The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: char70ger on April 11, 2008, 07:31:27 AM
-
Here is a link to a new report involving all of the space junk around the earth. If you click on the one link on the left on the page you can see an animation showing the stuff accumulate from 1954 with sputnik up to 2000. Does this prove anything? To RE's it proves the earth round to FE's it proves the conspiracy i guess.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESOC/SEMN2VM5NDF_mg_1.html
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/20080409.html
Here's some more. Beautiful pictures of Phobos. And since pictures are proof now (according to Tom), RE FTW.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/20080409.html
Here's some more. Beautiful pictures of Phobos. And since pictures are proof now (according to Tom), RE FTW.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
-
Tom's allowing pictures as evidence? That's almost as good as admitting defeat altogether.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/20080409.html
Here's some more. Beautiful pictures of Phobos. And since pictures are proof now (according to Tom), RE FTW.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20282.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20319.0
He uses photos as evidence there.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/20080409.html
Here's some more. Beautiful pictures of Phobos. And since pictures are proof now (according to Tom), RE FTW.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20282.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20319.0
He uses photos as evidence there.
Evidence is not proof
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/20080409.html
Here's some more. Beautiful pictures of Phobos. And since pictures are proof now (according to Tom), RE FTW.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20282.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20319.0
He uses photos as evidence there.
Evidence is not proof
He can't prove what isn't there, thats not my fault. That would be his...
Pictures are now proof.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/20080409.html
Here's some more. Beautiful pictures of Phobos. And since pictures are proof now (according to Tom), RE FTW.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20282.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20319.0
He uses photos as evidence there.
Evidence is not proof
He can't prove what isn't there, thats not my fault. That would be his...
Pictures are now proof.
He did not put those pictures forward as proof. Proof is not evidence and vise versa
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/20080409.html
Here's some more. Beautiful pictures of Phobos. And since pictures are proof now (according to Tom), RE FTW.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20282.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20319.0
He uses photos as evidence there.
Evidence is not proof
He can't prove what isn't there, thats not my fault. That would be his...
Pictures are now proof.
He did not put those pictures forward as proof. Proof is not evidence and vise versa
The main purpose of this thread was to conclusively demonstrate that NASA is deliberately tampering with the images
How do you consclusively demonstrate something without proving something?
-
I know he uses pictures, he has for ages despite his claims they are not evidence.
(http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/earth.jpg)
I submit this, prove it is a fake.
-
Taking a leaf out of Tommy Boy's book, that pic is obviously fake, and in order to cover up the poor quality of the pic, they put in all of those clouds. Am I close Tommy?
...............13 days.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/20080409.html
Here's some more. Beautiful pictures of Phobos. And since pictures are proof now (according to Tom), RE FTW.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20282.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20319.0
He uses photos as evidence there.
Evidence is not proof
He can't prove what isn't there, thats not my fault. That would be his...
Pictures are now proof.
He did not put those pictures forward as proof. Proof is not evidence and vise versa
The main purpose of this thread was to conclusively demonstrate that NASA is deliberately tampering with the images
How do you consclusively demonstrate something without proving something?
To me, it seems there is no proof in science, just evidence.
Proof is for alcohol. And math. And alcoholic math.
-
While I can certainly identify with your personal views, proof can be anything from circumstantial to absolutely undeniable. It depends on the wielder.
-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/20080409.html
Here's some more. Beautiful pictures of Phobos. And since pictures are proof now (according to Tom), RE FTW.
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20282.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20319.0
He uses photos as evidence there.
Evidence is not proof
He can't prove what isn't there, thats not my fault. That would be his...
Pictures are now proof.
He did not put those pictures forward as proof. Proof is not evidence and vise versa
The main purpose of this thread was to conclusively demonstrate that NASA is deliberately tampering with the images
How do you consclusively demonstrate something without proving something?
To me, it seems there is no proof in science, just evidence.
Proof is for alcohol. And math. And alcoholic math.
You are quite right, in science (except mathematics) there is no complete proof of anything.
-
While I can certainly identify with your personal views, proof can be anything from circumstantial to absolutely undeniable. It depends on the wielder.
Proof cannot be circumstantial. That's ridiculous. Evidence can be circumstantial but evidence is not the same thing as proof. And nothing is undeniable (except, as has been pointed out, in mathematics).