[geckothegeek]

Are you hacked, drunk or something? Your answer makes less sense than an average flat Earther lately.
How could we not see the Sun which is extremely brighter than the stars and the Moon?

At night the far away sun is behind a wall of atmosphere built up at the horizon line and the stars and moon are more over us and not behind as much atmosphere.

What about those Titanic survivors on lifeboats at sea level who reported seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon ?

Post-traumatic memory distortion. The stars fade out to blackness before hitting the sea level horizon.

Uh, no they don't.

That's great Tom, 3 long exposure pictures with either city lights or clouds to obscure the horizon.

You have clearly not been to sea. I don't blame you. A lot of people haven't.

Those stars are not fading out because of darkness......They are fading out because of the light.
That is one of the nice things about being in the  middle of the ocean, far from any city lights on the horizon.
Unless you have ever been to sea, you wouldn't realize how clear and pollution free the  atmosphere can be.
Incidentally, the horizon and the distance to the horizon is one of the  most de- bunkiest  of  flat earth fantasies.

[Tom Bishop]

How about some evidence?

[geckothegeek]

How about some evidence?

Read the subject title. Flat earthers are the ones who have to supply the evidence.?
The flat earthers are the ones who have to answer the questions with proof, not the round earthers.

[Roundy]

But Tom did supply evidence.  If you are going to claim he's interpreting that evidence wrong don't you think it's only fair to prove it, instead of putting your fingers in your ears and repeating you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong? It shouldn't be hard to find a picture on the internet confirming your point if it's a valid one. Stop being lazy. Debate is a 2-way street.

[Luke 22:35-38]

How about some evidence?

A simple bing search would come up with several pictures of stars touching the horizon.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=star+rotation&FORM=HDRSC2&PC=APPM

[Tom Bishop]

How about some evidence?

A simple bing search would come up with several pictures of stars touching the horizon.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=star+rotation&FORM=HDRSC2&PC=APPM

I see some going behind mountains. I don't see any hitting the sea level horizon.

[Rama Set]

Again, the FEer hypocrisy surrounding photo evidence.  This is indisputable proof of Tom's point, but photo's of the Earth as a globe are not proof the Earth is round.  It is incredibly dishonest.

Regardless, it is obvious the sun is not receding because it is the same size the entire time whereas every other object that actually recedes in to the distance gets smaller inversely proportional to the distance.

EDIT: Just to silence the feeble objection-

[Luke 22:35-38]

Again, the FEer hypocrisy surrounding photo evidence.  This is indisputable proof of Tom's point, but photo's of the Earth as a globe are not proof the Earth is round.  It is incredibly dishonest.

Regardless, it is obvious the sun is not receding because it is the same size the entire time whereas every other object that actually recedes in to the distance gets smaller inversely proportional to the distance.

EDIT: Just to silence the feeble objection-

Be-a-utiful picture.

[Tom Bishop]

It's photoshopped. The hard edge between the trees and the sky gives it away.

Look at the other photos in that photographer's gallery. There are daytime beach scenes photoshopped with a night sky:

http://www.mediadrumworld.com/index.php?module=media&pId=102&id=8003



http://www.mediadrumworld.com/index.php?module=media&pId=102&id=8005

[Rama Set]

It's photoshopped. The hard edge between the trees and the sky gives it away.

Look at the other photos in that photographer's gallery. There are daytime beach scenes photoshopped with a night sky:

A hard edge is exactly what we are looking for, what in the world are you talking about?  Nice way to avoid the actual points I made.  More disingenuousness from Mr Bishop.

[TotesNotReptilian]

It's photoshopped. The hard edge between the trees and the sky gives it away.

Look at the other photos in that photographer's gallery. There are daytime beach scenes photoshopped with a night sky:

A hard edge is exactly what we are looking for, what in the world are you talking about?  Nice way to avoid the actual points I made.  More disingenuousness from Mr Bishop.

I actually agree with Tom Bishop on this one. That picture is probably a combination of multiple images or a single very long exposure image with plenty of photoshop touch-ups.

1. The complete lack of any atmospheric effects on the near-horizon stars is suspicious.
2. The directional lighting on the rock looks too far away to be artificial lighting. Could be long exposure moonlight.
3. Smeared effect of the water indicates either a very long exposure or a combination of many photos over a long period of time.


 

[Roundy]

The photographer makes extensive use of Photoshop in images from the same gallery. That alone is enough to debunk its usefulness in this debate to me.

Try again REers.

[Rama Set]

The photographer makes extensive use of Photoshop in images from the same gallery. That alone is enough to debunk its usefulness in this debate to me.

Try again REers.

Again ignoring the main thrust of my post. Hypocritical standards and an evidently erroneous assessment of the sun's disappearance are what you should be dealing with. I will find a different photo to post in the meantime.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The photographer makes extensive use of Photoshop in images from the same gallery. That alone is enough to debunk its usefulness in this debate to me.

Try again REers.

Again ignoring the main thrust of my post. Hypocritical standards and an evidently erroneous assessment of the sun's disappearance are what you should be dealing with. I will find a different photo to post in the meantime.

The "main thrust" of your post was that we can see stars right next to the horizon, but you haven't been able to provide any evidence to back up that statement.

Yes, the explanation for the sun sinking behind the horizon as provided by the flat earthers here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and has no evidence to back it up. But that's not what everyone was discussing. They were discussing the "stars next to the horizon" evidence.

[Rama Set]

The photographer makes extensive use of Photoshop in images from the same gallery. That alone is enough to debunk its usefulness in this debate to me.

Try again REers.

Again ignoring the main thrust of my post. Hypocritical standards and an evidently erroneous assessment of the sun's disappearance are what you should be dealing with. I will find a different photo to post in the meantime.

The "main thrust" of your post was that we can see stars right next to the horizon, but you haven't been able to provide any evidence to back up that statement.

Yes, the explanation for the sun sinking behind the horizon as provided by the flat earthers here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and has no evidence to back it up. But that's not what everyone was discussing. They were discussing the "stars next to the horizon" evidence.

My post was not about that, the photo was an aside. I will quote it again minus the picture/fail so there is further confusion:

Again, the FEer hypocrisy surrounding photo evidence.  This is indisputable proof of Tom's point, but photo's of the Earth as a globe are not proof the Earth is round.  It is incredibly dishonest.

Regardless, it is obvious the sun is not receding because it is the same size the entire time whereas every other object that actually recedes in to the distance gets smaller inversely proportional to the distance.

[TotesNotReptilian]

My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.

Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.

If you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.

Edit: Sorry, missed the last part of your post.

[Rama Set]

My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.

Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.

Which is why I asked them to stop and concentrate on my actual point.

If you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.

I already admitted that my photo was a failure. Didn't you read my last post?

[Tom Bishop]

My post was not about that, the photo was an aside.

Fair enough, but it was the photo that they were responding to. And they had a point.

Which is why I asked them to stop and concentrate on my actual point.

If you want to continue pushing the other point of your post, you need to first concede the part that you were wrong about. Otherwise, they will just keep focusing on it.

I already admitted that my photo was a failure. Didn't you read my last post?

So no evidence for the claim after all, then?

[geckothegeek]

OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars, like all round earhers , especially sailors. LOL.
I have come to like this entertainment from the FES. Even though .....Sometimes it is worse than my opinion of The Three Stooges.
FE's , in the words of the old "Pogo"  comic strip "We have met the enemy and he is us." LOL.

[Roundy]

OK. The Titanic survivors were all liars

You put far too much stock in anecdotal evidence for someone who is trying to sell himself as scientifically-minded.  Do you have any idea how many different and conflicting eyewitness reports there were after the disaster?  People were cold.  They were disoriented.  They were in shock and many (probably most) had just lost loved ones.  But we are supposed to accept the observation of a few that they saw stars on the horizon as ironclad fact, when they couldn't even agree on whether or not the ship broke into separate pieces before it completely sank.   

Indeed, eyewitness evidence itself (even without extenuating circumstances such as having just taken part in one of the biggest disasters in maritime history) is notoriously unreliable.  So please, if you can't find some real evidence, stop wasting our time, and stop whining that we refuse to accept something as evidence that it is patently ridiculous that we be expected to accept as such.