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?

Why would I do that?

I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.

Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.

If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.

Denial isn't a counterargument.

It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.

It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence.  A simple denial in the end is just denial.

Yeah, whatever.

As usual, what you claim happened, did not happen. Just another entry like "internet etiquette writer," you have presented in this forum.

Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.

Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake?  I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.

My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.

You simply repeated yourself here, saying it is faked because it could be faked. That was, and still is a circular argument. Do you not understand what a circular argument is?

Yes, I do.

You don't.

Anything could be faked, that's not a valid reason. Football players COULD all be Disney-built animatronics, but that doesn't mean they are.

Again, other than you simply saying it CAN be faked, do you have any supporting evidence the video is faked?

Yes, prior admitted fakery.

The best evidence for future performance is prior performance.

NASA and entertainment industries fake shit all the time for sake of performance.

[Action80]

My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.

Don't you have some internet etiquette guidelines to write or something?

Any video or picture could be faked, with enough resources. The issue for the ‘it’s fake’ argument is the volume and quality of imagery out there - it would take a lot of people, all working in silence, to make this stuff.

But the key point here is that you claimed there was a particular problem with the footage that indicated it was fake. The burden is therefore on you to say how the image differs from what you would expect to see if the earth was a globe and you had a camera on a geo-stationary satellite. That’s very different from saying ‘it could be faked’. We all get that it’s fakeable, that’s not the point.

The burden is not on me.

Get out of here with that ridiculous nonsense.

I don't expect to ever see a real image of the earth as a globe because I know the earth is not a globe.

Any image of the earth as a globe is an illusion.

[JSS]

That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses.  Is that more clear?

If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.

So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?

Why would I do that?

I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.

Because you had an issue with two people giving you different ideas as to the source of noise, and claimed that meant it was invalid.

So why won't you do the same with all the conflicting flat earth maps? That's being a hypocrite.

I've never presented you with two conflicting maps of the world, the single map I use is a globe. The distance between Sydney and New York is the same on every map I use. But feel free to start a new discussion if you want to talk about that.

Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.

If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.

Denial isn't a counterargument.

It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.

It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence.  A simple denial in the end is just denial.

Yeah, whatever.

As usual, what you claim happened, did not happen. Just another entry into the list of lies you have presented in this forum.

Again, that is a simple denial now with the addition of calling me a liar.  Please present your evidence of my latest 'lie' or stop accusing me of being a liar.

Your best argument is that you think it could have been faked, therefore it is fake. That's a circular argument.

Again, what is your reasoning for this video being fake?  I asked you in the quote above, and you failed to provide your evidence or reasoning.

My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.

You simply repeated yourself here, saying it is faked because it could be faked. That was, and still is a circular argument. Do you not understand what a circular argument is?

Yes, I do.

You don't.

Based on you failing to understand the several attempts to explain it to you, no you do not.

You claiming an image is fake because images can be faked and you said so is a circular argument.

Anything could be faked, that's not a valid reason. Football players COULD all be Disney-built animatronics, but that doesn't mean they are.

Again, other than you simply saying it CAN be faked, do you have any supporting evidence the video is faked?

Yes, prior admitted fakery.

The best evidence for future performance is prior performance.

NASA and entertainment industries fake shit all the time for sake of performance.

So now your argument that this video is fake is that because you say other NASA videos are fake. All without providing a link to any of these other fake videos or any proof or evidence whatsoever.

This again, boils down to you saying it's fake because you said it's fake. It's still a circular argument.

[Tumeni]

The burden is not on me

Yes, it is.

The OP stated outright "There’s no substantive argument against the timelapse that holds water."

If you have no substantive argument ...

[stack]

I don't expect to ever see a real image of the earth as a globe because I know the earth is not a globe.

Any image of the earth as a globe is an illusion.

Interesting. I would kill for an image of flat earth. That would be amazing. So far, never seen one. Not even a fake one.

So let me get this straight, anything that could be faked is fake? That's your argument? Doesn't that include basically everything?

[Action80]

That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses.  Is that more clear?

If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.

So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?

Why would I do that?

I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.

Because you had an issue with two people giving you different ideas as to the source of noise, and claimed that meant it was invalid.

I never claimed one or the other was invalid.

Quit making stuff up.

So why won't you do the same with all the conflicting flat earth maps? That's being a hypocrite.

Because I understand that all maps have inaccuracies.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

I've never presented you with two conflicting maps of the world, the single map I use is a globe. The distance between Sydney and New York is the same on every map I use. But feel free to start a new discussion if you want to talk about that.

Yeah, stop introducing nonsense. You don't carry around a globe, checking on your destination as you go along.

Just another instance of the ole "internet etiquette," crap I see.

Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.

If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.

Denial isn't a counterargument.

It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.

It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence.  A simple denial in the end is just denial.

Yeah, whatever.

As usual, what you claim happened, did not happen. Just another entry into the list of lies you have presented in this forum.

Again, that is a simple denial now with the addition of calling me a liar.  Please present your evidence of my latest 'lie' or stop accusing me of being a liar.

Internet etiquette and this.

Two instances.

[stack]

Yeah, stop introducing nonsense. You don't carry around a globe, checking on your destination as you go along.

I carry around a globe, every day, on my phone. It looks like this:



You should really upgrade from your Nokia 3310. You too could have a globe in your pocket.

[JSS]

That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses.  Is that more clear?

If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.

So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?

Why would I do that?

I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.

Because you had an issue with two people giving you different ideas as to the source of noise, and claimed that meant it was invalid.

I never claimed one or the other was invalid.

Quit making stuff up.

You said "Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all." as a response to those comments where you told them to make up their mind. 

I suppose that means you agree that "Turns out you FE have no solid, definitive explanation at all." as well?

So why won't you do the same with all the conflicting flat earth maps? That's being a hypocrite.

Because I understand that all maps have inaccuracies.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Maps based on a globe Earth don't have the continents in wildly differing places. Or missing continents.

I've never presented you with two conflicting maps of the world, the single map I use is a globe. The distance between Sydney and New York is the same on every map I use. But feel free to start a new discussion if you want to talk about that.

Yeah, stop introducing nonsense. You don't carry around a globe, checking on your destination as you go along.

First, you don't actually know I don't carry around a physical globe everywhere I go. It's possible.

Second, I carry the dataset of a globe based map in my pocket.  Just like you don't carry around a folded map of a flat earth to navigate, you use the same map I do which is based on spherical coordinates. Lat and Lon. Even any flat map you might have in your pocket will be based on those coordinates.

So yes, I have all the data of a globe map in my pocket, and use it to navigate.  Just like billions of other people do every day.

Just another instance of the ole "internet etiquette," crap I see.

You are getting your millage out of this one aren't you.

Don't make a statement and then complain when someone picks it apart.

If someone actually picked apart my statement, then you would have a point.

Denial isn't a counterargument.

It is when what is claimed happened didn't actually happen.

It's still denial if presented without argument or evidence.  A simple denial in the end is just denial.

Yeah, whatever.

As usual, what you claim happened, did not happen. Just another entry into the list of lies you have presented in this forum.

Again, that is a simple denial now with the addition of calling me a liar.  Please present your evidence of my latest 'lie' or stop accusing me of being a liar.

Internet etiquette and this.

Two instances.

That's another circular argument.  I lied because you said I lied. 

[Action80]

That's what hypocrisy is, using one set of standards for your evidence, and another for everyone elses.  Is that more clear?

If I was doing that, then yeah...but I am not...so, it isn't.

So you do agree that multiple flat earth maps are a reason to dismiss them?

Why would I do that?

I happily agree that all RE maps are invalid. Unless you have just one you want to settle on.

Because you had an issue with two people giving you different ideas as to the source of noise, and claimed that meant it was invalid.

I never claimed one or the other was invalid.

Quit making stuff up.

You said "Turns out you RE have no solid, definitive explanation at all." as a response to those comments where you told them to make up their mind. 

I suppose that means you agree that "Turns out you FE have no solid, definitive explanation at all." as well?

Of course, that is what it means.

Even if we had one, we wouldn't share with RE-adherents.

That's the thing about you globulists. You think people owe you something.

We don't.

And from there, you just went on posting a bunch of other repetitious stuff, thinking "WOW, I really got em here! Look at me guys!!!"

Nah, you don't.

[secretagent10]

Even if we had one, we wouldn't share with RE-adherents.

If you had the knowledge, you wouldn’t share it? Is that not completely antithetical to the point of science and knowledge?

Let’s be absolutely clear:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.

There’s photographs in the OP. Your beliefs won’t stop the rest of humanity from living in reality.

In fact, your disbelief is exactly my point. You can’t lean on any inaccuracies in the footage, because there aren’t any. All you can do is disbelieve.

There is nothing they can do to make literal photographs more real. Nothing will make you happy here.

[Action80]

Even if we had one, we wouldn't share with RE-adherents.

If you had the knowledge, you wouldn’t share it? Is that not completely antithetical to the point of science and knowledge?

Let’s be absolutely clear:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.

There’s photographs in the OP. Your beliefs won’t stop the rest of humanity from living in reality.

In fact, your disbelief is exactly my point. You can’t lean on any inaccuracies in the footage, because there aren’t any. All you can do is disbelieve.

There is nothing they can do to make literal photographs more real. Nothing will make you happy here.

This thread is about photographs?

Oh, that's different.

You got bupkus there too.

[Tumeni]

This thread is about photographs?

The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.

The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.

[secretagent10]

This thread is about photographs?

The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.

The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.

Correct. Action80 would rather argue semantics than actually read what I said. It was a broadcast but they may as well be called “photographs” because it was every 5 minutes. Or call it footage. I don’t care.

Again:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.

You have already decided that no evidence will make you happy, because all the possible evidence does in fact exist.

[Action80]

This thread is about photographs?

The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.

The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.

Correct. Action80 would rather argue semantics than actually read what I said. It was a broadcast but they may as well be called “photographs” because it was every 5 minutes. Or call it footage. I don’t care.

Again:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.

You have already decided that no evidence will make you happy, because all the possible evidence does in fact exist.

You accept the evidence, I do not, for the reasons I presented.

You seem awfully unhappy over rejection.

Hopefully, you can move on in your life.

[Tumeni]

You seem awfully unhappy over rejection.

Nobody is "unhappy", we merely disagree with you, and are more persistent than you are comfortable with.

[inquisitive]

This thread is about photographs?

The video is a timelapse of individual frames, yes. So it could be regarded as such.

The original broadcast was a live stream, as far as I can gather.

Correct. Action80 would rather argue semantics than actually read what I said. It was a broadcast but they may as well be called “photographs” because it was every 5 minutes. Or call it footage. I don’t care.

Again:
All the POSSIBLE evidence that could exist for space travel and a globe… DOES exist. It doesn’t get much better than what we have: literal photographs, videos, jobs, engineering etc.

You have already decided that no evidence will make you happy, because all the possible evidence does in fact exist.

You accept the evidence, I do not, for the reasons I presented.

You seem awfully unhappy over rejection.

Hopefully, you can move on in your life.

What are the errors with WGS83?