[Tom Bishop]

We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.

That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?

[Max_Almond]

Those who say all images of Earth from space are CGI fakes or composites ("b-b-because they have to be") have to be some of the laziest people on the planet.

(No, I'm not including our dear Tom in that.)

[Tontogary]

Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned.  Always a step a head.
  The blue sky was behind it too.
  I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
   Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.  Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.

Are you sure you cannot compute the distance? Rowbotham did exactly this in EnaG to establish the distance of the sun, but he only used 2 observations, and claimed it was good.
Are you suggesting he was wrong and didnt know what he was doing?

[Max_Almond]

What on Earth are 'bronies'?

Is it like a cross between a bro and a pony?

How would that work?

[jcks]

We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.

That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?

Nope it was your side's claim. I don't have to pay a dime, you need to provide evidence for your claim.

[rabinoz]

Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned.  Always a step a head.
  The blue sky was behind it too.
  I don't believe it was ever in space or meant to be. (Brazil one or both rather)
   Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't  know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim.  Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.

Are you sure you cannot compute the distance? Rowbotham did exactly this in EnaG to establish the distance of the sun, but he only used 2 observations, and claimed it was good.
Are you suggesting he was wrong and didnt know what he was doing?

In the case of the ISS or another satellite, a good estimate of distance can be made by measuring the elevation from two well separated locations.
Which is more or less what Rowbotham attempted.

Alternatively the size of the ISS is known (if that size is accepted), so if a photo with a "long lens" can be taken the distance can be estimated from the angular size.

But Rowbotham got it wrong and claimed that "under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth"! Nowhere near 3000 miles.
He used a valid method (for a flat earth), but he did not make his angle measurements accurately enough.

Rowbotham described how he made the measurement in Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' p. 99, CHAPTER V., THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN.
In this he claims

If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

So we have 700 miles (a bit over 1,100 km).

I have a lot more to say on this in So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high? « on: August 24, 2016, 02:22:33 PM ».

Rowbotham simply states, "On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc", but not how he did it.
We have noted previously how, in Tangential Horizon, he disliked telescopes on theodolites.

[Tontogary]

What on Earth are 'bronies'?

Is it like a cross between a bro and a pony?

How would that work?

That is a brilliant question!

Apparently ( according to Pete ) the knowledge of the existence of Bronies is a direct measure of your knowledge of the world around you!
He recons that not knowing what one is, shows you dont know what is going on in the world!

It was in the thread about the flat Earth convention in the UK!

However it is a bit off topic, so best leave it there.

Rabinoz, I agree with you, Rowbotham screwed it up, made rubbish measurements and made a fool of himself when he tried to use the method to calculate the distance of the sun.

He also used a wrong distance for the baseline, and I showed on another thread, his altitude measurements for the sun at Brighton was massively in error. He reckoned there was something like 3 degrees difference between the 2 measurements, when his measurement of the altitude of the sun at Brighton would have been 2 1/2 degrees in error, taking the declination of the sun, and known latitude of Brighton, it is easy to work backwards to determine the correct apparent altitude of the sun.

[Tumeni]

I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it.

Where are these 'day pictures'

[rabinoz]

You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't.

And just because you think the pictures of earth are CGI doesn't mean they are either.

Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.

Please show these "pictures of earth" that "have been proven frauds".
NASA has stated that at least one "Blue Marble" was generated from data collected over months by LEO satellites, that does not make it a fraud.

I've seen pictures of the ISS night and day. The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it. You don't know how many miles it is up there. Only what you've been told.

Here is one video in broad daylight:

STS-135 (Atlantis) and ISS in broad daylight - 7/17/11, Astronomy Live

Why do you claim that, "The blue sky is still behind it"? Do you know why the sky is blue and why it is a darker shade of blue overhead?

One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.
It might catch and follow the wind channel and it would carry it all over is my guess but not sure.

Yes,  believe it or not the image showing on the opening scene is a satellite, Echo 2, see Project Echo but the video is not about a "balloon satellite", but a "Google Loon", see Project Loon' internet balloon lands in the Amazon forest.

Helium Balloon and Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil - NASA? Shaking My Head Productions

So, no it was not a "Satellite Crash To Earth in Brazil".

But here are some pieces of the early US Skylab that crashed into the southern part of Western Australia between Esperance and Balladonia.

Part of oxygen tank from Skylab space station that crashed near Esperance, Western Australia in the early hours of July 12, 1979, WA time

A bit more of Skylab in the Power House Museum, Sydney, Australia.

[Tom Bishop]

We need specific sources of every debunked photograph with explanations explaining how they are CGI along with the methods used.

That sounds like great idea. Lets do it. Are you going to fund me for the next few months to spend my time collecting all of the evidence on the internet, examine original evidence, and provide assessments and sources and references on all of that for our Wiki?

Nope it was your side's claim. I don't have to pay a dime, you need to provide evidence for your claim.

Actually, not. You are the ones claiming that NASA has invented never before seen technologies, explores the solar system, has sent men to the moon and robots to mars. We didn't claim any of those things.

An expression of doubt, or an assessment which doubts, is not a positive claim. The positive claim is the explicit claim that NASA is doing all of these fantastic things. Since you are the one who came here claiming this, then you should are expected to demonstrate your claims.

If someone claimed that ghosts exist, the burden isn't on people expressing doubt or assessing that the stories could have been alleged. The burden is on the person or group explicitly claiming that ghosts exist. They are the claimants, just as you are the claimant. Why would it be the burden for anyone to prove that ghosts do not exist?

I'm willing to play along, if properly funded for this large and burdensome request you have demanded of us. But lets make this very clear: You are the person coming here with fantastic claims of super technologies.

[Bobby Shafto]

Point of rhetorical order:

Claiming a photograph or video is altered or fabricated is a positive claim.

That’s more than expression of doubt about another’s positive claim.

[Tom Bishop]

Point of rhetorical order:

Claiming a photograph or video is altered or fabricated is a positive claim.

That’s more than expression of doubt about another’s positive claim.

That is exactly the same as claiming that a ghost story was fabricated, or speculating on what really happened in that ghost story. That position of skepticism is not the positive claim in ghost debates. The positive claimant is the ghost believer with his explicitly positive claims of the ghosts. The burden is on the positive claimant. It is not the burden of everyone to "prove him wrong".

Neither is it our burden to prove all of your fantastic claims wrong. You need to prove your own self right.

This is not to say that I am not willing to contribute anything at all to the discussion. But the fact that you are the claimant in such a discussion, and that it is not really our burden to prove fantastic claims wrong, should be abundantly clear.

[Bobby Shafto]

Tom: We have a ghost in our attic. We hear it and when we check, things are moved around.
Bob: I don't believe you. Ghosts don't exist
Tom: Oh, but they do. Here's a picture I took of our attic ghost.
Bob: That picture isn't real. You faked it.
Tom: I did not.
Bob: Sure you did. I know because ghosts aren't real.
Tom: But I have a picture of one.
Bob: But I just debunked it.
Tom: No you didn't. You just denied my evidence. Explain to me how I faked it.
Bob: I don't have to. Burden of proof is on you.
Tom: ?

[Tom Bishop]

Tom: We have a ghost in our attic. We hear it and when we check, things are moved around.
Bob: I don't believe you. Ghosts don't exist
Tom: Oh, but they do. Here's a picture I took of our attic ghost.
Bob: That picture isn't real. You faked it.
Tom: I did not.
Bob: Sure you did. I know because ghosts aren't real.
Tom: But I have a picture of one.
Bob: But I just debunked it.
Tom: No you didn't. You just denied my evidence. Explain to me how I faked it.
Bob: I don't have to. Burden of proof is on you.
Tom: ?

That argument is conceptually fine. It is just an example of a poor rebuttal. Bob's lacking rebuttal doesn't suddenly make it Bob's job or burden to "prove that ghosts do not exist".

If Bob had pointed out areas which suggested that the picture was just an optical illusion, misinterpretation, or fabrication, then that is a somewhat better rebuttal; and this is exactly what those anti-NASA websites and YouTube videos on the internet are doing.

[Bobby Shafto]

And that's the point. The positive/negative claim isn't the original premise of whether or not ghosts exists. It's whether or not the evidence for them is valid.

Saying they are not valid is a positive claim. It takes on the responsibility of proof. Are the debunking videos proof? That's the issue. Not the ghosts.

Now, replace ghost with space travel. If you are denying the photographic evidence, you have a burden of proof to explain why. Are YouTube videos sufficient?

[Tumeni]

You are the ones claiming that NASA has invented never before seen technologies, explores the solar system, has sent men to the moon and robots to mars. We didn't claim any of those things. An expression of doubt, or an assessment which doubts, is not a positive claim. The positive claim is the explicit claim that NASA is doing all of these fantastic things. Since you are the one who came here claiming this, then you should are expected to demonstrate your claims.

There's;

photographic evidence returned by humans and automated craft, there's
evidence in the form of data returned by humans and by automated craft, there's the
personal testimony and accounts from the participants, there's
independent observation and tracking by third parties, there's
independent observation by members of the public.

Pick which forms of evidence you will accept, if any are presented by REers from the categories above.

Merely asserting that any or all of the above "could be faked" is just a cop-out.





"never before seen technologies" - they advanced the principles used in the V2, during World War 2 (1939-45) to utilise them in a larger rocket, resulting in the Saturn V in the 1960s. That's hardly an incredible claim, given they had 20 or so years to do so.

To what other technologies do you refer? Computing? Materials?

[Tom Bishop]

And that's the point. The positive/negative claim isn't the original premise of whether or not ghosts exists. It's whether or not the evidence for them is valid.

Saying they are not valid is a positive claim. It takes on the responsibility of proof. Are the debunking videos proof? That's the issue. Not the ghosts.

Now, replace ghost with space travel. If you are denying the photographic evidence, you have a burden of proof to explain why. Are YouTube videos sufficient?

Absolutely not.

Consider the following:

Bobby: I ate a ham sandwich for dinner last night. Here is a picture of me eating a ham sandwich. Prove me wrong.

Pete: I don't have to prove you wrong at all.

*Pete walks away.*

This is a completely valid response. Completely. The burden is not then on Pete to prove that Bobby did not eat a ham sandwich for dinner.  Pete does not have to rebut Bobby's evidence.

Bobby had the positive claim. The burden of proof is still on Bobby, even if Pete walks away. Pete is completely clean of the matter.

Bobby may start gathering different ways to show that he ate a ham sandwich for dinner, and some people may be swayed by that claim, but if some people choose to walk away or doubt the evidence, then that is completely fine. At no point does it shift the burden of proof to the naysayers.

Naysayers may attempt to gather evidence that Bobby is fabricating his evidence. But the strength of their argument, whether it is poor or strong, does not shift the burden onto them.

If the Naysayers pointed out a wrapper for sliced baloney in the background of some of his photographs, and suggest that Bobby was really eating baloney sandwiches and is trying to fool people for some purpose, is the burden of proof on the naysayers to explicitly prove that the baloney wrapper wasn't there for some other innocent reason or is it the burden of Bobby to respond to those accusations?

The explicit claim always came from Bobby and his proponents, so they need to respond. The naysayers don't need to prove that the baloney wrapper was innocently placed there.

The burden of proof is always on Bobby and his proponents. Never on the skeptics. Skeptics never need to prove that "ghosts do not exist".

The moral of the story: If you are making a claim, then the burden of proof is on you.

[jcks]

Absolutely not.

Consider the following:

Bobby: I ate a ham sandwich for dinner last night. Here is a picture of me eating a ham sandwich. Prove me wrong.

Pete: I don't have to prove you wrong at all.

*Pete walks away.*

This is a completely valid response. Completely. The burden is not then on Pete to prove that Bobby did not eat a ham sandwich for dinner.  Pete does not have to rebut Bobby's evidence.

Except that's not the scenario at all.

Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake

[Tom Bishop]

Except that's not the scenario at all.

Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake

Actually the statement "That photo is fake" is a negative claim. Pete is claiming that something didn't happen.

Pete is also expressing his opinion that cause is fraud in that response, but Pete's basic claim is still that it didn't happen. Negative claim. When you claim that something didn't happen then you are making a negative claim, no matter if you provide additional opinions in that negative response.

[jcks]

Except that's not the scenario at all.

Pete: ham sandwiches don't exists
Bob: yes they do here a photo of me eating one last night
Pete: That photo is fake <-- positive claim
Bob: how?
Pete: your photo, you need to prove it's not fake

Actually that's a negative claim. Pete is claiming that something didn't happen.

He is claiming evidence is fabricated, not that the event didn't occur. He needs to provide his of proof of why said evidence isn't satisfactory.

You don't just get to say fake and walk away you need to explain yourself.