Ecthelion, symantics aside, we probably agree on a lot of things.

However, your broad stroke of a brush that conspiracy theorists are irrational points to a flaw in your own judgement. Some people do take it a bit far, but to lump every person who investigates different corruption in different countries, sectors, and institutions with people that believe that Aliens abduct people and leave crop circles is detrimental to the process of attempting to right the wrongs in the world.

The 911 attacks are a great example of a "conspiracy theory" with a ton of evidence, motive, and technical details that point to the fact that we were lied to about the nature of the event.

Well, I didn't want to generalize, I just used a quick way to summarize. I realize that not all conspiracy theories are the same. Some have enough background to make them plausible. The problem usually comes with the vast, overarching theories that assume world-wide conspiracies. They use isolated incidents to spin huge patterns, and that usually isn't very plausible. They are all large-scale, but no-one ever explains how it's supposed to work on the day to day scale. How the individual people act, what their motivations are, how, despite human nature, such a huge enterprise could be coordinated without power struggles or mishaps. It's when there is vague and shadowy organisation, instead of simple humans with their self interests, at work that conspiracies become implausible. 9/11 is perhaps the biggest conspiracy theory that is still somewhat plausible, and that already requires a pretty large cabal of psychopaths within the US government.

It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.

But if I never realize the brain washing happened, how does speculating about what might have happened help? This is, essentially, the "Matrix" problem. It is possible that we all live in the Matrix, everything we know is fed to us by the machines and the truth is completely different. But if that is the case, we have no way of knowing it, and we certainly couldn't tell which part of the information is fed to us is true and which is false. It's an entirely useless speculation that doesn't supply us with any additional means to discern truth from falsehood.

Which begs the question: How does simply realizing that "it could all be fake" help me to tell whether anything is, actually, fake? What is the tool I am supposed to use, and how am I supposed to wield it?

9/11 is perhaps the biggest conspiracy theory that is still somewhat plausible, and that already requires a pretty large cabal of psychopaths within the US government.
There is no shortage of psychopaths in this World.

But if I never realize the brain washing happened, how does speculating about what might have happened help? This is, essentially, the "Matrix" problem. It is possible that we all live in the Matrix, everything we know is fed to us by the machines and the truth is completely different. But if that is the case, we have no way of knowing it, and we certainly couldn't tell which part of the information is fed to us is true and which is false. It's an entirely useless speculation that doesn't supply us with any additional means to discern truth from falsehood.

Which begs the question: How does simply realizing that "it could all be fake" help me to tell whether anything is, actually, fake? What is the tool I am supposed to use, and how am I supposed to wield it?

If you step away from your regularly scheduled programming you begin to see the thinly veiled agendas. You can overcome the conditioning that has been done to you, but the first step is realizing it even happened. I think I saw you quoting enlightenment era philosophers before, so you should be familiar with the concept of transcendentalism. You need to separate yourself from the group and forge your own understanding, and don't be so quick to dismiss concepts that at first glance seem laughable. There were a lot of amazing concepts and ideas throughout history that drew laughter, and in an effort to remain relevant, the spherical, flying through space Earth was once one of them.

You're obviously here because the idea of the flat earth intrigued you enough to see what the fuss is about. Try to stop focusing on the defense of your preconceptions and open your mind to other possibilities.

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
If you step away from your regularly scheduled programming you begin to see the thinly veiled agendas. You can overcome the conditioning that has been done to you, but the first step is realizing it even happened. I think I saw you quoting enlightenment era philosophers before, so you should be familiar with the concept of transcendentalism. You need to separate yourself from the group and forge your own understanding, and don't be so quick to dismiss concepts that at first glance seem laughable. There were a lot of amazing concepts and ideas throughout history that drew laughter, and in an effort to remain relevant, the spherical, flying through space Earth was once one of them.
But here's the problem: You think that you are one of the few people that knows what is going on, and therefore your position is above everyone else.  But just thinking differently and feeling superior doesn't make you correct.  I could tell everyone that corn is a fungus that makes humans want to grow more corn, and I would feel pretty high-and-mighty doing it.  But would that make me correct?  No, it would make me an idiot who is ignorant of facts, common sense, and opposing points of view. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

If you step away from your regularly scheduled programming you begin to see the thinly veiled agendas. You can overcome the conditioning that has been done to you, but the first step is realizing it even happened. I think I saw you quoting enlightenment era philosophers before, so you should be familiar with the concept of transcendentalism. You need to separate yourself from the group and forge your own understanding, and don't be so quick to dismiss concepts that at first glance seem laughable. There were a lot of amazing concepts and ideas throughout history that drew laughter, and in an effort to remain relevant, the spherical, flying through space Earth was once one of them.

You're obviously here because the idea of the flat earth intrigued you enough to see what the fuss is about. Try to stop focusing on the defense of your preconceptions and open your mind to other possibilities.

Actually, I am here because it gives me a forum to throw the theory of knowledge at people who apparently aren't very familiar with it, which is both fun and deepens my understanding or the theory by way of explaining.

What I don't get here is why the assumption is I have not already overcome the conditioning. I think my posts do convey the message that I do think a lot about what I know and how I know it, and that I want to know what goes on behind the scenes. But some concepts that seem laughable actually are laughable. I cannot give every idea the benefit of the doubt forever. For example, I have looked at videos about the moon hoax from both sides. I concluded that the arguments for the conspiracy were weak and that the counterpoints were more convincing.


So, you don't trust "the media on TV", but you do trust Youtube videos? You specifically believe a video that states that frames that allude to sex, or have the word "sex" written in them are "highly sexualized" and "corrupt the world's children"? How exactly does that work?

What does it matter if it's a youtube video? I dont get it? It could be an article, doesn't matter if the evidence it provides is legit. You can watch the video and then find the real disney movie, and see for yourself if that's true or not. And it's exactly what I did...

I just linked you to a brief introductory video on the subject. There are many more with HORDES of evidence of them adding subliminal satanic symbols, gestures, and sexualized subliminals etc. But really it's not my task to educate you on this since it's hard to wake people up and I refuse to do it to someone I don't know well in person.

Quote

It's a familiar phenomenon: "I don't believe any media, except these people on youtube". Maybe it's the youtube videos that are controlled and brainwashing you? Maybe the government is secretly controlling all the conspiracy theorists? How does your approach allow you to discern truth from falsehood?

This is right. There are many disinformation in the internet and disinformation agents spreading false information. That's where you need to research and see for yourself, and above all follow what your heart says about it. However regarding what I showed you, there's not really any reason of a conspiracy disinfo when the evidence is raw, and right there in front of your eyes... For instance you can even go to court with the video as proof and tell Disney to remove the penis on the church priest on a children's movie.


Quote
Funny, it was hard to fault most of the images there but I turned up the curves on this one in photoshop and Bam. Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet.

So the fact that you tried and failed to find a fault in the majority of the pictures is now supposed to be proof that they are all faked? That's a curious leap of logic.

You showed me a basket of photos. If that basket has a rotten egg, the whole basket starts to seem like it's not legit. If I found pee in the egg box of a dozen eggs, I would start to question the rest as well.


Quote
So yeah, I guess I won't really trust photos unless they are RAW format straight from the camera and therefore untampered with. These photos are of course modified and even saved at a 79% quality of jpeg compression (for the first photo in the website).

Which means you are excluding an entire category of observations with no argument other than that it suits your preconceived ideas.

But it's well deserved. For space photos that have full-size earths, imo RAW is the only way because of their history of course. That's just their fault for so much tampering...


Quote
It's not as easy as that, there are tests you can do. I ran these photos thru different websites testing the legitimacy of the photograph and obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera. Which just makes them moot really for me. If you re-save an image as evidence that's a red flag, but the next bigger red flag is how the JPG compression edges don't match up even after a simple test.

Which would then be a new observation I have to take into account. But I cannot possibly ever do all the tests. There is always an alternative theory, the number of possible tests is infinite. Your simple test only indicated fault in a single image. So why do we assume forgery when the observations don't support that assumption? Isn't that the opposite of looking for the truth?

Your point earlier was that you didn't have to test it, rather just look at it to know if it was genuine. Now you're changing your point haha okay then. Tests are infinite and you should assume every photo is genuine instead of being fake lol

Again, I'm really not here to convince people on the internet to believe in anything, so you can believe anything you want, and keep listening to your gov / media , etc. Not my loss haha but don't think you can convince me otherwise that your beliefs are more correct without opening your eyes first.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere
You're obviously here because the idea of the flat earth intrigued you enough to see what the fuss is about. Try to stop focusing on the defense of your preconceptions and open your mind to other possibilities.

Second this^
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 11:58:39 PM by AceAzure »

If you step away from your regularly scheduled programming you begin to see the thinly veiled agendas. You can overcome the conditioning that has been done to you, but the first step is realizing it even happened. I think I saw you quoting enlightenment era philosophers before, so you should be familiar with the concept of transcendentalism. You need to separate yourself from the group and forge your own understanding, and don't be so quick to dismiss concepts that at first glance seem laughable. There were a lot of amazing concepts and ideas throughout history that drew laughter, and in an effort to remain relevant, the spherical, flying through space Earth was once one of them.
But here's the problem: You think that you are one of the few people that knows what is going on, and therefore your position is above everyone else.  But just thinking differently and feeling superior doesn't make you correct.  I could tell everyone that corn is a fungus that makes humans want to grow more corn, and I would feel pretty high-and-mighty doing it.  But would that make me correct?  No, it would make me an idiot who is ignorant of facts, common sense, and opposing points of view.

There you go, projecting again. You've made up your mind about me and it really is a shame. It's easier for you to think of me as someone "ignorant of facts, common sense, opposing points of view," whatever that means. It has made you unable to accept my pretty straight forward commentary on anything but a superficial level. What's worse, I'm usually just talking about ideas, and opinions, and you seem to find anyway you can to make me wrong. Your stretch of a corn analogy shows that.

No, I'm not superior to you, or anyone. Did I say that? If you took it that way its strictly an inference based on your own insecurities. Ego is the fall of many men... Me included. I have not reached Nirvana. I have not achieved in my 30 years that which takes monks a lifetime of dedication and self sacrifice. If you've deduced that I know everything then I guess I did take that as a complement. But alas, the whole of human knowledge and the deepest darkest secrets of the world seem to escape me.

Either way, I love you as a fellow human. We all experience the same emotions and face the same demons. I apologize if I've been condescending towards you in anyway. There seems to be tension for whatever reason, but I beg you to not take the words I write as some kind of personal attack on your belief system. We just have two vastly different perspectives, at entirely different points in our journeys.

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
No, I'm not superior to you, or anyone. Did I say that? If you took it that way its strictly an inference based on your own insecurities. Ego is the fall of many men... Me included. I have not reached Nirvana. I have not achieved in my 30 years that which takes monks a lifetime of dedication and self sacrifice. If you've deduced that I know everything then I guess I did take that as a complement. But alas, the whole of human knowledge and the deepest darkest secrets of the world seem to escape me.

Either way, I love you as a fellow human. We all experience the same emotions and face the same demons. I apologize if I've been condescending towards you in anyway. There seems to be tension for whatever reason, but I beg you to not take the words I write as some kind of personal attack on your belief system. We just have two vastly different perspectives, at entirely different points in our journeys.


Fair enough.  But try to be a little more open to my explanations.  I just want you to realize that the space industry was never trying to take advantage of anybody.  It's not corrupt, and it's not secretive.  That's my whole point, and I know it better than most.  If you'll listen to me or take time to look into it yourself, you'll start to see that. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

What does it matter if it's a youtube video? I dont get it? It could be an article, doesn't matter if the evidence it provides is legit. You can watch the video and then find the real disney movie, and see for yourself if that's true or not. And it's exactly what I did...

I just linked you to a brief introductory video on the subject. There are many more with HORDES of evidence of them adding subliminal satanic symbols, gestures, and sexualized subliminals etc. But really it's not my task to educate you on this since it's hard to wake people up and I refuse to do it to someone I don't know well in person.

It doesn't matter that it's a youtube video. But by the same token, it also doesn't matter if it's on mainstream TV, radio, or in a newspaper. The problem isn't that you take the Youtube video into consideration. The problem is that you automatically dismiss some observations while allowing others to influence you. This will lead to false conclusions no matter how well you research those observations that you allow.

I can echo your last statement: It's nto my task to educate you on what the facts are. What I wish to do is show you is how I think your way of looking at the world may be biased.

This is right. There are many disinformation in the internet and disinformation agents spreading false information. That's where you need to research and see for yourself, and above all follow what your heart says about it. However regarding what I showed you, there's not really any reason of a conspiracy disinfo when the evidence is raw, and right there in front of your eyes... For instance you can even go to court with the video as proof and tell Disney to remove the penis on the church priest on a children's movie.

Just like there is no reason to assume the moon landings were fake when there is footage, videos, construction documents etc. right in front of your eyes. Just as there is no reason to doubt Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK when he was convicted in a cout of law. My point being, you have a double standard. In the case of the subliminal messages, you make an observation ("this video has a penis in it") and conclude that this is evidence for the theory presented. In the case of the pictures I linked, you make an observation and conclude that it must be faked.

You showed me a basket of photos. If that basket has a rotten egg, the whole basket starts to seem like it's not legit. If I found pee in the egg box of a dozen eggs, I would start to question the rest as well.

And question them you did. But you forget to note that you did check and found nothing obviously wrong about the rest of the eggs in the basket. So, in staying with your metaphor, you find a rotten egg in a box of otherwise good eggs, and then throw out all the eggs regardless.


But it's well deserved. For space photos that have full-size earths, imo RAW is the only way because of their history of course. That's just their fault for so much tampering...

Staying with the eggs metaphor from above again: you should note that if you do that and throw out the good eggs with the bad, it's not the eggs that loose and get what they deserved. It's you who looses, because you have just denied yourself a source of perfectly good nutrition.
Stepping away from the metaphor again: You deny yourself sources of information, and that isn't good for someone who seeks the truth.

Your point earlier was that you didn't have to test it, rather just look at it to know if it was genuine. Now you're changing your point haha okay then. Tests are infinite and you should assume every photo is genuine instead of being fake lol

If that was the point that got across to you, I must be very bad at explaining. That wasn't the point, let me try to explain again: What I said was that every observation is, a data point that you need to take into account. How you explain those datapoints is the second step. Noting that there is a picture is making an observation. Stating the picture is fake is a conclusion, and explanation for how this observation came about. The mistake to avoid is to confuse step one with step two. To throw out datapoints as "fake" and then come up with an explanation that only encompasses the remaining data. You need an explanation for all the observations, that includes the ones which you consider fake. If you do conclude that the pictures were fake, your theory must include an explanation for why these observations are considered fake and other are considered genuine and how that ultimately supports your final conclusion. What you cannot do is have two completely unconnected theories where one states "everything I see is suspect and must be considered fake" and the other says "my theory is supported by these things which are true because I saw them".

Again, I'm really not here to convince people on the internet to believe in anything, so you can believe anything you want, and keep listening to your gov / media , etc. Not my loss haha but don't think you can convince me otherwise that your beliefs are more correct without opening your eyes first.

Neither am I. I just think that your eyes are closed as well and trying to teach you how to open them. If you are unwilling to take what I say into consideration because I have come to different conclusions than you, then I cannot help that.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile

Funny, it was hard to fault most of the images there but I turned up the curves on this one in photoshop and Bam. Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet.





larger image link: http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png

The amount of error in the edges in terms of JPEG compression do not match up as you can see, while they should be the same. Obviously not.

So yeah, I guess I won't really trust photos unless they are RAW format straight from the camera and therefore untampered with. These photos are of course modified and even saved at a 79% quality of jpeg compression (for the first photo in the website).

Quote
I observe that my mind tells me that the page tells me the photo is genuine.

Lol.

Quote
It doesn't actually matter if I think the photo is fake or genuine. For one, you only asked me about the photo existing, and it does. Secondly, that the photo exists is an observation in it's own right. This observation is, on it's face, evidence for the photo being genuine. Unless I have additional observations that suggests the photo is faked, the simplest theory that explains the evidence is that the photo is genuine.

It's not as easy as that, there are tests you can do. I ran these photos thru different websites testing the legitimacy of the photograph and obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera. Which just makes them moot really for me. If you re-save an image as evidence that's a red flag, but the next bigger red flag is how the JPG compression edges don't match up even after a simple test.

I know I saw this blooper a bit late, but I can hardly let this sort of material go unchallenged!

I do really think that you shot your mouth off a bit prematurely! And, you really do have a nerve claiming that "Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet" on the basis of your absolutely sloppy and negligent "investigation". If I was a defense attorney, I would love to have you preparing the case for the prosecution - you'd be laughed out of court on numerous grounds in five minutes!

You may (or may not) have proved that "obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera". Nobody ever claimed they were! So what? Do you know of any camera that takes  ;D 968x351 pixel images of FIVE scenes at once  ;D - that would be a funny camera!

Of course it has been modified. Do you really expect to get a picture from a media source and expect it to be exactly the one from the camera. A rank amateur like myself can see:
  • It is obviously a composite picture made from five images, each presumably cropped and probably reduced!
  • The copy you used is a low resolution (968x351 pixel) copy of even that. In a couple of minutes I found a 2080x1080 pixel version. So your smart testing on your image is an utter waste of your time and no-one is claiming even the 2080x1080 pixel version is an "original".
The 2080x1080 pixel one is on site Space Odyssey.  Hope you read Japanese! Of course, as I stated before this cannot a picture straight from any camera and it has never claimed to be. But that is not the slightest evidence that it is a fake! Some people are just too smart for their own good.

You claim all that stuff about jpeg artifacts. Just why must all the artifacts be the same? I am no expert but would have thought that the exact artifact depends on where the image fits into the 8x8 jpeg picture element. So, in my book an identical original image could have 64 different "jpeg artifacts" depending on the exact alignment with the 8x8 cell. In any case those images of the earth are not quite identical anyway, so why would their "jpeg artifacts" be identical?

These pictures are not posted as "evidence" of anything! No-one in NASA or the media is trying to prove anything to you - they know not nor care! If you think that you have a massively overblown sense of your own importance.

Sometimes I think that all these self-made expert image forensic examiners are not quite as expert as they think they are!

What does it matter if it's a youtube video? I dont get it? It could be an article, doesn't matter if the evidence it provides is legit. You can watch the video and then find the real disney movie, and see for yourself if that's true or not. And it's exactly what I did...

I just linked you to a brief introductory video on the subject. There are many more with HORDES of evidence of them adding subliminal satanic symbols, gestures, and sexualized subliminals etc. But really it's not my task to educate you on this since it's hard to wake people up and I refuse to do it to someone I don't know well in person.

It doesn't matter that it's a youtube video. But by the same token, it also doesn't matter if it's on mainstream TV, radio, or in a newspaper. The problem isn't that you take the Youtube video into consideration. The problem is that you automatically dismiss some observations while allowing others to influence you. This will lead to false conclusions no matter how well you research those observations that you allow.

I can echo your last statement: It's nto my task to educate you on what the facts are. What I wish to do is show you is how I think your way of looking at the world may be biased.

This is right. There are many disinformation in the internet and disinformation agents spreading false information. That's where you need to research and see for yourself, and above all follow what your heart says about it. However regarding what I showed you, there's not really any reason of a conspiracy disinfo when the evidence is raw, and right there in front of your eyes... For instance you can even go to court with the video as proof and tell Disney to remove the penis on the church priest on a children's movie.

Just like there is no reason to assume the moon landings were fake when there is footage, videos, construction documents etc. right in front of your eyes. Just as there is no reason to doubt Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK when he was convicted in a cout of law. My point being, you have a double standard. In the case of the subliminal messages, you make an observation ("this video has a penis in it") and conclude that this is evidence for the theory presented. In the case of the pictures I linked, you make an observation and conclude that it must be faked.

You showed me a basket of photos. If that basket has a rotten egg, the whole basket starts to seem like it's not legit. If I found pee in the egg box of a dozen eggs, I would start to question the rest as well.

And question them you did. But you forget to note that you did check and found nothing obviously wrong about the rest of the eggs in the basket. So, in staying with your metaphor, you find a rotten egg in a box of otherwise good eggs, and then throw out all the eggs regardless.


But it's well deserved. For space photos that have full-size earths, imo RAW is the only way because of their history of course. That's just their fault for so much tampering...

Staying with the eggs metaphor from above again: you should note that if you do that and throw out the good eggs with the bad, it's not the eggs that loose and get what they deserved. It's you who looses, because you have just denied yourself a source of perfectly good nutrition.
Stepping away from the metaphor again: You deny yourself sources of information, and that isn't good for someone who seeks the truth.

Your point earlier was that you didn't have to test it, rather just look at it to know if it was genuine. Now you're changing your point haha okay then. Tests are infinite and you should assume every photo is genuine instead of being fake lol

If that was the point that got across to you, I must be very bad at explaining. That wasn't the point, let me try to explain again: What I said was that every observation is, a data point that you need to take into account. How you explain those datapoints is the second step. Noting that there is a picture is making an observation. Stating the picture is fake is a conclusion, and explanation for how this observation came about. The mistake to avoid is to confuse step one with step two. To throw out datapoints as "fake" and then come up with an explanation that only encompasses the remaining data. You need an explanation for all the observations, that includes the ones which you consider fake. If you do conclude that the pictures were fake, your theory must include an explanation for why these observations are considered fake and other are considered genuine and how that ultimately supports your final conclusion. What you cannot do is have two completely unconnected theories where one states "everything I see is suspect and must be considered fake" and the other says "my theory is supported by these things which are true because I saw them".

Again, I'm really not here to convince people on the internet to believe in anything, so you can believe anything you want, and keep listening to your gov / media , etc. Not my loss haha but don't think you can convince me otherwise that your beliefs are more correct without opening your eyes first.

Neither am I. I just think that your eyes are closed as well and trying to teach you how to open them. If you are unwilling to take what I say into consideration because I have come to different conclusions than you, then I cannot help that.

First let me tell you that in my case of video proof, I can find an old disney show and see that they actually used those nasty subliminals. And of course you can find testimonies of people who have watched the exact show.

However, in your case, how about I go to the moon and see for myself? How do I verify the proof?  By looking at "photos" from the moon, that mind you isn't even straight from the camera and retains the original Metadata information? You see it's not first-hand evidence. In my case I can get the first hand evidence because it's readily available.

The only way you can debunk my evidence of them hiding sexual symbols is IF my sources of old disney movies containing the symbols are fake. Which could be ludicrous because you can of course find them everywhere and people have indeed watched them.

The other point you were talking about the eggs argument haha. Okay but my point all along was that nasa have made a crap load of fake earth composites before so how in the hell do you not look at them from the perspective of a skeptical view rather than to think they are real at first glance? 



Quote
If that was the point that got across to you, I must be very bad at explaining. That wasn't the point, let me try to explain again: What I said was that every observation is, a data point that you need to take into account. How you explain those datapoints is the second step. Noting that there is a picture is making an observation. Stating the picture is fake is a conclusion, and explanation for how this observation came about. The mistake to avoid is to confuse step one with step two. To throw out datapoints as "fake" and then come up with an explanation that only encompasses the remaining data. You need an explanation for all the observations, that includes the ones which you consider fake. If you do conclude that the pictures were fake, your theory must include an explanation for why these observations are considered fake and other are considered genuine and how that ultimately supports your final conclusion. What you cannot do is have two completely unconnected theories where one states "everything I see is suspect and must be considered fake" and the other says "my theory is supported by these things which are true because I saw them".

I guess you misunderstood me then, I'm not that quick to call them fakes, just keeping a skeptical eye based on their history. I simply said they were keyword - Modified -  which of course they were since the JPG compression.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 09:42:10 AM by AceAzure »

These pictures are not posted as "evidence" of anything! No-one in NASA or the media is trying to prove anything to you - they know not nor care! If you think that you have a massively overblown sense of your own importance.

Sometimes I think that all these self-made expert image forensic examiners are not quite as expert as they think they are!

Sigh. I really hate to revisit this and waste my time but okay.

Look, even a monkey can tell that it's a composite image and it's of course modified. Yes my point wasn't that. I only said that because I wanted to see RAW images not modified ones, and I wasn't even pointing at this particular image for that point because we all know it's several different images placed together. It was the JPG Artifacts MISMATCH on that that piqued my interest.

For comparison sake, I did a curves on one of the top ones in that site and I found them to not have this same problem.



Compare the larger images and see for yourself. You aren't blind.

http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png  VS http://i.imgur.com/lV4kF9b.png

The colour hue / saturation / brightness  (HSB) values of the jpg compression of the first one is definitely out of place.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 09:00:39 AM by AceAzure »

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
These pictures are not posted as "evidence" of anything! No-one in NASA or the media is trying to prove anything to you - they know not nor care! If you think that you have a massively overblown sense of your own importance.

Sometimes I think that all these self-made expert image forensic examiners are not quite as expert as they think they are!

Sigh. I really hate to revisit this and waste my time but okay.

Look, even a monkey can tell that it's a composite image and it's of course modified. Yes my point wasn't that. I only said that because I wanted to see RAW images not modified ones, and I wasn't even pointing at this particular image for that point because we all know it's several different images placed together. It was the JPG Artifacts MISMATCH on that that piqued my interest.

For comparison sake, I did a curves on one of the top ones in that site and I found them to not have this same problem.

Compare the larger images and see for yourself. You aren't blind.

http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png  VS http://i.imgur.com/lV4kF9b.png

The colour hue / saturation / brightness  (HSB) values of the jpg compression of the first one is definitely out of place.


It looks perfectly alright to me.  The artifacts all look like one would expect.  What's the problem?
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

Maybe you need a lesson in jpeg compression algorithms before jumping to conclusions that makes you look like a rookie. Take it as an advice from an experienced developer.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

I tested this more. It turns out it might be mostly the lighting that's affecting the jpg mismatch.

If I turned the lighting just on the moon up, the jpg artifacts seem to match up much better. However this just begs the question -- why were the lighting so different? The NASA image has the lighting of the moon really high up, like a football stadium while the JAXA one is very dimly lit.



Btw I'll just leave this here too.


Maybe you need a lesson in jpeg compression algorithms before jumping to conclusions that makes you look like a rookie. Take it as an advice from an experienced developer.

My cat is also an experienced developer. What makes you so special sir?

First let me tell you that in my case of video proof, I can find an old disney show and see that they actually used those nasty subliminals. And of course you can find testimonies of people who have watched the exact show.

However, in your case, how about I go to the moon and see for myself? How do I verify the proof?  By looking at "photos" from the moon, that mind you isn't even straight from the camera and retains the original Metadata information? You see it's not first-hand evidence. In my case I can get the first hand evidence because it's readily available.

The only way you can debunk my evidence of them hiding sexual symbols is IF my sources of old disney movies containing the symbols are fake. Which could be ludicrous because you can of course find them everywhere and people have indeed watched them.

The issue with your argument is that the theory isn't "Disney movies sometimes have frames with sexual images in them". The theory is "Cartoons include subliminal sexual messages in order to secretyl influence watching children". Obviously you could readily conclude, from seeing the actual frame, that the frame does indeed exist. But the frame isn't "first hand evidence" (however one would define that) of a conspiracy. You have merely shifted your double standard around here, not eliminated it. Even if first-hand evidence was somehow a special case of observation that has special significance (it isn't), you have first hand evidence of basically nothing at all. At most you can first hand confirm the physical existence of some things. If you require first hand evidence of actually being on the moon in order to believe in the moon landings, you should also require first hand evidence of actually being present at the conspiracy meeting in order to believe that the isolated disney frames are subliminal messaging.

The other point you were talking about the eggs argument haha.

Serious advice: Stop typing "haha" and "lol" whenever you are unsure of what to say, it just creates the image in my mind of someone laughing nervously while avoiding the question. Not an image you want to produce, I assume.

I take it my arguments have convinced you, or at least left you with no counters, then?

Okay but my point all along was that nasa have made a crap load of fake earth composites before so how in the hell do you not look at them from the perspective of a skeptical view rather than to think they are real at first glance? 

Composites are not "fake". Being skeptical isn't the same as treating the photos as non-existant. Even if you had a convincing theory that explains all existing pictures from space as fakes, you'd still have to be able to explain every new photo. Realistically, at a certain point the likelyhood of a photo being genuine is so low that it doesn't have to be considered for practical purposes. Nothing suggests that's the situation with pictures from space though.

I guess you misunderstood me then, I'm not that quick to call them fakes, just keeping a skeptical eye based on their history. I simply said they were keyword - Modified -  which of course they were since the JPG compression.

So, how do you explain the existance of the pictures then?

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
I tested this more. It turns out it might be mostly the lighting that's affecting the jpg mismatch.

If I turned the lighting just on the moon up, the jpg artifacts seem to match up much better. However this just begs the question -- why were the lighting so different? The NASA image has the lighting of the moon really high up, like a football stadium while the JAXA one is very dimly lit.
The difference in lighting is because the NASA photo was from lunar noon, with the sun directly overhead, and the JAXA photo is from the pole, with the light coming at a shallow angle. 


Concerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now.  The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras.  Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft.  We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite.  See here for more info. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
I guess you misunderstood me then, I'm not that quick to call them fakes, just keeping a skeptical eye based on their history. I simply said they were keyword - Modified -  which of course they were since the JPG compression.

You claim that "I'm not that quick to call them fakes", but you clearly stated "Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet."

In my book that is tantamount to calling them "fakes" or worse as "forgeries" certainly implies intent to deceive.

But as I stated at length, only an idiot would ever suspect that your "earth setting" picture could ever be though "original". It is obviously a composite, and you were using a low resolution copy anyway, so we know it is a much reduced composite - what more has you fancy forensics told us?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile

Please explain why any of those images could not be of the earth! A globe is a 3D object, the way it looks depends on the orientation and the distance we are from the globe. These are of North America from 2 altitudes - quite different.

North America - 4,500 miles
xxxxxx

North America - 21,500 miles
xxxxxx

"Eastern Hemisphere" - 22,236 miles
Different cameras, different exposures and different processing can explain a lot of the difference. In fact I doubt the "Blue Marble" is quite as colourful as those! It might be more like the unadorned picture on the right - npt quite as pretty as NASA's!
Now, I have no idea which images might be genuine. I have no reason to think any are actually "fake", but almost certainly thet have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" and some might be composites.

Maybe you need a lesson in jpeg compression algorithms before jumping to conclusions that makes you look like a rookie. Take it as an advice from an experienced developer.

My cat is also an experienced developer. What makes you so special sir?
Very mature.

And your "make up your mind" collage - Those images are taken at different distances, which makes the apparent size of features on a sphere vary in size.






See how the patch size appears to change? (and make the "horizon" of the football to appear nearly flat)
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.