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?
I have seen plenty of photos that have stars on the horizon, but it is often 1 or 2. I want to find something that you will have to work harder to come up with a bad rebuttal for. In the meantime, feel free to deal with the other points being discussed.
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.
Patently ridiculous? Whining? This is rhetorical drum-beating and not worth a sod.
After the topic was basically dropped, why did gecko feel the need to continue whinging on about the fact that we are calling "all Titanic survivors liars" (an act of intellectual dishonesty on his part, btw, since I sincerely doubt that everyone who survived the disaster actually chimed in on whether there were stars directly on the horizon, but given what follows in the same post that's really no surprise)? The eyewitness testimonies of the Titanic survivors are actually
textbook examples of how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be. Do you really think it's unreasonable of me to call him out on the fact that he gives anecdotal evidence such credence, given that he's
supposed to be on the side that reveres actual scientific results and eschews everything else?
Elsewhere, there were photos that were posted by a FEer that we are expected to accept as evidence. If that is the case, the entire catalogue of photos that show the Earth to be round utterly destroys the FE side.
It does not. Talk about rhetorical drum-beating.
