[Action80]

The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.

This is interesting and quite a new concept to me.  I'm not a pilot nor an aircraft navigator.  Do you have an independent source you could share so that we can learn a bit more about it?

https://hartzellprop.com/pilots-navigate-skies-gps/#:~:text=Celestial%20Navigation,altitude%20of%20a%20celestial%20body.

It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged.

As far as transcribing patterns of the celestial sphere above to the flat earth plane below, there are multitudes of ancient earthly temples still in existence today that provide very visible evidence of this fact.

[Action80]

Action80,

You mentioned that the flat earth works. Going back to my original OP question: if Antarctica is an outer ring around a flat earth plane, how does 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica work all the way around the ring during the summer solstice months?   

I do not believe that Antarctica is a ring. I have no independently gleaned evidence there is 24 hours of sunlight anywhere on the flat earth other than regions around Alaska and the Scandinavian countries.

[AATW]

These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.

This is simply untrue. You're mixing up two things. Three really.
The first is images which are visualisations - depictions of exoplanets and so on. Those aren't "fabrications". When they mark them as visualisations they're not "admitting" anything. This language implies an attempt at deception. If there was attempt at deception then why would they mark them as visualisations? These things are created to stir the imagination. You're not far off with science fiction, but like much science fiction it's based in reality. They use the data they have about exoplanets and use that to visualise what they might look like. They're not making any claim that they're real photos. And it's certainly not all they are doing.
The second is composite images, or images which have been enhanced. These are real photos, they've just been processed digitally. Like I said, you do this too every time you take a panoramic picture or use your phone's colour balance or cropping tools. This processing is done to make the images clearer, and does not indicate any deception or fakery.
Then there are just photos. There are plenty of those. Sure, the versions you see online are probably compressed and that might mean they have artefacts in, that doesn't mean the originals have been manipulated in any way and NASA have the raw versions on their website.

The scans (not actual photos in the sense of point-and-shoot camera like here on earth) taken from high up are stiched together.

Some are, some aren't. The blue marble is just a photo, taken with a camera on film. The same for earthrise.

The flat map exists.

Does it? Cool. Can you link me to it. The Wiki has multiple maps on it, which one is definitive?

The supposed distances between various points on the earth are extrapolated only from the given travel times.

This is incorrect. Travel times are a reasonable proxy for distance, but you can use Google Maps to find the distance between places and compare it with measurements you take mistake. There's a reason that as you zoom out the curve of the earth is now shown. Before that the world was extensively surveyed. There's a whole field of geodetic surveying which takes the earth's curve in to account.

The actual straight-line distances are not known as they are not able to be taken due to the methods used for long-distance travel where waypoints are not visible at ground level.

Also not true. It hasn't been true for centuries since Harrison cracked the problem of accurate timepieces at sea - using those and combining it with celestial observations meant that ships knew where they were. And it's definitely not true in the era of GPS.

The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.

This is just incorrect. They're based on the great circle route between those two points.

There is no distortion on any useful travel map.

Right. Because travel maps generally deal with a very small portion of the world. Which brings us back to where we started. You can't tell the shape of the earth just by looking around and thinking "looks flat". Any more than you can look at your hand and declare there are no germs on it because you can't see them. For objects which are too big or too small to observe directly in normal circumstances "alternative evidence" is required.

[Action80]

These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.

This is simply untrue. You're mixing up two things. Three really.
The first is images which are visualisations - depictions of exoplanets and so on. Those aren't "fabrications".

When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it.

When they mark them as visualisations they're not "admitting" anything. This language implies an attempt at deception. If there was attempt at deception then why would they mark them as visualisations? These things are created to stir the imagination. You're not far off with science fiction, but like much science fiction it's based in reality. They use the data they have about exoplanets and use that to visualise what they might look like. They're not making any claim that they're real photos. And it's certainly not all they are doing.
The second is composite images, or images which have been enhanced. These are real photos, they've just been processed digitally. Like I said, you do this too every time you take a panoramic picture or use your phone's colour balance or cropping tools. This processing is done to make the images clearer, and does not indicate any deception or fakery.
Then there are just photos. There are plenty of those. Sure, the versions you see online are probably compressed and that might mean they have artefacts in, that doesn't mean the originals have been manipulated in any way and NASA have the raw versions on their website.

There are plenty of threads clearly documenting the admitted lies published by NASA.

The scans (not actual photos in the sense of point-and-shoot camera like here on earth) taken from high up are stiched together.

Some are, some aren't. The blue marble is just a photo, taken with a camera on film. The same for earthrise.

They are not point-and-shoot.

The flat map exists.

Does it? Cool. Can you link me to it. The Wiki has multiple maps on it, which one is definitive?

Any map you have ever used is flat.

The supposed distances between various points on the earth are extrapolated only from the given travel times.

This is incorrect. Travel times are a reasonable proxy for distance, but you can use Google Maps to find the distance between places and compare it with measurements you take mistake. There's a reason that as you zoom out the curve of the earth is now shown. Before that the world was extensively surveyed. There's a whole field of geodetic surveying which takes the earth's curve in to account.

Google maps is just like using a Rand McNally Atlas for travel between distances people usually take. When you zoom out, they render some false image of a globe, based on translating the celestial sphere above to the flat surface below to jive the numbers with the waypoints.

I am not going to rehash a bunch of crap about geodetic surveyors which Tom has already effectively addressed, and to which you and all other RE-adherents simply utter "nuh - uh."

The actual straight-line distances are not known as they are not able to be taken due to the methods used for long-distance travel where waypoints are not visible at ground level.

Also not true. It hasn't been true for centuries since Harrison cracked the problem of accurate timepieces at sea - using those and combining it with celestial observations meant that ships knew where they were. And it's definitely not true in the era of GPS.

You got to match the timepiece with something and when it comes to travel over the oceans, those are marks above the head. Thank you for acknowledging the celestial observations, though. Seems like you might be catching on after all.

The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.

This is just incorrect. They're based on the great circle route between those two points.

The great circle of course being the one formed by the celestial sphere above our heads and mimicked on the flat plane below.

There is no distortion on any useful travel map.

Right.

Thank you for conceding the point.

"alternative evidence" is required worthy of dismissal.

I fixed that last part, as there is nothing to support the claim it is required.

[mahogany]

Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.

"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
 - Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.

"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.

[BillO]

https://hartzellprop.com/pilots-navigate-skies-gps/#:~:text=Celestial%20Navigation,altitude%20of%20a%20celestial%20body.

Thanks for providing that.  Short but sweet.  It was enough for me to do some additional research.

It seems the use of celestial bodies kind of went out of favor just after WWII.  Ground based VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Stations began to be deployed in 1950 and rapidly became the mandated method of navigation for commercial air travel.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/twenty-years-gps-and-instrument-flight



Apparently, in 1983 GPS was first authorized for use on commercial flights by Ronald Reagan and has now essentially phased out VOR.
https://aerospace.org/article/brief-history-gps

It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged.

This is not generally true.  The planes back in the celestial navigation days were not capable of long haul flights.  So most longer routes were done by flying zig-zag patterns to airports in range to make fueling stops. Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles.  Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.

Lindberg's route:


Modern route:

As far as transcribing patterns of the celestial sphere above to the flat earth plane below, there are multitudes of ancient earthly temples still in existence today that provide very visible evidence of this fact.

Quite possibly so, but not of much interest to me right now and of little application today.

[Action80]

Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.

"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
 - Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.

"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.

Incorrect, as the evidence for what is offered in support of flat earth is readily apparent to any observer on the flat earth. It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.

[Action80]

https://hartzellprop.com/pilots-navigate-skies-gps/#:~:text=Celestial%20Navigation,altitude%20of%20a%20celestial%20body.

Thanks for providing that.  Short but sweet.  It was enough for me to do some additional research.

It seems the use of celestial bodies kind of went out of favor just after WWII.  Ground based VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Stations began to be deployed in 1950 and rapidly became the mandated method of navigation for commercial air travel.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/twenty-years-gps-and-instrument-flight



Apparently, in 1983 GPS was first authorized for use on commercial flights by Ronald Reagan and has now essentially phased out VOR.
https://aerospace.org/article/brief-history-gps

It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged.

This is not generally true.  The planes back in the celestial navigation days were not capable of long haul flights.  So most longer routes were done by flying zig-zag patterns to airports in range to make fueling stops. Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles.  Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.

Lindberg's route:


Modern route:

As far as transcribing patterns of the celestial sphere above to the flat earth plane below, there are multitudes of ancient earthly temples still in existence today that provide very visible evidence of this fact.

Quite possibly so, but not of much interest to me right now and of little application today.

I may have missed it, but it seems there was nothing in your reply that actually contradicted anything I wrote. So, thank you for posting the confirmations.

[mahogany]

Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.

"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
 - Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.

"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.

Incorrect, as the evidence for what is offered in support of flat earth is readily apparent to any observer on the flat earth. It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.

The argument that you using is inconsistent and a poor one at best.

You first lay out your standard as to why something is a fabrication: "When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are 'fabricating' it"

It is then pointed out to you that all flat earth models / animation models are coming from someone's mind, therefore are fabrications.

You then seem to say that your own fabrication standard doesn't apply to flat earth fabrications because every observer only see's a flat earth. And yet, the same can be said that every observer only see's a spherical earth (i.e. I look out over the sea and every-time I observe a ship move away from me it is disappearing bottom first; I can see certain stars from the northern hemisphere but not in the southern hemisphere, etc.). It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.

Furthermore, photo's of a spherical earth taken from space that come from a camera (or video camera) are not coming from the mind and so therefore are not fabrications but then you will deem them to be fabrications or fakery because of your belief in a space travel conspiracy or hoax that are coming from these people (TFES, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) and are accepted by the gullible populace (you and the flat earth community) as experts.
 
 

[Action80]

Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.

"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
 - Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.

"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.

Incorrect, as the evidence for what is offered in support of flat earth is readily apparent to any observer on the flat earth. It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.

The argument that you using is inconsistent and a poor one at best.

You first lay out your standard as to why something is a fabrication: "When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are 'fabricating' it"


It is then pointed out to you that all flat earth models / animation models are coming from someone's mind, therefore are fabrications.

The models I propose are based on direct evidence that anyone can see.

That is the difference. If you do not like the models or like the models, they remain based on the evidence right up against all of us.

You then seem to say that your own fabrication standard doesn't apply to flat earth fabrications because every observer only see's a flat earth. And yet, the same can be said that every observer only see's a spherical earth (i.e. I look out over the sea and every-time I observe a ship move away from me it is disappearing bottom first; I can see certain stars from the northern hemisphere but not in the southern hemisphere, etc.). It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.

Why are you rehashing the debunked "sinking ship"? Tom put that to bed a long time ago.

You think you would see the same stars showing themselves at different places on the celestial sphere above our heads if you change your position on the flat earth plane below? Why?

Furthermore, photo's of a spherical earth taken from space that come from a camera (or video camera) are not coming from the mind and so therefore are not fabrications but then you will deem them to be fabrications or fakery because of your belief in a space travel conspiracy or hoax that are coming from these people (TFES, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) and are accepted by the gullible populace (you and the flat earth community) as experts.

NASA has been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact.

Universal Studios has been showing a revolving globe earth on screen to the public at large for nearly 100 years.

I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.

[mahogany]

Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.

"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
 - Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.

"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.

Incorrect, as the evidence for what is offered in support of flat earth is readily apparent to any observer on the flat earth. It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.

The argument that you using is inconsistent and a poor one at best.

You first lay out your standard as to why something is a fabrication: "When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are 'fabricating' it"


It is then pointed out to you that all flat earth models / animation models are coming from someone's mind, therefore are fabrications.

The models I propose are based on direct evidence that anyone can see.

That is the difference. If you do not like the models or like the models, they remain based on the evidence right up against all of us.

You then seem to say that your own fabrication standard doesn't apply to flat earth fabrications because every observer only see's a flat earth. And yet, the same can be said that every observer only see's a spherical earth (i.e. I look out over the sea and every-time I observe a ship move away from me it is disappearing bottom first; I can see certain stars from the northern hemisphere but not in the southern hemisphere, etc.). It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.

Why are you rehashing the debunked "sinking ship"? Tom put that to bed a long time ago.

You think you would see the same stars showing themselves at different places on the celestial sphere above our heads if you change your position on the flat earth plane below? Why?

Furthermore, photo's of a spherical earth taken from space that come from a camera (or video camera) are not coming from the mind and so therefore are not fabrications but then you will deem them to be fabrications or fakery because of your belief in a space travel conspiracy or hoax that are coming from these people (TFES, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) and are accepted by the gullible populace (you and the flat earth community) as experts.

NASA has been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact.

Universal Studios has been showing a revolving globe earth on screen to the public at large for nearly 100 years.

I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.

Everything you are saying can simply be turned around and used as evidence against a flat earth as well. For example:

- The spherical earth is based on direct evidence that anyone can see. If you do not like the spherical earth, it remains based on the evidence right up against all of us.
- Why are you rehashing the "sinking ship"? AATW put that to bed a while ago.
- You think you would see the same stars showing themselves in different hemisphere's, but they don't? Why?
- Flat Earth Community members have been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact. (for a few examples, refer to "Behind the Curve")
- Samuel Rowbotham has been proposing and showing a flat disk earth in book's to the public at large for over 100 years.
- I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.

Have you ever considered an opposite argument to your belief that space is a hoax, where:
- perhaps it is because jet air travel does exist that aircraft manufacturers are motivated to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win air travel dominance -- i.e. the Boeing 737 Max scandal.)
- perhaps it is because hybrid and electric vehicle ground travel does exist that auto manufacturers are motivated to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win auto travel dominance -- i.e. the Volkswagen scandal)
- perhaps it is because space travel does exist that space companies (agencies and private alike) are motivated to lie (i.e. they are competing to win space travel dominance and be first to explore -- i.e. the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster)

[Action80]

-snipped for brevity


Everything you are saying can simply be turned around and used as evidence against a flat earth as well. For example:

- The spherical earth is based on direct evidence that anyone can see. If you do not like the spherical earth, it remains based on the evidence right up against all of us.

^Must assume additional evidence not immediately against us in order to even make the statement.

- Why are you rehashing the "sinking ship"? AATW put that to bed a while ago.

AATW has done nothing of the sort.  Tom clearly stated the effect was inconsistent. Which it is, despite AATW's protestations otherwise. He goes on to write that because all ships (we might as well add any object traveling on any surface) traveling away from the observer disappear from view eventually, it must be due to the horizon based on Earth's sphericity. Well, the fact is there are limits on visual acuity and other factors at play. In one thread, he tried to foist off a picture of a masted ship behind a very evident wave as evidence of globe earth and was slapped down very quickly by Pete.

- You think you would see the same stars showing themselves in different hemisphere's, but they don't? Why?

No, nobody thinks that. The reason is the evidence shows they are not visible to everyone in different areas of the flat earth plane. They would not because the stars occupy different areas of the celestial sphere above our heads.

- Flat Earth Community members have been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact. (for a few examples, refer to "Behind the Curve").

I am unfamiliar with Behind the Curve. I do not know if they lied or not in the documentary. If they did, it does not alter the evidence right up against us.

- Samuel Rowbotham has been proposing and showing a flat disk earth in book's to the public at large for over 100 years.

Samuel Rowbotham is dead. His book lives on.

- I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.

The evidence right up against us is very real.

Have you ever considered an opposite argument to your belief that space is a hoax, where:
- perhaps it is because jet air travel does exist that aircraft manufacturers have been demonstrably shown to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win air travel dominance -- i.e. the Boeing 737 Max scandell.)

Everybody lies. Relevance to your OP? Or more OP derailment by the author?

- perhaps it is because hybrid and electric vehicle ground travel does exist that auto manufacturers have been demonstrably shown to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win auto travel dominance -
- i.e. the Volkswagen scandell).

Looks like more OP derailment by the author.

- perhaps it is because space travel does exist that space companies (agencies and private alike) have been demonstrably shown to lie (i.e. they are competing to win space travel dominance and be first to explore -- i.e. the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster)

Space travel dominace? LOL! They all cooperate!

You really should just take a break. You are all over the place and have lost the ability to formulate cogent statements in support of your view.

[BillO]

I may have missed it, but it seems there was nothing in your reply that actually contradicted anything I wrote. So, thank you for posting the confirmations.

Right, I wasn't contradicting you.  Except that this is not generally true "It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged."  Most of the routes today are nothing at all like they were when bubble sextants were the in thing.

No, I was just adding some information that's more up-to-date than your Sopwith Camel vintage stuff.

Do I always have to contradict someone?

[AATW]

When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it.

The implication in the way you use that word is that they are trying to deceive. This is untrue.
If it were they wouldn't mark visualisations as such, they wouldn't state when images are composites.

Some are, some aren't. The blue marble is just a photo, taken with a camera on film. The same for earthrise.

They are not point-and-shoot.

Yes they are.

https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/blue-marble-photo-50th-anniversary-snap-scn/index.html

The iconic photo, known as “Blue Marble,” was taken by NASA astronauts Eugene “Gene” Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt on December 7 using a Hasselblad camera and a Zeiss lens, about 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles) away from home, as the Apollo 17 crew made its way to the moon.

"Oh my God, look at that picture over there! There's the Earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty!" Bill Anders shouted at fellow astronaut Jim Lovell. "You got a colour film, Jim? Hand me a roll of colour, quick, would you?"
"That's a beautiful shot," said Lovell as Anders clicked the shutter and captured what has become one of the world's most famous photographs.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230511-earthrise-the-photo-that-sparked-an-environmental-movement

I fixed that last part, as there is nothing to support the claim it is required.

it doesn't need supporting, it's an obvious truth. Someone referenced the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant above and it's a good analogy. The men all felt different parts of the elephant and came to different conclusions about what an elephant must be like. None of them had enough data to be correct. In the same way, looking around your local area and thinking "looks flat to me!" is not sufficient to determine the reality of its shape, that observation can be explained in multiple ways. One of which is that the earth is flat, but alternative evidence shows that it is not.

[Action80]

I may have missed it, but it seems there was nothing in your reply that actually contradicted anything I wrote. So, thank you for posting the confirmations.

Right, I wasn't contradicting you.  Except that this is not generally true "It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged."  Most of the routes today are nothing at all like they were when bubble sextants were the in thing.

No, I was just adding some information that's more up-to-date than your Sopwith Camel vintage stuff.

Do I always have to contradict someone?

If the routes are different, I would expect you to post evidence of that. You didn't. As a matter of fact, however, the example you provided with Lindbergh is very much "essentially," the same as those taken today.

[Action80]

When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it.

The implication in the way you use that word is that they are trying to deceive. This is untrue.
If it were they wouldn't mark visualisations as such, they wouldn't state when images are composites.

That is the point. Any images purported to to originate from "outer space," are intended to deceive.

The images of "exoplanets," are the same, even more so.

Yes they are.

https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/blue-marble-photo-50th-anniversary-snap-scn/index.html

The iconic photo, known as “Blue Marble,” was taken by NASA astronauts Eugene “Gene” Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt on December 7 using a Hasselblad camera and a Zeiss lens, about 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles) away from home, as the Apollo 17 crew made its way to the moon.


"Oh my God, look at that picture over there! There's the Earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty!" Bill Anders shouted at fellow astronaut Jim Lovell. "You got a colour film, Jim? Hand me a roll of colour, quick, would you?"
"That's a beautiful shot," said Lovell as Anders clicked the shutter and captured what has become one of the world's most famous photographs.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230511-earthrise-the-photo-that-sparked-an-environmental-movement

NASA as a source again. They already admitted to photoshopping the earth on several occasions, I think one of those instances was on Earthrise.

I fixed that last part, as there is nothing to support the claim it is required.

it doesn't need supporting, it's an obvious truth. Someone referenced the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant above and it's a good analogy. The men all felt different parts of the elephant and came to different conclusions about what an elephant must be like. None of them had enough data to be correct. In the same way, looking around your local area and thinking "looks flat to me!" is not sufficient to determine the reality of its shape, that observation can be explained in multiple ways. One of which is that the earth is flat, but alternative evidence shows that it is not.

It is an obvious truth only to you and re-adherents. Given the great amount of evidence right up against us, and the well-documented instances of space agencies of various countries fabricating data, the alternative evidence can be summarily dismissed.

[BillO]

{Redacted}

I've just been diagnosed with COVID-19. I can't think nor focus either optically or intellectually.

I'll be back when I can.

(Yeah!!!)

[DuncanDoenitz]

Yes they are.

https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/blue-marble-photo-50th-anniversary-snap-scn/index.html

[/quote]

The iconic photo, known as “Blue Marble,” was taken by NASA astronauts Eugene “Gene” Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt on December 7 using a Hasselblad camera and a Zeiss lens, about 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles) away from home, as the Apollo 17 crew made its way to the moon.

"Oh my God, look at that picture over there! There's the Earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty!" Bill Anders shouted at fellow astronaut Jim Lovell. "You got a colour film, Jim? Hand me a roll of colour, quick, would you?"
"That's a beautiful shot," said Lovell as Anders clicked the shutter and captured what has become one of the world's most famous photographs.

There's little doubt that the Earthrise image has been chopped about and digitally altered to enhance its impact in the modern age, but it was first published in 1969.  Adobe Photoshop was developed by Thomas Knoll, born 1960.  You think maybe NASA saw his potential and brought him onboard at age 9?

[mahogany]

-snipped for brevity


Everything you are saying can simply be turned around and used as evidence against a flat earth as well. For example:

- The spherical earth is based on direct evidence that anyone can see. If you do not like the spherical earth, it remains based on the evidence right up against all of us.

^Must assume additional evidence not immediately against us in order to even make the statement.

- Why are you rehashing the "sinking ship"? AATW put that to bed a while ago.

AATW has done nothing of the sort.  Tom clearly stated the effect was inconsistent. Which it is, despite AATW's protestations otherwise. He goes on to write that because all ships (we might as well add any object traveling on any surface) traveling away from the observer disappear from view eventually, it must be due to the horizon based on Earth's sphericity. Well, the fact is there are limits on visual acuity and other factors at play. In one thread, he tried to foist off a picture of a masted ship behind a very evident wave as evidence of globe earth and was slapped down very quickly by Pete.

- You think you would see the same stars showing themselves in different hemisphere's, but they don't? Why?

No, nobody thinks that. The reason is the evidence shows they are not visible to everyone in different areas of the flat earth plane. They would not because the stars occupy different areas of the celestial sphere above our heads.

- Flat Earth Community members have been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact. (for a few examples, refer to "Behind the Curve").

I am unfamiliar with Behind the Curve. I do not know if they lied or not in the documentary. If they did, it does not alter the evidence right up against us.

- Samuel Rowbotham has been proposing and showing a flat disk earth in book's to the public at large for over 100 years.

Samuel Rowbotham is dead. His book lives on.

- I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.

The evidence right up against us is very real.

Have you ever considered an opposite argument to your belief that space is a hoax, where:
- perhaps it is because jet air travel does exist that aircraft manufacturers have been demonstrably shown to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win air travel dominance -- i.e. the Boeing 737 Max scandell.)

Everybody lies. Relevance to your OP? Or more OP derailment by the author?

- perhaps it is because hybrid and electric vehicle ground travel does exist that auto manufacturers have been demonstrably shown to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win auto travel dominance -
- i.e. the Volkswagen scandell).

Looks like more OP derailment by the author.

- perhaps it is because space travel does exist that space companies (agencies and private alike) have been demonstrably shown to lie (i.e. they are competing to win space travel dominance and be first to explore -- i.e. the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster)

Space travel dominace? LOL! They all cooperate!

You really should just take a break. You are all over the place and have lost the ability to formulate cogent statements in support of your view.

The examples I provide above are simply to present an alternate argument to your belief in a conspiracy and is indeed related to my OP.

- Your argument is that because NASA lies, they must therefore be lying about space travel and so space travel must be a hoax.
- The alternative argument I am presenting is that it is because space travel exists, that NASA lies. I.e. NASA will do whatever is necessary to compete to "win" space travel dominance, including lying. Lying about the readiness to launch the Challenger Space Shuttle when they knew they shouldn't have launched. Or Boeing lying about the safety of their 737 MAX jet. Or Volkswagen lying about their vehicle energy efficiency. Boeing lie and Volkswagen lie BUT that doesn't mean air travel is a hoax and it doesn't mean hybrid electric vehicle travel is a hoax. 

Again, I am presenting an alternate argument to your conspiracy belief and that you might have it all backwards -- perhaps it is because space travel exists, it is because jet air travel exists, and it is because electric vehicle travel exists that corporations such as NASA, Boeing, and Volkswagen lie so that they can win and dominate.

In terms of Tom and his "debunking" of the sinking ship, I don't think his conclusions are anymore reliable than AATW and his "bunking" of the sinking ship conclusions.
 

[AATW]

AATW has done nothing of the sort.  Tom clearly stated the effect was inconsistent. Which it is, despite AATW's protestations otherwise. He goes on to write that because all ships (we might as well add any object traveling on any surface) traveling away from the observer disappear from view eventually, it must be due to the horizon based on Earth's sphericity.

The effect is NOT inconsistent in the way he claims it is. His Wiki page claims that "at times it occurs and at other times it does not occur.". That just isn't true. Ships always disappear below the horizon, distant landmarks are always partially obscured. And here's the point, they always disappear bottom first. Why? Why would they if the earth is flat? I've posted the Turning Torso video multiple times on here. It's clear that the further away the picture is taken from the more of the building is hidden. Why would that be? Yes, the amount of occlusion varies depending on atmospheric conditions but it's never the case that it just doesn't happen at all.

And, as I noted, Tom is completely contradicting his claimed observations in the Bishop experiment. In that he claims he can, from a 20 inch viewer height, see 23 miles across a bay and see the distant beach all the way to the shoreline. He claims to be able to reproduce that consistently at different times of year (and thus in different temperatures, so different atmospheric conditions) so long as it's calm and clear. So which is it? Is it something he can consistently reproduce or is it inconsistent? As so often when he ties himself in knots like this, he never responded.

It is an obvious truth only to you and re-adherents. Given the great amount of evidence right up against us, and the well-documented instances of space agencies of various countries fabricating data, the alternative evidence can be summarily dismissed.

As discussed, evidence from space agencies is just part of the alternative evidence. The earth's shape was known for thousands of years before we had the ability to launch things in to orbit. Your "great amount of evidence" seems to amount to you looking around and thinking "looks flat to me". Can you really not understand why that is not sufficient to determine the shape of the earth? Let's try this. If the earth is flat, what shape is it? I mean is it round? Square? Another shape? Does it go on forever? Your honest answer surely has to be you don't know. Your observations don't give you enough information to determine that. It's the same with the overall shape of the earth. Your observations don't just leave one possibility, so aren't sufficient to determine the reality.