The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: munkirench on May 15, 2009, 01:26:41 PM
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/15/check-this-out-amazing-photo-of-the-sun/
The exceptionally gifted astrophotographer Thierry Legault captured this stunning tableau just minutes before the crew of Atlantis caught up with and captured Hubble for its very last servicing mission on May 13, 2009. This shot has never been accomplished before, and it?s magnificent. He used a 13 cm telescope, and camera that took a series of 16 images of 1/8000th of second each.
This photographer does NOT work for NASA. This type of photo has never been accomplished before, meaning that the "projectors" could not have caused this phenomena (as there would be no reason for the projectors to be set up to show such an image, nor any reason to expect someone to attempt to capture it even if it was set up).
Responses?
-
I fail to see why this couldn't be faked.
-
I fail to see why this couldn't be faked.
I fail to see why you think that's relevant. It's evidence, and the evidence continues to come from every quarter, continues to be of a nature that you can independently verify it, continues to predict future events actually and usefully, and dominates by every measure the FE-supporting evidence.
-
I fail to see why this couldn't be faked.
I fail to see why you think that's relevant. It's evidence, and the evidence continues to come from every quarter, continues to be of a nature that you can independently verify it, continues to predict future events actually and usefully, and dominates by every measure the FE-supporting evidence.
Falsified evidence is useless.
-
I fail to see why this couldn't be faked.
I fail to see why you think that's relevant. It's evidence, and the evidence continues to come from every quarter, continues to be of a nature that you can independently verify it, continues to predict future events actually and usefully, and dominates by every measure the FE-supporting evidence.
Falsified evidence is useless.
I agree. However, your statement is irrelevant here. You have no reason to believe that the evidence is falsified, other than your bias for FE. You can independently repeat the experiment, as well.
-
Why would this be faked? This is the reason that FE is total bullshit. Because you reject ALL evidence, REGARDLESS of source.
Are you positing that the photographer, who is named, is in on the conspiracy?
-
I fail to see why this couldn't be faked.
I fail to see why you think that's relevant. It's evidence, and the evidence continues to come from every quarter, continues to be of a nature that you can independently verify it, continues to predict future events actually and usefully, and dominates by every measure the FE-supporting evidence.
Falsified evidence is useless.
I agree. However, your statement is irrelevant here. You have no reason to believe that the evidence is falsified, other than your bias for FE. You can independently repeat the experiment, as well.
I lack the equipment and training to do such a thing.
Why would this be faked? This is the reason that FE is total bullshit. Because you reject ALL evidence, REGARDLESS of source.
Are you positing that the photographer, who is named, is in on the conspiracy?
He may be.
-
I fail to see why this couldn't be faked.
I fail to see why you think that's relevant. It's evidence, and the evidence continues to come from every quarter, continues to be of a nature that you can independently verify it, continues to predict future events actually and usefully, and dominates by every measure the FE-supporting evidence.
Falsified evidence is useless.
I agree. However, your statement is irrelevant here. You have no reason to believe that the evidence is falsified, other than your bias for FE. You can independently repeat the experiment, as well.
I lack the equipment and training to do such a thing.
...
You can readily acquire both inexpensively. Google is your friend, unless you're afraid of the truth.
-
So let me get this straight... ANY photographic evidence, NO MATTER the source, will be rejected?
Hear that FEers? Your fellow believer promotes the rejecting of ALL empirical evidence. Is there any evidence we CAN trust? Or only what my eyes can see RIGHT NOW?
Why don't you confront the photographer for all the world to see? His name is right there.
Does any non-retarded FEer have any comment? I don't have time to keep responding to a true waste of mind.
-
PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.
Straight from the FAQ.
-
PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.
Straight from the FAQ.
(http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg)
Its funny how NOONE except those ~50 people from the conspiracy have taken ANY pictures of the planets, sun, Earth seen from above etc. It's like EVERYONE is just like mindless zombies, isn't that right?
-
Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"
A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.
I swear I can argue with you by just quoting the FAQ.
-
Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"
A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.
I swear I can argue with you by just quoting the FAQ.
You would say you can't see the curviture of the Earth from a plane, or from an air-balloon? You can't see the other round planets from a powerful telescope?
-
No, you can't. I am not denying other planets being round.
-
PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.
Straight from the FAQ.
1) Just because it's in the FAQ doesn't mean it's true. Do have an open mind.
2) Are you now saying that the picture confirms the roundness of the Earth?
3) Did anyone in this thread say the picture constituted "valid proof"? No, we claim it's part of the mounting and overwhelming evidence that the Earth is round.
-
PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.
Straight from the FAQ.
1) Just because it's in the FAQ doesn't mean it's true. Do have an open mind.
2) Are you now saying that the picture confirms the roundness of the Earth?
3) Did anyone in this thread say the picture constituted "valid proof"? No, we claim it's part of the mounting and overwhelming evidence that the Earth is round.
1)The FAQ is the standard we use on this forum.
2)I did not,nor did I ever, say this.
3)It is not "Valid evidence" either.
-
Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"
A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.
I swear I can argue with you by just quoting the FAQ.
Why did you quote that? It's relevant to this thread. You're arguing that only the Conspiracy control pictures from space against the argument of a photo taken form Earth.
-
PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.
Straight from the FAQ.
1) Just because it's in the FAQ doesn't mean it's true. Do have an open mind.
2) Are you now saying that the picture confirms the roundness of the Earth?
3) Did anyone in this thread say the picture constituted "valid proof"? No, we claim it's part of the mounting and overwhelming evidence that the Earth is round.
1)The FAQ is the standard we use on this forum.
2)I did not,nor did I ever, say this.
3)It is not "Valid evidence" either.
1) No, it is not.
2) Then your argument is irrelevant
3) I challenge you to support your claim. There's nothing in your quote is states that since "evidence" is very different from "proof".
-
PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.
Straight from the FAQ.
1) Just because it's in the FAQ doesn't mean it's true. Do have an open mind.
2) Are you now saying that the picture confirms the roundness of the Earth?
3) Did anyone in this thread say the picture constituted "valid proof"? No, we claim it's part of the mounting and overwhelming evidence that the Earth is round.
1)The FAQ is the standard we use on this forum.
2)I did not,nor did I ever, say this.
3)It is not "Valid evidence" either.
1) No, it is not.
2) Then your argument is irrelevant
3) I challenge you to support your claim. There's nothing in your quote is states that since "evidence" is very different from "proof".
1) Yes, it is. There is a reason why the phrase "read the FAQ" is so popular.
2) We are arguing over weather photos are valid proof.
3) The FAQ(the standard on this forum) states that photos are not valid proof because of the easy ability to be falsified.
-
...
1) Yes, it is. There is a reason why the phrase "read the FAQ" is so popular.
2) We are arguing over weather photos are valid proof.
3) The FAQ(the standard on this forum) states that photos are not valid proof because of the easy ability to be falsified.
1) No. Popularity does not imply accuracy. If that were true, RE would win easily.
2) If you will kindly re-read the FAQ, you will find that it does not impugn all pictures, just certain ones, and not the one in question in this thread.
3) Again, I urge you to realize that there's a difference between "proof" and "evidence".
-
The FAQ is the standard on this forum. You can ask any major member or mod on this site. The FAQ states that pictures are not valid evidence or proof.
-
How come the sun looks like an egg yolk?
-
How come the sun looks like an egg yolk?
Great question! On second thought, no it's a terrible question, you really can't think of an answer yourself?
-
Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)
-
1)The FAQ is the standard we use on this forum.
Ive have several FE'ers saying the FAQ is incorrect when they are challenged on certain aspects of it.
Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"
A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.
What about students from universities who have done these experiments? (was posted recently on this site).
-
The conspiracy has figured out how to use photoshop - what else is new?
-
According to the FAQ which YOU quoted, only the photos which confirm the roundness of the earth by taking pictures from altitude are dismissible. Fucking moron. Learn to think.
These pictures were taken from the ground. Ergo, the FAQ's solution DOES NOT APPLY. learn to use your brain. Or do you only mindlessly accept what other people tell you without thinking it through for yourself first?
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
-
Motive?
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself. It's called peer review. Give it a try sometime.
-
We all acknowledge that ANY photo can be faked. The point with this one is that it was taken by a non-NASA photographer who has nothing to gain except putting out a neat picture. Beyond this forum, it has no special impact besides looking cool.
So on that note... does anyone have any other response besides "it's fake"?
-
We all acknowledge that ANY photo can be faked. The point with this one is that it was taken by a non-NASA photographer who has nothing to gain except putting out a neat picture. Beyond this forum, it has no special impact besides looking cool.
So on that note... does anyone have any other response besides "it's fake"?
He is not OFFICIALLY linked to NASA.
-
So before you spout anymore cyclic bullshit, go ahead and find the link. It is totally improper to discredit seemingly valid evidence without any rationality. Especially since your reasoning is based on the thinking of "well it goes against what I know must be true, therefore it is a lie."
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself. It's called peer review. Give it a try sometime.
OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?
-
I don't have the equipment or training. Same exact reasoning that the opposing FEer posted originally. Also, the opportunity for such a photo is passed.
I still haven't heard a motive for faking.
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself. It's called peer review. Give it a try sometime.
OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?
The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.
-
The FAQ is the standard on this forum. You can ask any major member or mod on this site. The FAQ states that pictures are not valid evidence or proof.
The FAQ states no such thing. The FAQ doesn't represent the "Truth", only FES's answers to frequently asked questions.
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
Why would the fact that it could have been faked bother you? Shouldn't you be convinced by the amount of photos and their independence of sources. Shouldn't you be wondering the reason that there are so few photos supporting the FE position. Lady Blount's famous photo is still missing, isn't it? You should be able to reproduce similar observations to confirm or deny your position. Why not get to work and make up your own mind with sound observations?
-
We all acknowledge that ANY photo can be faked. The point with this one is that it was taken by a non-NASA photographer who has nothing to gain except putting out a neat picture. Beyond this forum, it has no special impact besides looking cool.
So on that note... does anyone have any other response besides "it's fake"?
He is not OFFICIALLY linked to NASA.
Good point. Thanks.
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself. It's called peer review. Give it a try sometime.
OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?
Because you, not he, impugned it. It's called peer review. Evidence weighs unless refuted.
-
Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)
I'm just stunned that you haven't realized that pictures of things in space are edited and pretty much never in "true" color, if it was not filtered it would just be a bright blob on a black background with no visible objects in front or behind it
-
Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)
You have never looked directly at the sun through a telescope with a sun filter in high school? God, your education must have sucked.
That picture most likely is not edited, as sun filters produce that exact same image when looked through.
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself. It's called peer review. Give it a try sometime.
OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?
The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.
Why should I believe it is real unless a neutral party has replicated the results?
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself. It's called peer review. Give it a try sometime.
OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?
The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.
Why should I believe it is real unless a neutral party has replicated the results?
When a neutral party DO replicate the results, you will just claim "its the conspiracy". You will claim that to ALL the proof/evidence you get. Which is why you should probably take a look for yourself then, since that will be the ONLY thinng AT ALL you will believe. No neutral third party will be "good" enough for you, because they will all be in on the conspiracy. Quite stupid actually, but meh.
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself. It's called peer review. Give it a try sometime.
OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?
The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.
Why should I believe it is real unless a neutral party has replicated the results?
I believe that the assertion was that the photograph was taken by a neutral party.
-
How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint
Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself. It's called peer review. Give it a try sometime.
OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?
The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.
Why should I believe it is real unless a neutral party has replicated the results?
When a neutral party DO replicate the results, you will just claim "its the conspiracy". You will claim that to ALL the proof/evidence you get. Which is why you should probably take a look for yourself then, since that will be the ONLY thinng AT ALL you will believe. No neutral third party will be "good" enough for you, because they will all be in on the conspiracy. Quite stupid actually, but meh.
I trust you to be a neutral party.
-
Burden of disproval, by logic, falls on you.
I have presented evidence from a neutral party. You have discredited it with no basis for your claims except that it disagrees with what you believe. Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to show that it is incorrect.
So go ahead. Prove that it is wrong. Try and use rational thinking and logic instead of sensationalistic masturbatory squeals of "It must be wrong because it goes against what I believe!"
-
Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)
I'm just stunned that you haven't realized that pictures of things in space are edited and pretty much never in "true" color, if it was not filtered it would just be a bright blob on a black background with no visible objects in front or behind it
I am aware of this. But I could take a picture of an egg yolk, scribble a little silhouette of a space shuttle and claim I took an image of the sun. No one should be convinced of anything based on the merits of this photograph.
-
Burden of disproval, by logic, falls on you.
I have presented evidence from a neutral party. You have discredited it with no basis for your claims except that it disagrees with what you believe. Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to show that it is incorrect.
So go ahead. Prove that it is wrong. Try and use rational thinking and logic instead of sensationalistic masturbatory squeals of "It must be wrong because it goes against what I believe!"
I had no chance to disprove it. The author of the image did not notify me he was conducting an open experiment that I could do simultaneously.
-
So you admit you have no basis for discredit. Interesting.
-
Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)
I'm just stunned that you haven't realized that pictures of things in space are edited and pretty much never in "true" color, if it was not filtered it would just be a bright blob on a black background with no visible objects in front or behind it
I am aware of this. But I could take a picture of an egg yolk, scribble a little silhouette of a space shuttle and claim I took an image of the sun. No one should be convinced of anything based on the merits of this photograph.
ANY photo could be doctored. But why would you believe that this one is? The photographer has no motive whatsoever. He's not trying to prove anything to anyone... It's just a cool picture. So why would you reject it? In order to prove that a crime has been committed, you must have both evidence and motive. You have neither. All you have is the fact that this photo goes against what you "know" must be "true". Congratulations: you are, for all intents and purposes, a religious zealot.
-
Burden of disproval, by logic, falls on you.
I have presented evidence from a neutral party. You have discredited it with no basis for your claims except that it disagrees with what you believe. Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to show that it is incorrect.
So go ahead. Prove that it is wrong. Try and use rational thinking and logic instead of sensationalistic masturbatory squeals of "It must be wrong because it goes against what I believe!"
I had no chance to disprove it. The author of the image did not notify me he was conducting an open experiment that I could do simultaneously.
The shuttle is still in orbit servicing the HST. If you hurry, you can still conduct your own experiment to falsify the photographer's. It's not too late. Yet.
-
I do not think it is possible to capture a comparable shot from my geographic location
-
I do not think it is possible to capture a comparable shot from my geographic location
"ANY photo could be doctored. But why would you believe that this one is? The photographer has no motive whatsoever. He's not trying to prove anything to anyone... It's just a cool picture. So why would you reject it? In order to prove that a crime has been committed, you must have both evidence and motive. You have neither. All you have is the fact that this photo goes against what you "know" must be "true". Congratulations: you are, for all intents and purposes, a religious zealot."