The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Starman on March 29, 2014, 12:26:41 PM
-
Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
-
Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
The flat earthers' issue that amuses me most is that despite their absolute denial that any or all "round earth" photographic images are genuine, they have yet to post one single, credible, and authenticated photographic image of their own in order to support their case for an allegedly flat earth.
Surely the logical thing for the flat earthers to do in order to prove the round earthers' images to be bogus would be to post their own images showing a flat earth? Even one single (allegedly) genuine image would suffice, and at least reinforce their cause.
As it stands, the flat earthers simply say "your photos are all fakes", but..... we don't have any of our own to prove otherwise. This sort of logical fallacy would be laughed out of any high school debate in minutes.
So flat earthers..... where are your images? Or don't you actually have any?
-
We post images all the time that show things like a straight horizon.
-
Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.
http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0 (http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0)
-
Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.
http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0 (http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0)
And how do you think you'll see the 20cm/km curvature on a panorama view from very close to the ground? Of course it appears flat.
And it's a panorama view. The sides are stretched.
The only way to properly see Earth's curvature is from a very high altitude, not from sea level.
Like in this photo:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg/800px-Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg)
Taken from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2002. They were on the dark side of Earth. You can even see the moon in the distance.
-
We post images all the time that show things like a straight horizon.
So you truly think that an image (apparently) showing a straight horizon really "proves" that the earth is not a globe jroa? It's that easy?
Oh dear. ;D
-
Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.
Sorry sceptimatic. Not good enough at all. This is not an image you took with your own camera. All flat earthers have demanded that images posted here by round earthers must be taken by the person posting it to be considered authentic. Third-party images will be rejected as possibly having been manipulated.
Fail.
-
We post images all the time that show things like a straight horizon.
So you truly think that an image (apparently) showing a straight horizon really "proves" that the earth is not a globe jroa? It's that easy?
Oh dear. ;D
It can't look any flatter than that, now can it?
-
Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.
http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0 (http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0)
And how do you think you'll see the 20cm/km curvature on a panorama view from very close to the ground? Of course it appears flat.
And it's a panorama view. The sides are stretched.
The only way to properly see Earth's curvature is from a very high altitude, not from sea level.
Like in this photo:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg/800px-Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg)
Taken from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2002. They were on the dark side of Earth. You can even see the moon in the distance.
What's causing the haze? Is space full of Earthly atmosphere?
-
What's causing the haze? Is space full of Earthly atmosphere?
No, that's the atmosphere of the Earth, which extends to 100km in altitude. From that point on, it's considered space. That haze IS the 100km thick atmosphere.
-
What's causing the haze? Is space full of Earthly atmosphere?
No, that's the atmosphere of the Earth, which extends to 100km in altitude. From that point on, it's considered space. That haze IS the 100km thick atmosphere.
You mean the haze in FRONT of the model shuttle tail fin is Earth leakage is it?
-
One thing about any of these photo's. You always see the american flat lit up like a beacon no matter where the pictures are took.
That lovely line of light shooting off to the right from the arse end of the shuttle. What's causing that. Is that the little half eaten moon in the blackness?
-
You mean the haze in FRONT of the model shuttle tail fin is Earth leakage is it?
Huh? What do you mean?
-
One thing about any of these photo's. You always see the american flat lit up like a beacon no matter where the pictures are took.
That lovely line of light shooting off to the right from the arse end of the shuttle. What's causing that. Is that the little half eaten moon in the blackness?
And the small thing is the moon.
The line of light is the same effect that's happening here:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/The_sun1.jpg)
-
You mean the haze in FRONT of the model shuttle tail fin is Earth leakage is it?
Huh? What do you mean?
Never mind, "huh, what do you mean" I'm asking you what the haze is in front of the tail fin, not the haze of the supposed Earth's atmosphere behind it.
-
One thing about any of these photo's. You always see the american flat lit up like a beacon no matter where the pictures are took.
That lovely line of light shooting off to the right from the arse end of the shuttle. What's causing that. Is that the little half eaten moon in the blackness?
And the small thing is the moon.
The line of light is the same effect that's happening here:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/The_sun1.jpg)
What are you doing showing me a picture of haze inside Earth for. The issue is in space. Let's deal with that issue, as I don't have an issue with this picture.
-
Never mind, "huh, what do you mean" I'm asking you what the haze is in front of the tail fin, not the haze of the supposed Earth's atmosphere behind it.
What? There's no "haze" in front of the fin. Where are you seeing it?
What does that have to do with anything?
-
Never mind, "huh, what do you mean" I'm asking you what the haze is in front of the tail fin, not the haze of the supposed Earth's atmosphere behind it.
What? There's no "haze" in front of the fin. Where are you seeing it?
What does that have to do with anything?
The tail fin is half drowned out by the haze. Plus, what is the streak of light to the right of the model shuttle?
-
I got out of bed, looked at the floor of my bedroom. It was flat. I am now convinced the entire massive Earth is flat.
I advise all of you to do this experiment: Look at the floor of your bedroom upon awaking. Notice how it is flat. You can't see a curve. Case closed!
Note: If you look very carefully you will also notice your bed is flat and does not have a curvature. More evidence.
-
Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.
http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0 (http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0)
You can clearly see the end where it dips down which is called The Horizon. WTF?
-
The tail fin is half drowned out by the haze. Plus, what is the streak of light to the right of the model shuttle?
No it's not. Because it's white, it appears that way. If you look closely, you'll see that the "haze" is at the back of the fin. It doesn't have anything in front.
And the light, as I told earlier, is what happens when photos are made in a stronger light. Thus, I posted the sun picture, where you can see lines of light stretching from the sun.
-
If the Illuminati can convince 99.999% of the world it is Round and fake every photo and every space and moon mission ever, then don't you think they will make a photo without an obvious Photoshop mistake that Sceptispatic wouldn't simply find in 3 seconds? The guy is looking for clues to prove it is a fake photo. Don't you think if they could accomplish controlling every aspect of your life they can make a solid fake photo?
-
I got out of bed, looked at the floor of my bedroom. It was flat. I am now convinced the entire massive Earth is flat.
I advise all of you to do this experiment: Look at the floor of your bedroom upon awaking. Notice how it is flat. You can't see a curve. Case closed!
Note: If you look very carefully you will also notice your bed is flat and does not have a curvature. More evidence.
Now go out and walk about. Look around, then you will also notice it's fairly flat as well, apart from the usual hills and what not.
Look in the sky and watch the sun move, whilst you feel nice and still.
Get on a kids roundabout and spin it and watch the sun move and you will realise you are actually moving, because your body's balance will let you know.
There's millions of little things you can do to realise you are walking about on the most common sense terrain of a flat Earth. You listen to your own body's balance.
Reliance on the balancing bean that the mainstream science gives you is at best, nonsense and at worst, pure lunacy.
-
you are right Sceptispastic. I went outside, I looked at my neighbor's home, and I saw no curve between his home and mine. More evidence the Earth is flat. I went to the mailbox, grabbed some mail, they were all flat too.
-
The tail fin is half drowned out by the haze. Plus, what is the streak of light to the right of the model shuttle?
No it's not. Because it's white, it appears that way. If you look closely, you'll see that the "haze" is at the back of the fin. It doesn't have anything in front.
And the light, as I told earlier, is what happens when photos are made in a stronger light. Thus, I posted the sun picture, where you can see lines of light stretching from the sun.
You need to get a grip on your space and so does NASA and all the rest. If they're going to put out stupid pictures of models in darkness on Earth, at least try to do it in such a fashion as to actually make people think it is in space.
Look at how well lit up the model cargo by is. Go in someones unconverted loft space and shine your light in there and see what a mess it is and that's in an atmosphere. Space has none of that, as we re told and yet look at that bay all lit up.
The whole set up is a crock of tish.
By rights, only drugged people should ever be made to believe that this is a shuttle in space for crying out loud.
-
I turned on the TV, I only use my intuition, and no science. The truth must be the people are inside the box in my living room. Because I can't see soundwaves, so it can't be true. Because I would have to rely on science, which is a huge lie. So I broke my TV to look for the little people inside. They must have fled.
-
If the Illuminati can convince 99.999% of the world it is Round and fake every photo and every space and moon mission ever, then don't you think they will make a photo without an obvious Photoshop mistake that Sceptispatic wouldn't simply find in 3 seconds? The guy is looking for clues to prove it is a fake photo. Don't you think if they could accomplish controlling every aspect of your life they can make a solid fake photo?
I don't have to look for clues. They simply wave to me. It's like NASA are simply playing gmes. They know how silly they look but they know how tired and asleep the masses are.
If they put a man in that cargo bay with dungarees and a hard hat on and told you that he's fine because he took an oxygen pill...you lot would argue that it's all legitimate. It's ridiculous.
-
The tail fin is half drowned out by the haze. Plus, what is the streak of light to the right of the model shuttle?
No it's not. Because it's white, it appears that way. If you look closely, you'll see that the "haze" is at the back of the fin. It doesn't have anything in front.
And the light, as I told earlier, is what happens when photos are made in a stronger light. Thus, I posted the sun picture, where you can see lines of light stretching from the sun.
You need to get a grip on your space and so does NASA and all the rest. If they're going to put out stupid pictures of models in darkness on Earth, at least try to do it in such a fashion as to actually make people think it is in space.
Look at how well lit up the model cargo by is. Go in someones unconverted loft space and shine your light in there and see what a mess it is and that's in an atmosphere. Space has none of that, as we re told and yet look at that bay all lit up.
The whole set up is a crock of tish.
By rights, only drugged people should ever be made to believe that this is a shuttle in space for crying out loud.
There's a huge light bulb there, in case you missed it...
And light can travel through space just about the same as through air, you know...
-
you are right Sceptispastic. I went outside, I looked at my neighbor's home, and I saw no curve between his home and mine. More evidence the Earth is flat. I went to the mailbox, grabbed some mail, they were all flat too.
There you go. Keep looking around and you'll soon realise that you spent all your life being duped.
-
I turned on the TV, I only use my intuition, and no science. Tee truth must be the people are inside the box in my living room. Because I can't see soundwaves, so it can't be true. Because I would have to rely on science, which is a huge lie. So I broke my TV to look for the little people inside. They must have fled.
I can't help you on that one. If you can't distinguish real life from TV, then it's no wonder you were caught up, fully in the lie. Get a new TV and try not to do it again.
-
The tail fin is half drowned out by the haze. Plus, what is the streak of light to the right of the model shuttle?
No it's not. Because it's white, it appears that way. If you look closely, you'll see that the "haze" is at the back of the fin. It doesn't have anything in front.
And the light, as I told earlier, is what happens when photos are made in a stronger light. Thus, I posted the sun picture, where you can see lines of light stretching from the sun.
You need to get a grip on your space and so does NASA and all the rest. If they're going to put out stupid pictures of models in darkness on Earth, at least try to do it in such a fashion as to actually make people think it is in space.
Look at how well lit up the model cargo by is. Go in someones unconverted loft space and shine your light in there and see what a mess it is and that's in an atmosphere. Space has none of that, as we re told and yet look at that bay all lit up.
The whole set up is a crock of tish.
By rights, only drugged people should ever be made to believe that this is a shuttle in space for crying out loud.
There's a huge light bulb there, in case you missed it...
And light can travel through space just about the same as through air, you know...
Yes, of course it can. ::)
A big light bulb, for crying out loud. There's simply no hope for some people. No hope at all.
-
Yes, of course it can. ::)
A big light bulb, for crying out loud. There's simply no hope for some people. No hope at all.
So you're saying that light can't travel through space?
Yes, true. Some people are truly hopeless...
-
We are slightly off subject. Scepti you mentioned to me if I started a topic you would answer my question: "did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
-
We are slightly off subject. Scepti you mentioned to me if I started a topic you would answer my question: "did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I said that, if you wanted an answer to your question, to put it in AR. You knew this and you failed to do it, so don't bother coming back to me on this in any other part of the forum.
-
We are slightly off subject. Scepti you mentioned to me if I started a topic you would answer my question: "did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I said that, if you wanted an answer to your question, to put it in AR. You knew this and you failed to do it, so don't bother coming back to me on this in any other part of the forum.
It is not an AR topic. It has to do with creditability with pictures and video of FE.
-
We are slightly off subject. Scepti you mentioned to me if I started a topic you would answer my question: "did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I said that, if you wanted an answer to your question, to put it in AR. You knew this and you failed to do it, so don't bother coming back to me on this in any other part of the forum.
It is not an AR topic. It has to do with creditability with pictures and video of FE.
Believe me, when I answer you, it will be an AR topic, which is the very reason I asked you to put it in there.
-
We are slightly off subject. Scepti you mentioned to me if I started a topic you would answer my question: "did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I said that, if you wanted an answer to your question, to put it in AR. You knew this and you failed to do it, so don't bother coming back to me on this in any other part of the forum.
It is not an AR topic. It has to do with creditability with pictures and video of FE.
Believe me, when I answer you, it will be an AR topic, which is the very reason I asked you to put it in there.
What seem to be the problem with the question and why to the AR section? Does your opinion change in different sections?
-
We are slightly off subject. Scepti you mentioned to me if I started a topic you would answer my question: "did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I said that, if you wanted an answer to your question, to put it in AR. You knew this and you failed to do it, so don't bother coming back to me on this in any other part of the forum.
It is not an AR topic. It has to do with creditability with pictures and video of FE.
Believe me, when I answer you, it will be an AR topic, which is the very reason I asked you to put it in there.
What seem to be the problem with the question and why to the AR section? Does your opinion change in different sections?
I'll tell you all about it in AR. As for answering on it in any other place, it's not happening. Consider this my last words on it. From this point on I will ignore any post where you ask this question, except in AR. Take heed. No need to respond to this.
-
We are slightly off subject. Scepti you mentioned to me if I started a topic you would answer my question: "did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I said that, if you wanted an answer to your question, to put it in AR. You knew this and you failed to do it, so don't bother coming back to me on this in any other part of the forum.
It is not an AR topic. It has to do with creditability with pictures and video of FE.
Believe me, when I answer you, it will be an AR topic, which is the very reason I asked you to put it in there.
What seem to be the problem with the question and why to the AR section? Does your opinion change in different sections?
I'll tell you all about it in AR. As for answering on it in any other place, it's not happening. Consider this my last words on it. From this point on I will ignore any post where you ask this question, except in AR. Take heed. No need to respond to this.
Well i have nothing to loose. I will post it there.
-
It's more than apparent—judging by sceptimatic's confused attempts at debunking the NASA photographic images, that he has very little understanding of the technicalities of digital photography (or in some cases film photography). He also fails to comprehend the ongoing issues caused by lens flare, ghosting, and aberration.
As an example, when a lens is directed at a strong light source, a whitish flare is produced. When non-incident light reflects off the lens surfaces (especially internal elements) and the mirror frame, ghosting often occurs. Additionally, the lens' spherical front surface causes some degree of image distortion and contains irregularities that cause problems such as chromatic aberration, or color bleeding.
Also, when a lens is directed at a strong source point of light (like the sun in space), unneeded rays of light reflected from the lens surface, the aperture blades, or the camera mirror's frame can have a "blanketing" effect on the lens, and which causes all or part of the image to turn whitish, and sharpness is lost. This is exactly what's happening with the apparent white haze appearing to spill over the opposite side of the shuttle's tail.
Another effect is known as coma, which is a refractive problem that occurs in off-axis point light sources causing image aberrations. Due to the difference in refraction near the edges of a spherical lens element, or at the edge of the aperture blades, off-axis point sources of light may appear stretched and "haloed" at the focal plane. This results in improper convergence of light rather than convergence into a single focal point. Coma is generally a combination of both spherical aberration of a point light source and chromatic aberration to produce an effect that looks like a comet. It's also a problem that largely affects astrophotography, as isolated point light sources are most common in those scenarios.
Modern high-end technical lenses usually include an aspherical lens element which cause less refraction at the edges and more in the centre, resulting in proper convergence over a given focal length.
Possibly the most commonly caused aberration is lens flare, which is severe in the posted image of the sun. Flare occurs when non-incident light enters the lens and reflects off of the various internal lens elements or diaphragm. The effect, when strong enough, can create bright spots and streaks, and may also have a detrimental effect on contrast where it occurs. Flare is can also be caused by a very bright near off-scene light source, such as the sun, or a bright rearwards light illuminating the overall scene.
Without understanding the complexities of all these shortcomings in photography, it's very difficult to simply dismiss NASA images posted here as bogus or Photoshopped. It would also seem logical that if NASA were manipulating their images, they'd be taking a lot more care to delete any all-too-obvious giveaways.
And the flat earthers still haven't posted any of their images for the round earthers to examine. Again, why is this? Why are they so coy about showing us even just a couple of images? Shouldn't be all that difficult if—according to them—the earth is truly flat.
C'mon flat earthers. Put your money (or your images) where your mouths are!
-
This topic's been dead for a few weeks and I'd like to revive it and bring it back to the OP.
While there might be a plethora of images demonstrating the spherical nature of earth, it seems that most of these images do not meet certain criteria for many FE supporters or are seen as fraudulent and hoaxes. In most cases, a small perceived aberration in a photo is enough to dismiss the photo as fraudulent (see the earlier discussion regarding the haziness artifact in the 2002 shuttle photo). But there should still exist at least a small group of pictures that exhibit no apparent aberrations that should be very convincing for FE supporters (except for those that believe in a multinational RE conspiracy).
>>>So, for those FE that don't subscribe to the idea of a global RE conspiracy, are there any pictures of earth from earth or lunar orbit that you see as 100% credible? If so, I'd like to know what you think of these pictures and how they impact your beliefs in FE.
>>>For RE supporters, I'd love to see your idea of pictures of earth that you think should meet the criteria of FE supporters as credible evidence of a spherical earth (meaning no apparent aberrations, perfect images of earth).
I recently posted some photos of earth from JAXA's Kaguya lunar satellite on another thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61250.280 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61250.280)), and I'd like to get some feedback on these.
Below are 1080p HD images of an "earth-rise" from lunar orbit as captured by Kaguya's HDTV camera:
http://www.kaguya.jaxa.jp/image/communication/img_071114_02.jpg (http://www.kaguya.jaxa.jp/image/communication/img_071114_02.jpg)
(http://www.kaguya.jaxa.jp/image/communication/img_071114_02.jpg)
(http://www.kaguya.jaxa.jp/image/communication/img_071114_02.jpg)
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/04/img/20080411_kaguya_01l.jpg (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/04/img/20080411_kaguya_01l.jpg)
(http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/04/img/20080411_kaguya_01l.jpg) (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/04/img/20080411_kaguya_01l.jpg)
TIME LAPSE & CROPPED TO FIT 1080p
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/10/img/20081009_kaguya_02l.jpg (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/10/img/20081009_kaguya_02l.jpg)
(http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/10/img/20081009_kaguya_02l.jpg) (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2008/10/img/20081009_kaguya_02l.jpg)
-
Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.
http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0 (http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0)
And how do you think you'll see the 20cm/km curvature on a panorama view from very close to the ground? Of course it appears flat.
And it's a panorama view. The sides are stretched.
The only way to properly see Earth's curvature is from a very high altitude, not from sea level.
Like in this photo:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg/800px-Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg)
Taken from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2002. They were on the dark side of Earth. You can even see the moon in the distance.
I dunno, he has a point...I'm pretty sure that this 1 panoramic photo disproves scientific evidence, knowledge and fact...
-
Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.
http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0 (http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0)
And how do you think you'll see the 20cm/km curvature on a panorama view from very close to the ground? Of course it appears flat.
And it's a panorama view. The sides are stretched.
The only way to properly see Earth's curvature is from a very high altitude, not from sea level.
Like in this photo:
Taken from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2002. They were on the dark side of Earth. You can even see the moon in the distance.
I dunno, he has a point...I'm pretty sure that this 1 panoramic photo disproves scientific evidence, knowledge and fact...
The panorama posted by sceptimatic wouldn't qualify here, it's simply a panoramic photo of a city and not a picture of earth from orbit or lunar orbit. I know sceptimatic asserts that the panorama is proof of a FE, but this is outlandish and I suspect sceptimatic is a troll, so his post really doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Anyone else have thoughts on the pictures I posted or have responses to the questions I posted above?
-
The panorama posted by sceptimatic wouldn't qualify here, it's simply a panoramic photo of a city and not a picture of earth from orbit or lunar orbit. I know sceptimatic asserts that the panorama is proof of a FE, but this is outlandish and I suspect sceptimatic is a troll, so his post really doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Whether or not sceptimatic is a troll is now considered immaterial by most folks on this forum. His unscientific, irrational and/or frivolous responses are those of a troll, and ignored by the great majority of members—both round earthers and flat earthers. Try searching "denpressure" as an example of what I mean LOL.
And although (as a round earther) I accept the veracity of your posted images, you'll inevitably encounter a hard-core set of flat earth disbelievers who'll simply dismiss them out of hand—but for no demonstrable reason(s).
You'll also notice that there is not one single image posted in support of the flat earth theory. The best the flat earthers can do is to snipe away repeatedly at the dozens of images the round earthers post here. Which is quite pointless really.
Great images BTW. :)
-
The panorama posted by sceptimatic wouldn't qualify here, it's simply a panoramic photo of a city and not a picture of earth from orbit or lunar orbit. I know sceptimatic asserts that the panorama is proof of a FE, but this is outlandish and I suspect sceptimatic is a troll, so his post really doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Whether or not sceptimatic is a troll is now considered immaterial by most folks on this forum. His unscientific, irrational and/or frivolous responses are those of a troll, and ignored by the great majority of members—both round earthers and flat earthers. Try searching "denpressure" as an example of what I mean LOL.
And although (as a round earther) I accept the veracity of your posted images, you'll inevitably encounter a hard-core set of flat earth disbelievers who'll simply dismiss them out of hand—but for no demonstrable reason(s).
You'll also notice that there is not one single image posted in support of the flat earth theory. The best the flat earthers can do is to snipe away repeatedly at the dozens of images the round earthers post here. Which is quite pointless really.
Great images BTW. :)
ausGeoff: I now exactly what you mean about sceptimatic, I've been reading though a lot of topics and his posts tend to be completely unhelpful - and if he isn't a troll, then he must certainly be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder and possibly paranoid delusions, in which case, I truly hope he gets help.
My general interest is directed towards non-sceptimatic-type FE supporters and their impressions of fully validated and aberration-free photographic evidence of a spherical earth like the images I posted.
Thanks about the pictures - they weren't hard to find so long as you have a least a general knowledge of current and recent lunar missions or access to Google. :)
-
My general interest is directed towards non-sceptimatic-type FE supporters and their impressions of fully validated and aberration-free photographic evidence of a spherical earth like the images I posted.
The main—and mind-numbingly repetitious—fall-back of the flat earthers is that every apparently unretouched image posted by the round earthers was taken with a super-wide angle lens.
Barrel distortion can of course curve the straight portions rectilinear images, but no flat earther has yet explained how it can be that the earth's horizon, viewed from a space vehicle's camera, still appears to be curved even when it's located at the horizontal optical axis of the lens (where zero barrel distortion occurs).
It seems that none of the flat earthers here have much experience with camera lenses and their peculiarities—or lack thereof. I couldn't even get them to acknowledge—for example—that a full-frame (36mm x 24mm) sensor with a 55mm focal length lens approximated the vision characteristics of the human eye. Or that if I posted an image taken with such a lens, it was an accurate representation of what I actually saw with my own eyes. When confronted with facts such as that, most flat earthers will simply go into denial mode; either one is lying, or is delusional.
So I'm not holding out much hope for you getting any meaningful flat earth responses to the little task you've set them. :(
-
I'm not convinced. Those photos look like CGI. Some of us are just not as easily convinced as most. It would be great if we lived a moneyless, equal and honest world but we don't. That's reality.
-
I'm not convinced. Those photos look like CGI. Some of us are just not as easily convinced as most. It would be great if we lived a moneyless, equal and honest world but we don't. That's reality.
The problem with your assessment of the images is that it's a subjective assessment - what looks like a computer generated image to one person may look real to another, and the discussion ends there.
However, if your hypothesis is that these are indeed fraudulent computer generated images, then comprehensive analysis of the pictures' structure can be performed to search for polygonal artifacts in generating 3D images, identifying fractal artifacts that occur in CG natural landscapes, and analyzing the RAW-to-bitmap artifacts that occur when converting a captured image from a camera to a format that can be displayed on an LCD screen or printed on paper. Dismissing these photos, all of which come from a separate country's space program, as simply CGI frauds is doing a disservice to anyone truly trying to understand the nature of our universe.
Do you have any examples of investigation conducted in the past that used these rigorous analyses to show that a purported image of a spherical earth was indeed a CGI fraud?
Please keep in mind that we have been gathering photos such as the ones I posted for decades, long before computer imaging was capable of pulling off a convincing hoax.
UPDATE: Here's an example of the type of analysis that can be done on a photo that will detect artifacts of processing RAW images (the image data that comes directly from a camera's CCD or other imaging device like CMOS): http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection (http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection)
-
UPDATE: Here's an example of the type of analysis that can be done on a photo that will detect artifacts of processing RAW images (the image data that comes directly from a camera's CCD or other imaging device like CMOS): http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection (http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection)
To my knowledge that has never been done on these images. I would be interested in seeing the results.
"Please keep in mind that we have been gathering photos such as the ones I posted for decades, long before computer imaging was capable of pulling off a convincing hoax."
Precisely why I believe the Earth was not in any of the images of the astronauts on the moon....because that would've been too difficult to superimpose back then.
-
UPDATE: Here's an example of the type of analysis that can be done on a photo that will detect artifacts of processing RAW images (the image data that comes directly from a camera's CCD or other imaging device like CMOS): http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection (http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection)
To my knowledge that has never been done on these images. I would be interested in seeing the results.
"Please keep in mind that we have been gathering photos such as the ones I posted for decades, long before computer imaging was capable of pulling off a convincing hoax."
Precisely why I believe the Earth was not in any of the images of the astronauts on the moon....because that would've been too difficult to superimpose back then.
I'm trying to dig up some old Photoshop extensions I used years ago to detect image fraud in bio-medical publications I was working on, they might be helpful in illustrating the various quantitative analyses that can performed on these images.
I'd also like to address your comment on earth pictures from the Apollo missions. I haven't taken a look yet for pictures of the astronauts with earth in the background, but there have been many published Apollo images of earth from the moon ("earth-rise" pictures like the ones I posted above from a recent moon mission), and the Apollo images were captured in an era where most computer-generated images were still vector-based and has no photo-realism whatsoever (think of the classic arcade game Asteroids as an example), and the Apollo era was at least 30 years away from hardware capable of running digital rendering software need to construct convincing fake photographs.
-
The panorama posted by sceptimatic wouldn't qualify here, it's simply a panoramic photo of a city and not a picture of earth from orbit or lunar orbit. I know sceptimatic asserts that the panorama is proof of a FE, but this is outlandish and I suspect sceptimatic is a troll, so his post really doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Whether or not sceptimatic is a troll is now considered immaterial by most folks on this forum. His unscientific, irrational and/or frivolous responses are those of a troll, and ignored by the great majority of members—both round earthers and flat earthers. Try searching "denpressure" as an example of what I mean LOL.
And although (as a round earther) I accept the veracity of your posted images, you'll inevitably encounter a hard-core set of flat earth disbelievers who'll simply dismiss them out of hand—but for no demonstrable reason(s).
You'll also notice that there is not one single image posted in support of the flat earth theory. The best the flat earthers can do is to snipe away repeatedly at the dozens of images the round earthers post here. Which is quite pointless really.
Great images BTW. :)
It's amazing that you have to call yourself a round earther. That's something that shouldn't even be brought into question...
Maybe they'd like to de-bunk other myths aswell. I hear this whole converting oxygen into carbon dioxide is a sham!
-
The panorama posted by sceptimatic wouldn't qualify here, it's simply a panoramic photo of a city and not a picture of earth from orbit or lunar orbit. I know sceptimatic asserts that the panorama is proof of a FE, but this is outlandish and I suspect sceptimatic is a troll, so his post really doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Whether or not sceptimatic is a troll is now considered immaterial by most folks on this forum. His unscientific, irrational and/or frivolous responses are those of a troll, and ignored by the great majority of members—both round earthers and flat earthers. Try searching "denpressure" as an example of what I mean LOL.
And although (as a round earther) I accept the veracity of your posted images, you'll inevitably encounter a hard-core set of flat earth disbelievers who'll simply dismiss them out of hand—but for no demonstrable reason(s).
You'll also notice that there is not one single image posted in support of the flat earth theory. The best the flat earthers can do is to snipe away repeatedly at the dozens of images the round earthers post here. Which is quite pointless really.
Great images BTW. :)
It's amazing that you have to call yourself a round earther. That's something that shouldn't even be brought into question...
Maybe they'd like to de-bunk other myths aswell. I hear this whole converting oxygen into carbon dioxide is a sham!
You joke, but Scepti does question that...
-
I'm not convinced. Those photos look like CGI. Some of us are just not as easily convinced as most. It would be great if we lived a moneyless, equal and honest world but we don't. That's reality.
All photos look like CGI to you. Show us a real photo that is not CGI.
-
I'm not convinced. Those photos look like CGI. Some of us are just not as easily convinced as most. It would be great if we lived a moneyless, equal and honest world but we don't. That's reality.
All photos look like CGI to you. Show us a real photo that is not CGI.
Well they tried communism in Russia...Didn't work out unfortunately
-
The tail fin is half drowned out by the haze. Plus, what is the streak of light to the right of the model shuttle?
No it's not. Because it's white, it appears that way. If you look closely, you'll see that the "haze" is at the back of the fin. It doesn't have anything in front.
And the light, as I told earlier, is what happens when photos are made in a stronger light. Thus, I posted the sun picture, where you can see lines of light stretching from the sun.
You need to get a grip on your space and so does NASA and all the rest. If they're going to put out stupid pictures of models in darkness on Earth, at least try to do it in such a fashion as to actually make people think it is in space.
Look at how well lit up the model cargo by is. Go in someones unconverted loft space and shine your light in there and see what a mess it is and that's in an atmosphere. Space has none of that, as we re told and yet look at that bay all lit up.
The whole set up is a crock of tish.
By rights, only drugged people should ever be made to believe that this is a shuttle in space for crying out loud.
The sheer idiocy of this post gave me cancer... again...
-
The tail fin is half drowned out by the haze. Plus, what is the streak of light to the right of the model shuttle?
No it's not. Because it's white, it appears that way. If you look closely, you'll see that the "haze" is at the back of the fin. It doesn't have anything in front.
And the light, as I told earlier, is what happens when photos are made in a stronger light. Thus, I posted the sun picture, where you can see lines of light stretching from the sun.
You need to get a grip on your space and so does NASA and all the rest. If they're going to put out stupid pictures of models in darkness on Earth, at least try to do it in such a fashion as to actually make people think it is in space.
Look at how well lit up the model cargo by is. Go in someones unconverted loft space and shine your light in there and see what a mess it is and that's in an atmosphere. Space has none of that, as we re told and yet look at that bay all lit up.
The whole set up is a crock of tish.
By rights, only drugged people should ever be made to believe that this is a shuttle in space for crying out loud.
The sheer idiocy of this post gave me cancer... again...
Yes, that was a very unproductive thread; this type of trolling by sceptimatic is why I think his posts should be ignored in this discussion. For the non-sceptimatic type FE supporters, what do you think of the earth-rise pictures posted above?
-
I'm not convinced. Those photos look like CGI. Some of us are just not as easily convinced as most. It would be great if we lived a moneyless, equal and honest world but we don't. That's reality.
All photos look like CGI to you. Show us a real photo that is not CGI.
I could show you many that I took, or my family and friends took and I know they are not CGI. I could show you photos in a book or magazine that I know are not CGI because they're of things/places I've actually seen and know exist. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I don't find their photographic evidence convincing.
-
I'm not convinced. Those photos look like CGI. Some of us are just not as easily convinced as most. It would be great if we lived a moneyless, equal and honest world but we don't. That's reality.
All photos look like CGI to you. Show us a real photo that is not CGI.
I could show you many that I took, or my family and friends took and I know they are not CGI. I could show you photos in a book or magazine that I know are not CGI because they're of things/places I've actually seen and know exist. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I don't find their photographic evidence convincing.
Search this thing called "Red Bull Stratos".
-
I'm not convinced. Those photos look like CGI. Some of us are just not as easily convinced as most. It would be great if we lived a moneyless, equal and honest world but we don't. That's reality.
All photos look like CGI to you. Show us a real photo that is not CGI.
I could show you many that I took, or my family and friends took and I know they are not CGI. I could show you photos in a book or magazine that I know are not CGI because they're of things/places I've actually seen and know exist. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I don't find their photographic evidence convincing.
EarthIsASpaceship: But why is it that you don't find these images convincing? As I said before, images like these have been captured decades before computers were powerful enough to simulate such images. Why doubt the authenticity of these photos when the only other possibility is that a multinational conspiracy involving at least tens of thousands of people is responsible for constructing fraudulent images of earth to perpetuate the idea that earth is not flat, keeping in mind that no whistle power has ever come forward about being in volvox int he conspiracy, particularly one as large as this one.
-
Search this thing called "Red Bull Stratos".
Can you find a Red Bull Stratos image that does not use a fish eye lens?
-
Search this thing called "Red Bull Stratos".
Can you find a Red Bull Stratos image that does not use a fish eye lens?
One thing at a time. The videos are real right?
-
Search this thing called "Red Bull Stratos".
Can you find a Red Bull Stratos image that does not use a fish eye lens?
But why focus on these types of non-orbital or very low orbit photos when we have images from much higher altitude that are able to capture the entire earth in one photo, making the use of any fish eye lenses irrelevant.
-
Search this thing called "Red Bull Stratos".
Can you find a Red Bull Stratos image that does not use a fish eye lens?
But why focus on these types of non-orbital or very low orbit photos when we have images from much higher altitude that are able to capture the entire earth in one photo, making the use of any fish eye lenses irrelevant.
Jroa would rather take the conversation back down to his comfort zone where he can just use arguments from incredulity and ignorance.
-
EarthIsASpaceship: But why is it that you don't find these images convincing? As I said before, images like these have been captured decades before computers were powerful enough to simulate such images. Why doubt the authenticity of these photos when the only other possibility is that a multinational conspiracy involving at least tens of thousands of people is responsible for constructing fraudulent images of earth to perpetuate the idea that earth is not flat, keeping in mind that no whistle power has ever come forward about being in volvox int he conspiracy, particularly one as large as this one.
Earthrise from the moon looks even more fake than what they put out today.
-
EarthIsASpaceship: But why is it that you don't find these images convincing? As I said before, images like these have been captured decades before computers were powerful enough to simulate such images. Why doubt the authenticity of these photos when the only other possibility is that a multinational conspiracy involving at least tens of thousands of people is responsible for constructing fraudulent images of earth to perpetuate the idea that earth is not flat, keeping in mind that no whistle power has ever come forward about being in volvox int he conspiracy, particularly one as large as this one.
Earthrise from the moon looks even more fake than what they put out today.
What is they put out today?
-
EarthIsASpaceship: But why is it that you don't find these images convincing? As I said before, images like these have been captured decades before computers were powerful enough to simulate such images. Why doubt the authenticity of these photos when the only other possibility is that a multinational conspiracy involving at least tens of thousands of people is responsible for constructing fraudulent images of earth to perpetuate the idea that earth is not flat, keeping in mind that no whistle power has ever come forward about being in volvox int he conspiracy, particularly one as large as this one.
Earthrise from the moon looks even more fake than what they put out today.
EarthIsASpaceship: But what is it about these images do you think look fraudulent? Could you give me an example of a lunar earth-rise image or image of earth from high orbit that has been demonstrably shown to be a fake?
-
EarthIsASpaceship: But why is it that you don't find these images convincing? As I said before, images like these have been captured decades before computers were powerful enough to simulate such images. Why doubt the authenticity of these photos when the only other possibility is that a multinational conspiracy involving at least tens of thousands of people is responsible for constructing fraudulent images of earth to perpetuate the idea that earth is not flat, keeping in mind that no whistle power has ever come forward about being in volvox int he conspiracy, particularly one as large as this one.
Earthrise from the moon looks even more fake than what they put out today.
Because you've been to the moon soooooo many times to know it's fake, right? ::)
The earth's angular size from the moon is ~1.895 degrees on average. That means that you would see the earth from the moon as big as you would see a disk with a diameter of 3.3077m at a distance of 100m.
-
Earthrise from the moon looks even more fake than what they put out today.
What is they put out today?
The Earth from the ISS
-
So you believe there's no ISS either? xD
-
Earthrise from the moon looks even more fake than what they put out today.
What is they put out today?
The Earth from the ISS
Why are the latest pictures fake?
-
EarthIsASpaceship: But what is it about these images do you think look fraudulent? Could you give me an example of a lunar earth-rise image or image of earth from high orbit that has been demonstrably shown to be a fake?
The moon surface for one. I see more detail looking at it from here on Earth. Basically, the unrealistic nature of the entire imagery.
-
EarthIsASpaceship: But what is it about these images do you think look fraudulent? Could you give me an example of a lunar earth-rise image or image of earth from high orbit that has been demonstrably shown to be a fake?
The moon surface for one. I see more detail looking at it from here on Earth. Basically, the unrealistic nature of the entire imagery.
What reason would there be for the cost and effort of producing fake images?
-
EarthIsASpaceship: But what is it about these images do you think look fraudulent? Could you give me an example of a lunar earth-rise image or image of earth from high orbit that has been demonstrably shown to be a fake?
The moon surface for one. I see more detail looking at it from here on Earth. Basically, the unrealistic nature of the entire imagery.
You can only see so much of the moon even with the best telescope. The picture was taken from the moon. Of course you will see more details.
-
EarthIsASpaceship: But what is it about these images do you think look fraudulent? Could you give me an example of a lunar earth-rise image or image of earth from high orbit that has been demonstrably shown to be a fake?
The moon surface for one. I see more detail looking at it from here on Earth. Basically, the unrealistic nature of the entire imagery.
EarthIsASpaceship: I'm not sure what you mean by "I see more detail looking at it from here on Earth" - from earth, even with the most powerful telescopes available to an amateur astronomer, you wouldn't be able to discern any of the small dunes and creators on the moon's surface (as seen in the JAXA pictures I posted).
While the moon's surface may seem unrealistic to you (having only ever seen earth landscapes up close), the geology of the moon and its surface appearance are consistent with the predicted properties of the moon, predictions made well before we sent any probes to the moon. The regolith that makes up much of the moon's surface is unlike any soil or sandy material that naturally forms on earth, so that might be giving you the feeling that the surface seems too monotone and regular.
-
Starman,
The moon surface for one. I see more detail looking at it from here on Earth. Basically, the unrealistic nature of the entire imagery.
Theo,
Look at those Earthrise photos and videos....the moon looks like a sea of gray....no detail.
-
Starman,
The moon surface for one. I see more detail looking at it from here on Earth. Basically, the unrealistic nature of the entire imagery.
And that, my friends, is what a lie looks like.
-
Starman,
The moon surface for one. I see more detail looking at it from here on Earth. Basically, the unrealistic nature of the entire imagery.
Theo,
Look at those Earthrise photos and videos....the moon looks like a sea of gray....no detail.
Because the moon does not have a blue sky, water, trees, swamps and all sort of things like that. What do you expect to see?
-
Yeah, ok Donkey.
(http://)
-
Yeah, ok Donkey.
(http://)
Great video but that is straight on. Was it all grey like you did not expect?
-
Did you notice the moon is always drifting to the left? Do you know why?
-
Because the moon does not have a blue sky, water, trees, swamps and all sort of things like that. What do you expect to see?
I expect to see detail! Sharp imagery. I'm telling you, we see sharper imagery of the moon FROM HERE ON EARTH than a lunar orbiter!
-
Starman,
The moon surface for one. I see more detail looking at it from here on Earth. Basically, the unrealistic nature of the entire imagery.
Theo,
Look at those Earthrise photos and videos....the moon looks like a sea of gray....no detail.
EarthIsASpaceship: Yes, the surface of the moon in the pictures I posted does look like a sea of gray of great regularity. However, this image is taken from low lunar orbit, the moon is several orders of magnitude closer to the JAXA satilite than you or I are here on earth. Just like looking at a grassy pasture close up you'll see it as a sea of green, but if you were viewing from far away, like flying over the pasture in an plane at 30,000 feet, you'll see a great deal more than just that one green pasture, you'll be able to see the great diversity of the region around it, rivers, lake beds, hills, forests, etc. Would you agree with this analogy for why the moon would look like a sea do grey up close?
-
Did you notice the moon is always drifting to the left? Do you know why?
Yes, I do. It drifts to the right in the Southern hemi. Do you know why? I mean left in the S, right in the N.
-
Because the moon does not have a blue sky, water, trees, swamps and all sort of things like that. What do you expect to see?
I expect to see detail! Sharp imagery. I'm telling you, we see sharper imagery of the moon FROM HERE ON EARTH than a lunar orbiter!
No. We don't. We see a larger view of the entire moon, but not more detail of the surface.
Either you are using a different word than you intended, or you are intentionally lying.
-
Because the moon does not have a blue sky, water, trees, swamps and all sort of things like that. What do you expect to see?
I expect to see detail! Sharp imagery. I'm telling you, we see sharper imagery of the moon FROM HERE ON EARTH than a lunar orbiter!
There are lots of images from the lunar orbiter do you want some? Do you know why the video of the moon is moving to the left? I thought you did not believe the lunar orbiter exist?
-
Did you notice the moon is always drifting to the left? Do you know why?
Yes, I do. It drifts to the right in the Southern hemi. Do you know why?
Because the earth is round!
-
EarthIsASpaceship: Yes, the surface of the moon in the pictures I posted does look like a sea of gray of great regularity. However, this image is taken from low lunar orbit, the moon is several orders of magnitude closer to the JAXA satilite than you or I are here on earth. Just like looking at a grassy pasture close up you'll see it as a sea of green, but if you were viewing from far away, like flying over the pasture in an plane at 30,000 feet, you'll see a great deal more than just that one green pasture, you'll be able to see the great diversity of the region around it, rivers, lake beds, hills, forests, etc. Would you agree with this analogy for why the moon would look like a sea do grey up close?
No. I expect to see something like this:
(http://)
-
Yeah, ok Donkey.
(http://)
And you call that more detail than images from the satellites or NASA telescopes?
-
Donkey, stick with the topic! Telescopes on EARTH vs. THE LUNAR ORBITER.
-
Did you notice the moon is always drifting to the left? Do you know why?
Yes, I do. It drifts to the right in the Southern hemi. Do you know why?
The telescope does not have computer control to correct for the earth rotation. You just have proved the earth is round.
-
Because the moon does not have a blue sky, water, trees, swamps and all sort of things like that. What do you expect to see?
I expect to see detail! Sharp imagery. I'm telling you, we see sharper imagery of the moon FROM HERE ON EARTH than a lunar orbiter!
There are lots of images from the lunar orbiter do you want some? Do you know why the video of the moon is moving to the left? I thought you did not believe the lunar orbiter exist?
Please stop with all the questions. This is not an astronomy test. I already told you I know why the moon moves. Of course the LO doesn't exist because like I've been saying, those images supposedly from it, are CGI.
-
The telescope does not have computer control to correct for the earth rotation. You just have proved the earth is round.
No. The Moon is moving, not the Earth.
-
Because the moon does not have a blue sky, water, trees, swamps and all sort of things like that. What do you expect to see?
I expect to see detail! Sharp imagery. I'm telling you, we see sharper imagery of the moon FROM HERE ON EARTH than a lunar orbiter!
There are lots of images from the lunar orbiter do you want some? Do you know why the video of the moon is moving to the left? I thought you did not believe the lunar orbiter exist?
Please stop with all the questions. This is not an astronomy test. I already told you I know why the moon moves. Of course the LO doesn't exist because like I've been saying, those images supposedly from it, are CGI.
Then why are you waisting our time with asking for pictures.
-
Because the moon does not have a blue sky, water, trees, swamps and all sort of things like that. What do you expect to see?
I expect to see detail! Sharp imagery. I'm telling you, we see sharper imagery of the moon FROM HERE ON EARTH than a lunar orbiter!
There are lots of images from the lunar orbiter do you want some? Do you know why the video of the moon is moving to the left? I thought you did not believe the lunar orbiter exist?
Please stop with all the questions. This is not an astronomy test. I already told you I know why the moon moves. Of course the LO doesn't exist because like I've been saying, those images supposedly from it, are CGI.
Your incredulity is convincing. ::) The picture is evidence. Now it's up to any objectors to provide evidence that it is faked. TheodorusOfSamos even opened the door for you by showing you some modern techniques for proving photos are faked. Until you do that, then we have every reason to believe they are real.
-
The telescope does not have computer control to correct for the earth rotation. You just have proved the earth is round.
No. The Moon is moving, not the Earth.
Correction: They are both moving.
-
The telescope does not have computer control to correct for the earth rotation. You just have proved the earth is round.
No. The Moon is moving, not the Earth.
Yes but it very small compared to the earth. The earth will rotate about 10 to 15 degrees per hour depending where you live.
-
EarthIsASpaceship: Yes, the surface of the moon in the pictures I posted does look like a sea of gray of great regularity. However, this image is taken from low lunar orbit, the moon is several orders of magnitude closer to the JAXA satilite than you or I are here on earth. Just like looking at a grassy pasture close up you'll see it as a sea of green, but if you were viewing from far away, like flying over the pasture in an plane at 30,000 feet, you'll see a great deal more than just that one green pasture, you'll be able to see the great diversity of the region around it, rivers, lake beds, hills, forests, etc. Would you agree with this analogy for why the moon would look like a sea do grey up close?
No. I expect to see something like this:
(http://)
EarthIsASpaceship: I think I see what you are getting at, and I think I spotted the misconception. I thought the issue was a matter of perspective, that what looks like a big creator with lots of detail through a telescope just looks like a big mound or mountain of gray up close. But based on the video you just posted, I think the misconception you have about what to expect on the moon's surface comes from your familiarity with earth landscapes - that's what we are all familiar with, when we fly over landscapes like the video you posted, we see planes of grass, trees, valleys, shrubs, etc. - it looks like a lot of detail and gives you a robust landscape, not at all what we see on moon.
And why not? Because the moon lacks life, there are no pastures to fill in the landscape, patches of green and brown, there are no trees to brake up these planes, and so on. If you were to remove all life from the earth landscapes you showed in the video, you will see a sea of brown and grey, maybe some other earth tones, but that's thanks to the complex geology and soil composition of earth, and largely due to organic materials present in the earth's soil. So without life to either give the moon's soil various shades of earth tones or to brake up the landscape with trees and the like, the moon looks like a pretty monotone and boring place, a sea of gray.
Also keep in mind that the images I posted might have been taken over one of the large maria present on the moon (the large darker patches you see on the moon viewing it from earth, they are present in the video you posted as large patches of very regular gray soil, a sea of gray).
-
Because the moon does not have a blue sky, water, trees, swamps and all sort of things like that. What do you expect to see?
I expect to see detail! Sharp imagery. I'm telling you, we see sharper imagery of the moon FROM HERE ON EARTH than a lunar orbiter!
There are lots of images from the lunar orbiter do you want some? Do you know why the video of the moon is moving to the left? I thought you did not believe the lunar orbiter exist?
Please stop with all the questions. This is not an astronomy test. I already told you I know why the moon moves. Of course the LO doesn't exist because like I've been saying, those images supposedly from it, are CGI.
I agree with EarthIsASpaceship about the off topic questions, let's try to stick to the topic of this discussion.
-
Donkey, stick with the topic! Telescopes on EARTH vs. THE LUNAR ORBITER.
How does that matter when the images from the orbiter have comparable quality to those from NASA? Which is to say, MUCH MORE quality than an amateur can get here on earth.
-
Then why are you waisting our time with asking for pictures.
I never asked for pictures. Pay attention.
-
Your incredulity is convincing. ::) The picture is evidence. Now it's up to any objectors to provide evidence that it is faked. TheodorusOfSamos even opened the door for you by showing you some modern techniques for proving photos are faked. Until you do that, then we have every reason to believe they are real.
Well duh, that's what Theo mentioned already, that there are ways to check the authenticity of a photo. Oh and you have every reason to believe they are real? LOL Other than THEY LOOK FAKE.
-
Your incredulity is convincing. ::) The picture is evidence. Now it's up to any objectors to provide evidence that it is faked. TheodorusOfSamos even opened the door for you by showing you some modern techniques for proving photos are faked. Until you do that, then we have every reason to believe they are real.
Well duh, that's what Theo mentioned already, that there are ways to check the authenticity of a photo. Oh and you have every reason to believe they are real? LOL Other than THEY LOOK FAKE.
When's the last time you've ever been to the moon to take a close look at it?
Thought so. ::)
-
Your incredulity is convincing. ::) The picture is evidence. Now it's up to any objectors to provide evidence that it is faked. TheodorusOfSamos even opened the door for you by showing you some modern techniques for proving photos are faked. Until you do that, then we have every reason to believe they are real.
Well duh, that's what Theo mentioned already, that there are ways to check the authenticity of a photo. Oh and you have every reason to believe they are real? LOL Other than THEY LOOK FAKE.
hmmm, I think they look real. Stalemate. Except not a stalemate. Picture has been provided so we anxiously await your evidence.
-
Donkey, NO HUMAN HAS BEEN TO THE MOON. You really think they can hop around like kids in a bouncy house, wearing helmets with no visor shield over the clear glass in no atmosphere? The radiation from the sun would burn their eyeballs out!
-
Donkey, NO HUMAN HAS BEEN TO THE MOON. You really think they can hop around like kids in a bouncy house, wearing helmets with no visor shield over the clear glass in no atmosphere? The radiation from the sun would burn their eyeballs out!
I am amazed of all the answers. I guess you solved it all for us. By the way why do you use spaceship in your name when spaceships does not exist. Does that mean you don't exist? Fitting isn't it.
-
Donkey, NO HUMAN HAS BEEN TO THE MOON. You really think they can hop around like kids in a bouncy house, wearing helmets with no visor shield over the clear glass in no atmosphere? The radiation from the sun would burn their eyeballs out!
Before you ever post again, I want so see if you can try something.
1. Look up the word incredulity
2. Make sure your response isn't using an argument from incredulity.
3. If it is, come up with a real argument.
4. If not, then post.
-
Really, this line of discussion isn't helping anything; we're not here to debate the the veracity of the Apollo moon missions or FE hypothesis in general, we're here to talk about photographic evidence that demonstrates the spherical nature of earth and to get FE supporters' opinions about why they see these photos as credible or not.
EarthIsASpaceship: I'd really like to hear your thoughts on my previous post addressed to you. I'd also like to hear the thoughts of any other FE supporter.
-
Really, this line of discussion isn't helping anything; we're not here to debate the the veracity of the Apollo moon missions or FE hypothesis in general, we're here to talk about photographic evidence that demonstrates the spherical nature of earth and to get FE supporters' opinions about why they see these photos as credible or not.
EarthIsASpaceship: I'd really like to hear your thoughts on my previous post addressed to you. I'd also like to hear the thoughts of any other FE supporter.
Give it time. You will soon find that your efforts are wasted when trying to reasonably get them to back up anything.
-
Donkey, NO HUMAN HAS BEEN TO THE MOON. You really think they can hop around like kids in a bouncy house, wearing helmets with no visor shield over the clear glass in no atmosphere? The radiation from the sun would burn their eyeballs out!
First of all, how do you know dem pics are fake if, as you claim, you haven't been there yourself?
Secondly, LOL, the "radiation from the sun" doesn't burn out your eyes, not even in a lack of atmosphere. The reason they wear pressurized suits is, you guessed, because of the PRESSURE, or rather, lack of pressure. The vacuum of spaces has this effect, you know, to pull things out of their sockets and to reduce boiling points of liquids...
You should REALLY know what you're talking about before you say something stupid like that xD
-
Really, this line of discussion isn't helping anything; we're not here to debate the the veracity of the Apollo moon missions or FE hypothesis in general, we're here to talk about photographic evidence that demonstrates the spherical nature of earth and to get FE supporters' opinions about why they see these photos as credible or not.
EarthIsASpaceship: I'd really like to hear your thoughts on my previous post addressed to you. I'd also like to hear the thoughts of any other FE supporter.
Thank you Theo. It's refreshing to actually engage in a discussion without personal attacks and other people piping in with off topic comments. As far as the terrain in the moon images from the LRO compared to the terrain of Earth, you were correct with your first assessment of what I meant. I do not mean the trees, rivers, contrast, etc. I meant the images of craters and shadows that we normally see on the moon from Earth.
-
Give it time. You will soon find that your efforts are wasted when trying to reasonably get them to back up anything.
You really have nothing better to do with your time? That is INCREDULOUS.
-
So you mean you can get better resolution and better quality using amateur telescopes, than the likes of these?
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/2033_med.jpg)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/mission/?2 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/mission/?2)
-
Because the moon does not have a blue sky, water, trees, swamps and all sort of things like that. What do you expect to see?
I expect to see detail! Sharp imagery. I'm telling you, we see sharper imagery of the moon FROM HERE ON EARTH than a lunar orbiter!
The LRO can see things like astronaut boot tracks, rover tire tracks and hardware left behind at every Apollo landing site. How much more detail do you need? Mind you, if just one boot print or tire track or piece of hardware was out of place on just one of those photos you could disprove the whole moon landings....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Apollo_17_LRO.jpg)
-
Give it time. You will soon find that your efforts are wasted when trying to reasonably get them to back up anything.
You really have nothing better to do with your time? That is INCREDULOUS.
I really don't. I have to sit at this computer and all my work is done for the day.
But really... try to have a real argument. You're a walking fallacy.
-
Donkey and HeeHaw (How appropriate),
Those photos are taken from NASAs high tech telescopes HERE ON EARTH....in Antarctica because of the colder atmosphere. They can bullshit you all they want by saying the LRO orbited the moon. They can say anything they want because no one can prove otherwise. They control the industry.
-
Donkey and HeeHaw (How appropriate),
Those photos are taken from NASAs high tech telescopes HERE ON EARTH....in Antarctica because of the colder atmosphere. They can bullshit you all they want by saying the LRO orbited the moon. They can say anything they want because no one can prove otherwise. They control the industry.
Very, very, VERY incorrect.
Any claim that they make can be verified independently of them.
-
I was referring to the photos and videos they put out.
-
Donkey and HeeHaw (How appropriate),
Those photos are taken from NASAs high tech telescopes HERE ON EARTH....in Antarctica because of the colder atmosphere. They can bullshit you all they want by saying the LRO orbited the moon. They can say anything they want because no one can prove otherwise. They control the industry.
You're the one making most claims here. You're saying that they're fake, that the moon landing was fake, etc. What can you convince the people with? Well nothing, really, just your empty claims.
Now who should I trust, the people that ACTUALLY SENT MEN TO THE MOON, or a random conspiracy junkie on the internet that probably didn't learn anything about astronomy in his life?
Also, there are reflectors on the moon... That's how they confirmed the moon is receding...
-
I was referring to the photos and videos they put out.
I know. And my statement stands.
-
Donkey,
What you fail to understand is that they are the ones presenting the images to begin with. Yet I am the one who has to prove they are fake? You believe they are real even though you have never been there to verify it, none of your family have, none of your friends have.....only a group of people within a huge money making organization have. That's logical alright. ::)
-
Uh, yes, that's how science works... Somebody presents something and if you claim it to be a fake or a fraud, YOU'RE the one that has to prove that it's a fake or a fraud...
You're pretty new to this whole science thing, aren't you? ::)
-
Donkey and HeeHaw (How appropriate),
Those photos are taken from NASAs high tech telescopes HERE ON EARTH....in Antarctica because of the colder atmosphere. They can bullshit you all they want by saying the LRO orbited the moon. They can say anything they want because no one can prove otherwise. They control the industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)
-
Donkey,
What you fail to understand is that they are the ones presenting the images to begin with. Yet I am the one who has to prove they are fake? You believe they are real even though you have never been there to verify it, none of your family have, none of your friends have.....only a group of people within a huge money making organization have. That's logical alright. ::)
Wow, that is a terrible refutation.
First, yes, if you claim that the video and photographic evidence is doctored, you have to prove that. Those making the claim that they are genuine have already met the burden of proof.
-Five decades of rapid conspiracy theorist have not been able to show any evidence of doctoring (and any such claims have usually been made out of ignorance, such as "No stars!" "Too many shadows!" etc.)
-Photographs and video from organizations not associated with NASA observe similar things.
-Amateurs can perform experiments that confirm many lunar claims, even if they cannot get video/photographic evidence themselves.
So, to make your claim, you need to counteract those things.
With hard evidence mind you, and not baseless, unbacked incredulous statements.
-
Donkey and HeeHaw (How appropriate),
Those photos are taken from NASAs high tech telescopes HERE ON EARTH....in Antarctica because of the colder atmosphere. They can bullshit you all they want by saying the LRO orbited the moon. They can say anything they want because no one can prove otherwise. They control the industry.
Now you FE guys are going to get together and make sure your theories are consistence. Here are your words: " HERE ON EARTH....in Antarctica" Is it me but isn't Antarctica void of air and is -273 degrees and no one can go there or they will die.
-
Uh, yes, that's how science works... Somebody presents something and if you claim it to be a fake or a fraud, YOU'RE the one that has to prove that it's a fake or a fraud...
You're pretty new to this whole science thing, aren't you? ::)
No, you're wrong. If that were the case, magic tricks would be real because no one has shown how they are REALLY done. That's being naïve and that's what you are.
-
Uh, yes, that's how science works... Somebody presents something and if you claim it to be a fake or a fraud, YOU'RE the one that has to prove that it's a fake or a fraud...
You're pretty new to this whole science thing, aren't you? ::)
No, you're wrong. If that were the case, magic tricks would be real because no one has shown how they are REALLY done. That's being naïve and that's what you are.
Um...magic isn't presented as real.
And people DO show how illusions are done. So, once again, you fail.
-
Uh, yes, that's how science works... Somebody presents something and if you claim it to be a fake or a fraud, YOU'RE the one that has to prove that it's a fake or a fraud...
You're pretty new to this whole science thing, aren't you? ::)
No, you're wrong. If that were the case, magic tricks would be real because no one has shown how they are REALLY done. That's being naïve and that's what you are.
No because the thing that science presents is the evidence. Science makes a claim, supplied with evidence. You make a claim saying the evidence is fraudulent so now you have to back it up.
-
Donkey,
What you fail to understand is that they are the ones presenting the images to begin with. Yet I am the one who has to prove they are fake? You believe they are real even though you have never been there to verify it, none of your family have, none of your friends have.....only a group of people within a huge money making organization have. That's logical alright. ::)
Wow, that is a terrible refutation.
First, yes, if you claim that the video and photographic evidence is doctored, you have to prove that. Those making the claim that they are genuine have already met the burden of proof.
-Five decades of rapid conspiracy theorist have not been able to show any evidence of doctoring (and any such claims have usually been made out of ignorance, such as "No stars!" "Too many shadows!" etc.)
-Photographs and video from organizations not associated with NASA observe similar things.
-Amateurs can perform experiments that confirm many lunar claims, even if they cannot get video/photographic evidence themselves.
So, to make your claim, you need to counteract those things.
With hard evidence mind you, and not baseless, unbacked incredulous statements.
Explain to me how the astronauts on the moon can have their solar shield up on their helmet. I need hard evidence.
-
Donkey,
What you fail to understand is that they are the ones presenting the images to begin with. Yet I am the one who has to prove they are fake? You believe they are real even though you have never been there to verify it, none of your family have, none of your friends have.....only a group of people within a huge money making organization have. That's logical alright. ::)
Wow, that is a terrible refutation.
First, yes, if you claim that the video and photographic evidence is doctored, you have to prove that. Those making the claim that they are genuine have already met the burden of proof.
-Five decades of rapid conspiracy theorist have not been able to show any evidence of doctoring (and any such claims have usually been made out of ignorance, such as "No stars!" "Too many shadows!" etc.)
-Photographs and video from organizations not associated with NASA observe similar things.
-Amateurs can perform experiments that confirm many lunar claims, even if they cannot get video/photographic evidence themselves.
So, to make your claim, you need to counteract those things.
With hard evidence mind you, and not baseless, unbacked incredulous statements.
Explain to me how the astronauts on the moon can have their solar shield up on their helmet. I need hard evidence.
Didn't you already have this explained to you?
And way to dodge my points.
-
No because the thing that science presents is the evidence. Science makes a claim, supplied with evidence. You make a claim saying the evidence is fraudulent so now you have to back it up.
That's my point though. How can I prove those pictures on the moon aren't real when only a few people have supposedly been there to see it?
-
Donkey,
What you fail to understand is that they are the ones presenting the images to begin with. Yet I am the one who has to prove they are fake? You believe they are real even though you have never been there to verify it, none of your family have, none of your friends have.....only a group of people within a huge money making organization have. That's logical alright. ::)
Wow, that is a terrible refutation.
First, yes, if you claim that the video and photographic evidence is doctored, you have to prove that. Those making the claim that they are genuine have already met the burden of proof.
-Five decades of rapid conspiracy theorist have not been able to show any evidence of doctoring (and any such claims have usually been made out of ignorance, such as "No stars!" "Too many shadows!" etc.)
-Photographs and video from organizations not associated with NASA observe similar things.
-Amateurs can perform experiments that confirm many lunar claims, even if they cannot get video/photographic evidence themselves.
So, to make your claim, you need to counteract those things.
With hard evidence mind you, and not baseless, unbacked incredulous statements.
Explain to me how the astronauts on the moon can have their solar shield up on their helmet. I need hard evidence.
Didn't you already have this explained to you?
And way to dodge my points.
No. It was dodged by you all.
-
No because the thing that science presents is the evidence. Science makes a claim, supplied with evidence. You make a claim saying the evidence is fraudulent so now you have to back it up.
That's my point though. How can I prove those pictures on the moon aren't real when only a few people have supposedly been there to see it?
Well I admit it would be difficult to disprove. Especially when it all really did happen.
It's not impossible though. You can disprove that an individual committed a crime with good evidence. You can prove that the pictures were doctored.
Did you read the wikipedia post about third party evidence? Have you tried to do any of the things that can be done to prove that we actually have landed on the moon?
Here's the big question though. Since, you kind of just did admit that there is no hard evidence that we haven't been to the moon. Then why are you on a mission to disprove we have? Surely, you would need evidence to be so sure... and since you have none, what are you doing?
-
Donkey,
What you fail to understand is that they are the ones presenting the images to begin with. Yet I am the one who has to prove they are fake? You believe they are real even though you have never been there to verify it, none of your family have, none of your friends have.....only a group of people within a huge money making organization have. That's logical alright. ::)
Wow, that is a terrible refutation.
First, yes, if you claim that the video and photographic evidence is doctored, you have to prove that. Those making the claim that they are genuine have already met the burden of proof.
-Five decades of rapid conspiracy theorist have not been able to show any evidence of doctoring (and any such claims have usually been made out of ignorance, such as "No stars!" "Too many shadows!" etc.)
-Photographs and video from organizations not associated with NASA observe similar things.
-Amateurs can perform experiments that confirm many lunar claims, even if they cannot get video/photographic evidence themselves.
So, to make your claim, you need to counteract those things.
With hard evidence mind you, and not baseless, unbacked incredulous statements.
Explain to me how the astronauts on the moon can have their solar shield up on their helmet. I need hard evidence.
Didn't you already have this explained to you?
And way to dodge my points.
No. It was dodged by you all.
I find that hard to believe, given that FE'ers never accept evidence.
And you continue to dance away from my points.
-
Uh, yes, that's how science works... Somebody presents something and if you claim it to be a fake or a fraud, YOU'RE the one that has to prove that it's a fake or a fraud...
You're pretty new to this whole science thing, aren't you? ::)
No, you're wrong. If that were the case, magic tricks would be real because no one has shown how they are REALLY done. That's being naïve and that's what you are.
You have absolutely no freaking clue what you're talking about, do you? Nobody has shown how magic tricks are done? Really? You ever heard of Penn&Teller? You ever heard of James Randi? He offers 1m$ to anybody who can perform any sort of supernatural (magic) act in a controlled environment. So far nobody could.
You're REALLY new to this whole science thing, aren't you?
-
No because the thing that science presents is the evidence. Science makes a claim, supplied with evidence. You make a claim saying the evidence is fraudulent so now you have to back it up.
That's my point though. How can I prove those pictures on the moon aren't real when only a few people have supposedly been there to see it?
Well I admit it would be difficult to disprove. Especially when it all really did happen.
It's not impossible though. You can disprove that an individual committed a crime with good evidence. You can prove that the pictures were doctored.
Did you read the wikipedia post about third party evidence? Have you tried to do any of the things that can be done to prove that we actually have landed on the moon?
Here's the big question though. Since, you kind of just did admit that there is no hard evidence that we haven't been to the moon. Then why are you on a mission to disprove we have? Surely, you would need evidence to be so sure... and since you have none, what are you doing?
I have openly admitted to not having evidence. Honestly, if I did have evidence, unfortunately, I would save it till my dying day and I think you know why.
-
I find that hard to believe, given that FE'ers never accept evidence.
And you continue to dance away from my points.
Oh so you can dance but I can't?
-
No because the thing that science presents is the evidence. Science makes a claim, supplied with evidence. You make a claim saying the evidence is fraudulent so now you have to back it up.
That's my point though. How can I prove those pictures on the moon aren't real when only a few people have supposedly been there to see it?
Well I admit it would be difficult to disprove. Especially when it all really did happen.
It's not impossible though. You can disprove that an individual committed a crime with good evidence. You can prove that the pictures were doctored.
Did you read the wikipedia post about third party evidence? Have you tried to do any of the things that can be done to prove that we actually have landed on the moon?
Here's the big question though. Since, you kind of just did admit that there is no hard evidence that we haven't been to the moon. Then why are you on a mission to disprove we have? Surely, you would need evidence to be so sure... and since you have none, what are you doing?
I have openly admitted to not having evidence. Honestly, if I did have evidence, unfortunately, I would save it till my dying day and I think you know why.
Something something Men in Black NASA goons something something
Please. If you had legit evidence, you show it ASAP. Evidence, if it a demonstrable, objective thing, cannot be ignored.
I have said it before, and I will say it again.
If there was one shred of an iota of evidence to suggest that there might be a different shape to the Earth than all of the other evidence that I have examined to confirm its shape, I would be the first person to investigate the aforementioned evidence, and if it led to the conclusion that the world was flat, I WOULD ACCEPT THAT.
And so would everyone else.
But no such evidence exists.
-
No because the thing that science presents is the evidence. Science makes a claim, supplied with evidence. You make a claim saying the evidence is fraudulent so now you have to back it up.
That's my point though. How can I prove those pictures on the moon aren't real when only a few people have supposedly been there to see it?
Well I admit it would be difficult to disprove. Especially when it all really did happen.
It's not impossible though. You can disprove that an individual committed a crime with good evidence. You can prove that the pictures were doctored.
Did you read the wikipedia post about third party evidence? Have you tried to do any of the things that can be done to prove that we actually have landed on the moon?
Here's the big question though. Since, you kind of just did admit that there is no hard evidence that we haven't been to the moon. Then why are you on a mission to disprove we have? Surely, you would need evidence to be so sure... and since you have none, what are you doing?
I have openly admitted to not having evidence. Honestly, if I did have evidence, unfortunately, I would save it till my dying day and I think you know why.
Okay, but the point of my question is that since you don't have evidence, why do you think we haven't landed on the moon? Is it just too amazing for you to fathom? Is it too incredible? As far as I can tell, that's what your problem is.
And you know what, it is amazing. It is incredible. Mankind has done some amazing things.
Same with the earths shape. Is it too amazing, that something so large could be spinning through space? Is it too amazing that some force like gravity could hold everything on earth to it?
Just because something is amazing and hard to conceptualize, that doesn't make it fake. It is not mankind's job to judge and say, that can't be real. We just classify things to be real because for all intents and purposes, they appear to be.
-
I find that hard to believe, given that FE'ers never accept evidence.
And you continue to dance away from my points.
Oh so you can dance but I can't?
Sure I can. But I'm not. I simply remember that this same conversation has happened before, WHICH IS WHY I BROUGHT THAT UP IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU. That is the opposite of dancing away.
And you STILL haven't countered any of my points.
-
You have absolutely no freaking clue what you're talking about, do you? Nobody has shown how magic tricks are done? Really? You ever heard of Penn&Teller? You ever heard of James Randi? He offers 1m$ to anybody who can perform any sort of supernatural (magic) act in a controlled environment. So far nobody could.
Ok, maybe that was a bad example. How about Big Foot and The Loch Ness Monster and Chupacadra in Mexico. Photos have been shown of those and they have not been proven to be fraudulent to my knowledge. I mean, currently there is a tv series that investigates Big Foot sightings.
-
You have absolutely no freaking clue what you're talking about, do you? Nobody has shown how magic tricks are done? Really? You ever heard of Penn&Teller? You ever heard of James Randi? He offers 1m$ to anybody who can perform any sort of supernatural (magic) act in a controlled environment. So far nobody could.
Ok, maybe that was a bad example. How about Big Foot and The Loch Ness Monster and Chupacadra in Mexico. Photos have been shown of those and they have not been proven to be fraudulent to my knowledge. I mean, currently there is a tv series that investigates Big Foot sightings.
No pictures of the Loch Ness Monster have been shown to be true.
-
You have absolutely no freaking clue what you're talking about, do you? Nobody has shown how magic tricks are done? Really? You ever heard of Penn&Teller? You ever heard of James Randi? He offers 1m$ to anybody who can perform any sort of supernatural (magic) act in a controlled environment. So far nobody could.
Ok, maybe that was a bad example. How about Big Foot and The Loch Ness Monster and Chupacadra in Mexico. Photos have been shown of those and they have not been proven to be fraudulent to my knowledge. I mean, currently there is a tv series that investigates Big Foot sightings.
Key word here.
Your knowledge doesn't reach too far, does it?
-
Okay, but the point of my question is that since you don't have evidence, why do you think we haven't landed on the moon? Is it just too amazing for you to fathom? Is it too incredible? As far as I can tell, that's what your problem is.
And you know what, it is amazing. It is incredible. Mankind has done some amazing things.
Same with the earths shape. Is it too amazing, that something so large could be spinning through space? Is it too amazing that some force like gravity could hold everything on earth to it?
Just because something is amazing and hard to conceptualize, that doesn't make it fake. It is not mankind's job to judge and say, that can't be real. We just classify things to be real because for all intents and purposes, they appear to be.
Oh I definitely know humans are capable of amazing things. I see it all the time with my own eyes. And I see amazing things in nature. But I have only seen a human on the moon through a tv or computer screen. Just not enough to prove to me it's real. That is all.
-
You have absolutely no freaking clue what you're talking about, do you? Nobody has shown how magic tricks are done? Really? You ever heard of Penn&Teller? You ever heard of James Randi? He offers 1m$ to anybody who can perform any sort of supernatural (magic) act in a controlled environment. So far nobody could.
Ok, maybe that was a bad example. How about Big Foot and The Loch Ness Monster and Chupacadra in Mexico. Photos have been shown of those and they have not been proven to be fraudulent to my knowledge. I mean, currently there is a tv series that investigates Big Foot sightings.
And have you ever actually SEEN them with a sighting? I know i watched a couple of marathons for a while of it before, and not once did I ever see a clear, viable shot of it. And a fair number of photos of a lot have things, have been debunked and proven as either fakes, or misidentification of things.
The problem, as has been stated by many RE's before, is that you can't prove a negative. We can say there's no evidence for bigfoot, we can't say he doesn't exist.
I am an extreme sceptic of outrageous claims, its why i stop watching a lot of these "search" for shows (and i've watched quite a few of them), if they end every show with "we may not have found <blank this time> but we may never know", I know they're just trying to perpetuate the belief.
-
No because the thing that science presents is the evidence. Science makes a claim, supplied with evidence. You make a claim saying the evidence is fraudulent so now you have to back it up.
That's my point though. How can I prove those pictures on the moon aren't real when only a few people have supposedly been there to see it?
You can't prove they are not real. Just because you say so is not proof.
-
Donkey,
What you fail to understand is that they are the ones presenting the images to begin with. Yet I am the one who has to prove they are fake? You believe they are real even though you have never been there to verify it, none of your family have, none of your friends have.....only a group of people within a huge money making organization have. That's logical alright. ::)
Wow, that is a terrible refutation.
First, yes, if you claim that the video and photographic evidence is doctored, you have to prove that. Those making the claim that they are genuine have already met the burden of proof.
-Five decades of rapid conspiracy theorist have not been able to show any evidence of doctoring (and any such claims have usually been made out of ignorance, such as "No stars!" "Too many shadows!" etc.)
-Photographs and video from organizations not associated with NASA observe similar things.
-Amateurs can perform experiments that confirm many lunar claims, even if they cannot get video/photographic evidence themselves.
So, to make your claim, you need to counteract those things.
With hard evidence mind you, and not baseless, unbacked incredulous statements.
Explain to me how the astronauts on the moon can have their solar shield up on their helmet. I need hard evidence.
I don't remember seeing any picture of an astronaut with the solar shied up. Show me a picture.
-
Okay, but the point of my question is that since you don't have evidence, why do you think we haven't landed on the moon? Is it just too amazing for you to fathom? Is it too incredible? As far as I can tell, that's what your problem is.
And you know what, it is amazing. It is incredible. Mankind has done some amazing things.
Same with the earths shape. Is it too amazing, that something so large could be spinning through space? Is it too amazing that some force like gravity could hold everything on earth to it?
Just because something is amazing and hard to conceptualize, that doesn't make it fake. It is not mankind's job to judge and say, that can't be real. We just classify things to be real because for all intents and purposes, they appear to be.
Oh I definitely know humans are capable of amazing things. I see it all the time with my own eyes. And I see amazing things in nature. But I have only seen a human on the moon through a tv or computer screen. Just not enough to prove to me it's real. That is all.
Would it be fair to say you only believe what you see. All the things that has happened never happened because you were not there. Did the second world II happen. You were not there. You sure live in a small world flat or not.
-
Would it be fair to say you only believe what you see. All the things that has happened never happened because you were not there. Did the second world II happen. You were not there. You sure live in a small world flat or not.
I'm not talking about JUST myself. Many others have seen most things that people claim to see. No one outside of those few men have seen/been ON THE MOON. So the percentage is drastically different.
-
Would it be fair to say you only believe what you see. All the things that has happened never happened because you were not there. Did the second world II happen. You were not there. You sure live in a small world flat or not.
I'm not talking about JUST myself. Many others have seen most things that people claim to see. No one outside of those few men have seen/been ON THE MOON. So the percentage is drastically different.
The many responsible for them getting there know they have been.
-
Really, this line of discussion isn't helping anything; we're not here to debate the the veracity of the Apollo moon missions or FE hypothesis in general, we're here to talk about photographic evidence that demonstrates the spherical nature of earth and to get FE supporters' opinions about why they see these photos as credible or not.
EarthIsASpaceship: I'd really like to hear your thoughts on my previous post addressed to you. I'd also like to hear the thoughts of any other FE supporter.
Thank you Theo. It's refreshing to actually engage in a discussion without personal attacks and other people piping in with off topic comments. As far as the terrain in the moon images from the LRO compared to the terrain of Earth, you were correct with your first assessment of what I meant. I do not mean the trees, rivers, contrast, etc. I meant the images of craters and shadows that we normally see on the moon from Earth.
EarthIsASpaceship: Agreed, personal attacks don't serve anyone's interests when it comes to having a real discussion!
When it comes to moon terrain, I hope you didn't think I was accusing you of expecting to see trees and rivers etc. on the moon. I was trying to illustrate why the moon terrain might seen unnatural to you, we are all used to seeing earth terrain with its highly varied and robust landscapes that are mostly the result of living things here on earth, but the moon doesn't have anything like that since it is lifeless, so it seems alien to us, you might not expect such an unusual looking landscape.
...but, since that wasting the issue, I guess I'll leave it at that. :)
Back to your original point: why don't we see more detail of the moon's terrain in the pictures I posted from JAXA's lunar satellite? The answer to this is all about perception.
Just so I know we are on the same page here, you and I both acknowledge that the moon is a very large object that has a diameter of several thousand km, right? Even if you don't accept that the moon is that large, it's clear that the lunar satellite that took these pictures had to be at least a thousand times closer to the moon than us on earth since at the distance the photos were taken you can hardly make out the curvature of the moon's horizon at all.
So, given that the lunar satellite is so much closer to the surface of the the moon than we are, it would mean that any major features of the moon that you can see from earth (large creators, maria beds) would be so large from the perspective of the satellite that you wouldn't be able to see even a fraction of these objects - those creators that you can see from earth would look like mountains from the satellite's perspective.
A good analogy is this: if you were flying over the Appalachian mountains on the east coast of the US, you would see many rolling mountains with long valleys in between and plenty of other major features, but if you were climbing up those mountains on foot, you wouldn't be able to see these large scale features, you can only see the fine details like the trees and the rocks.
Another example of this same perspective issue: if you look at your hand, say one of your knuckles, you'll see a lot of features, cracks and wrinkles, maybe some patchy skin color, and so on. But if you magnified that same area of skin by a factor of 1000 (it doesn't matter if the focus is on one of the wrinkles or cracks or other major features), what you will see is only part of a single calcified cell of your epidermis, there would be very little detail and you wouldn't even come close to being able to discern a crack or wrinkle in your skin.
-
Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that. It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical. I'd hate to lose any of mine! I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.
-
Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that. It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical. I'd hate to lose any of mine! I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.
Shouldn't it though?
Shouldn't you have an open enough mind to change what you think based on new information?
-
Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that. It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical. I'd hate to lose any of mine! I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.
What is it you expect to see on the moon since nobody has been there?
-
Ive just read through the entirety of this thread since I last posted here, and I'd like to thank EarthIsASpaceship for providing numerous examples of fallacies of logic, ignorance of basic geophysics and astrophysics, and a plethora of "factoids" that illustrate precisely why the flat earth fraternity has so much difficulty accepting the proven realities of an oblate spheroid earth geometry, and the actualisation of human space travel.
EarthIsASpaceship bases his entire argument on his allegation that every photographic image posted by round earthers (which to most rational people prove unequivocally that the planet is spherical and man has landed on the moon) is bogus or manipulated, or fails to truly represent what it claims to.
At the same time, he's unable to provide one piece of evidence at all to support his opposing claims about these images, other than simply saying digital image manipulation is a now-common and simple task. In many ways, EarthIsASpaceship is one of your classic conspiracy theorists (which of course he'll undoubtedly deny—as they all do!) who for some perverse reason known only to themselves refuse to accept the most logical reason that there's absolutely no advantage to be gained by scientists the world over "pretending" to have carried out all these astrophysical experiments over the last forty years.
Of course the most confounding factor is that EarthIsASpaceship sincerely believes that the earth is flat. Unquestionably and irrefutably.
And for that reason alone, his views on geophysics are likely to be totally at odds with the entire scientific community and the vast majority of the planet's lay population. The only other people in agreement with his beliefs will be the other 299 flat earthers that accept this bizarre theory themselves.
-
I sure love the way your write. I wish a had that talent. Well said!
-
Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that. It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical. I'd hate to lose any of mine! I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.
So your mind is so singularly closed that you absolutely refuse to even consider any new or more convincing evidence placed before you? You make up your mind relying purely on your "senses" and never alter it regardless? And even worse, you completely dismiss any further evidence as being intrinsically bogus, simply because your mind is made up?
What a sad, shallow, uninteresting life you must lead in this age of scientific advancement, when major and exciting new discoveries are being made almost literally every day.
Are you not the slightest bit concerned that you share exactly the same planetary theories as those of some pseudo-scientific nonentity who lectured the gullible hoi-polloi in sideshow tents 150 years ago? If not, you should be.
-
Explain to me how the astronauts on the moon can have their solar shield up on their helmet. I need hard evidence.
What kind of "hard evidence" do you expect to get on an internet forum? Would it do any good to point out that the manned lunar missions occurred when the sun was low in the lunar sky so as not to get the full intensity of the sun? Do you you need reminding that the human eye has a neat little feature called an iris which can grow or shrink to allow more or less light into the eye? Do you realize that sunlight is highly directional and if the astronaut is not directly facing the sun, then he can get away with having the sun shield up for a while? Have you, or anyone you know, ever gone blind by taking off sunglasses on a bright sunny day? Why should it be any different on the moon?
-
Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/41685424) The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.
-
Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/41685424) The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.
ELINT: I don't see anything in your video to suggest that it's not a real panorama, and it's starkly beautiful, thank you for sharing it. I'm sure some people have mistakenly accused it of being fraudulent, but I can't see how or why someone should fake this landscape, especially considering the plethora of photos like this available online, on TV, in books and magazines.
However, the issue lies not in the authenticity of your video, but it's perspective - the images we are discussing are images taken hundreds of miles above the earth's surface, and in the case of the lunar orbit pictures, hundreds of thousands of miles. Your video isn't shot from a position where you can make any definitive statements about the earth's curvature because the curvature is so slight from ground level, what it can say is that it is possible the earth is flat, but otherwise, you can't say anything else with it.
And let me qualify my statement that the panorama can tell us it is possible the earth is flat - in measurement, there are always degrees of precision to be concerned with, and if your precision is too low, you will not be able to resolve differences between different measurements. An example from my profession is this: if I'm testing a new drug for toxicity on a petri dish of cells and the dose of the drug I give these cells kills 10% of them, this would be a big problem. But, if the device I use to automatically count the number of live cells in a dish can only count within an accuracy of 10,000 cells and I started out within only 50,000 cells in the dish with the drug killing 10% (5,000) of the cells, the machine will very likely report that I had the same number of cells as I started with, but it would be inappropriate to conclude that no cells died! Even though it is possible that no cells died based of this measurement. If I increased my sample size to 200,000 cells, then the machine can give me a more accurate readout of the drug's toxicity (which would have killed 20,000 cells this time). By increasing the sample size of my experiment, I can increase the accuracy of my measurements; the same thing applies to viewing the curvature of the earth. The video you posted can only show a very tiny fraction of the curvature of the earth, far too small to be detected; but by capturing images from much further away from the surface, we can see more of the earth's surface, giving us the precision needed to measure its curvature.
-
Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that. It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical. I'd hate to lose any of mine! I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.
So your mind is so singularly closed that you absolutely refuse to even consider any new or more convincing evidence placed before you? You make up your mind relying purely on your "senses" and never alter it regardless? And even worse, you completely dismiss any further evidence as being intrinsically bogus, simply because your mind is made up?
What a sad, shallow, uninteresting life you must lead in this age of scientific advancement, when major and exciting new discoveries are being made almost literally every day.
Are you not the slightest bit concerned that you share exactly the same planetary theories as those of some pseudo-scientific nonentity who lectured the gullible hoi-polloi in sideshow tents 150 years ago? If not, you should be.
Kind of like how nothing can change Kem Ham's mind... Really sad...
Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/41685424) The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.
*facepalm* that "lake" proves the earth round not flat...
-
Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/41685424) The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.
*facepalm* that "lake" proves the earth round not flat...
[/quote]
Donk3y: I have to disagree with you, the panorama video can't prove anything one way or another, see my post above.
-
Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/41685424) The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.
*facepalm* that "lake" proves the earth round not flat...
Donk3y: I have to disagree with you, the panorama video can't prove anything one way or another, see my post above.
[/quote]
Well, take a look at minute ~2:22, you can see that there aren't hills everywhere, and you can see the horizon at sea level. You can also notice that the light isn't gradually going dimmer towards the horizon, so logically the horizon is the point of curvature where you cannot see further. If the earth were flat, apart form the light being gradually dimmer towards the horizon, and getting gradually darker towards the horizon, you would have to see further still.
-
Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/41685424) The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.
*facepalm* that "lake" proves the earth round not flat...
Donk3y: I have to disagree with you, the panorama video can't prove anything one way or another, see my post above.
Well, take a look at minute ~2:22, you can see that there aren't hills everywhere, and you can see the horizon at sea level. You can also notice that the light isn't gradually going dimmer towards the horizon, so logically the horizon is the point of curvature where you cannot see further. If the earth were flat, apart form the light being gradually dimmer towards the horizon, and getting gradually darker towards the horizon, you would have to see further still.
[/quote]
[/quote]
What I mean is that if we stay within the confines of ELINT's post, that the panorama can show a flat earth surface and straight horizon, then there isn't enough precision in the measurement to accurately assess the straightens/curvature of the horizon. But I do see what you mean, I just didn't want to get off on a different debate.
-
Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that. It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical. I'd hate to lose any of mine! I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.
Shouldn't it though?
Shouldn't you have an open enough mind to change what you think based on new information?
No because they look fake. No amount of logical explanation is going to change what my senses perceive. Just like seeing a man walk on the moon on tv is not going to change your mind about a man walking on the moon. I believe what I interpret as real and what is not real. And so do you.
-
Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that. It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical. I'd hate to lose any of mine! I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.
Shouldn't it though?
Shouldn't you have an open enough mind to change what you think based on new information?
No because they look fake. No amount of logical explanation is going to change what my senses perceive. Just like seeing a man walk on the moon on tv is not going to change your mind about a man walking on the moon. I believe what I interpret as real and what is not real. And so do you.
But if your senses are shown to be mistaken, shouldn't your logic take over?
Saying you trust ONLY your senses and not your reason and intellect is to say you reject reality.
-
Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that. It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical. I'd hate to lose any of mine! I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.
Shouldn't it though?
Shouldn't you have an open enough mind to change what you think based on new information?
No because they look fake. No amount of logical explanation is going to change what my senses perceive. Just like seeing a man walk on the moon on tv is not going to change your mind about a man walking on the moon. I believe what I interpret as real and what is not real. And so do you.
You have to go past the TV videos. Think of all the thousands of people involved in the 10 year project. You can't conceive in your mind the possibility it is true. Think of the progress of cars, airplanes, ships, trains, computers, and medicine and you stop at space science. Why do you do that?
-
At the same time, he's unable to provide one piece of evidence at all to support his opposing claims about these images, other than simply saying digital image manipulation is a now-common and simple task. In many ways, EarthIsASpaceship is one of your classic conspiracy theorists (which of course he'll undoubtedly deny—as they all do!) who for some perverse reason known only to themselves refuse to accept the most logical reason that there's absolutely no advantage to be gained by scientists the world over "pretending" to have carried out all these astrophysical experiments over the last forty years.
Of course the most confounding factor is that EarthIsASpaceship sincerely believes that the earth is flat. Unquestionably and irrefutably.
Leave it to you to summarize a person's entire personality in a few paragraphs. You analyze people like you're so perfect and almighty. Get over yourself man. Like I've said before, for all intents and purposes THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT from a human's perspective on Earth. The majority of mankind has never, and will never, see the Earth from hundreds of miles in space so your so called evidence is bogus. I say if a certain percentage of people haven't actually experienced something, then the majority rules. That is exactly the case in this situation. Only 530 (or so) people have been to space out of BILLIONS. That's not enough. You lose.
-
Why should it be any different on the moon?
Uh, no atmosphere to filter out the radiation. ::)
-
But if your senses are shown to be mistaken, shouldn't your logic take over?
Saying you trust ONLY your senses and not your reason and intellect is to say you reject reality.
My senses have not been shown to be mistaken in this case. For you to accept what you see on tv is not reality. It's as if you don't even acknowledge the possibility of deceit. Considering what was going on in our world/gvt. in the 60s, it's naïve to think there wasn't any deceit going on. Just because the majority of people are fooled by something does not mean something is real. It means the majority of people are fools.
-
At the same time, he's unable to provide one piece of evidence at all to support his opposing claims about these images, other than simply saying digital image manipulation is a now-common and simple task. In many ways, EarthIsASpaceship is one of your classic conspiracy theorists (which of course he'll undoubtedly deny—as they all do!) who for some perverse reason known only to themselves refuse to accept the most logical reason that there's absolutely no advantage to be gained by scientists the world over "pretending" to have carried out all these astrophysical experiments over the last forty years.
Of course the most confounding factor is that EarthIsASpaceship sincerely believes that the earth is flat. Unquestionably and irrefutably.
Leave it to you to summarize a person's entire personality in a few paragraphs. You analyze people like you're so perfect and almighty. Get over yourself man. Like I've said before, for all intents and purposes THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT from a human's perspective on Earth. The majority of mankind has never, and will never, see the Earth from hundreds of miles in space so your so called evidence is bogus. I say if a certain percentage of people haven't actually experienced something, then the majority rules. That is exactly the case in this situation. Only 530 (or so) people have been to space out of BILLIONS. That's not enough. You lose.
Why do you not understand space travel or satellites? You have seen advanced is cars, airplanes, ships and why not space science? What is the problem you have with that?
-
But if your senses are shown to be mistaken, shouldn't your logic take over?
Saying you trust ONLY your senses and not your reason and intellect is to say you reject reality.
My senses have not been shown to be mistaken in this case. For you to accept what you see on tv is not reality. It's as if you don't even acknowledge the possibility of deceit. Considering what was going on in our world/gvt. in the 60s, it's naïve to think there wasn't any deceit going on. Just because the majority of people are fooled by something does not mean something is real. It means the majority of people are fools.
I do acknowledge a possibility of deceit, and I always have.
But, as I have said already, there have been five decades of people rabidly try and failing to debunk the Apollo missions, and they have all failed. And there is a mountain of third party evidence to confirm the original claim.
In the real world, we call that having met the burden of proof.
-
At the same time, he's unable to provide one piece of evidence at all to support his opposing claims about these images, other than simply saying digital image manipulation is a now-common and simple task. In many ways, EarthIsASpaceship is one of your classic conspiracy theorists (which of course he'll undoubtedly deny—as they all do!) who for some perverse reason known only to themselves refuse to accept the most logical reason that there's absolutely no advantage to be gained by scientists the world over "pretending" to have carried out all these astrophysical experiments over the last forty years.
Of course the most confounding factor is that EarthIsASpaceship sincerely believes that the earth is flat. Unquestionably and irrefutably.
Leave it to you to summarize a person's entire personality in a few paragraphs. You analyze people like you're so perfect and almighty. Get over yourself man. Like I've said before, for all intents and purposes THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT from a human's perspective on Earth. The majority of mankind has never, and will never, see the Earth from hundreds of miles in space so your so called evidence is bogus. I say if a certain percentage of people haven't actually experienced something, then the majority rules. That is exactly the case in this situation. Only 530 (or so) people have been to space out of BILLIONS. That's not enough. You lose.
This is THE MOST flat out stupid type of reasoning I have EVER heard...
By this retarded logic, electrons, protons, neutrons, and even atoms don't exist...
DNA also doesn't exist since only a few people ever got to see a full DNA molecule...
-
This is THE MOST flat out stupid type of reasoning I have EVER heard...
By this retarded logic, electrons, protons, neutrons, and even atoms don't exist...
DNA also doesn't exist since only a few people ever got to see a full DNA molecule...
You're the retard. You can't comment even once without a personal attack. BTW electrons don't exist. Only the lines of force. Look it up.
-
This is THE MOST flat out stupid type of reasoning I have EVER heard...
By this retarded logic, electrons, protons, neutrons, and even atoms don't exist...
DNA also doesn't exist since only a few people ever got to see a full DNA molecule...
You're the retard. You can't comment even once without a personal attack. BTW electrons don't exist. Only the lines of force. Look it up.
Stick your tongue on a 9 volt battery and you will feel it.
-
This is THE MOST flat out stupid type of reasoning I have EVER heard...
By this retarded logic, electrons, protons, neutrons, and even atoms don't exist...
DNA also doesn't exist since only a few people ever got to see a full DNA molecule...
You're the retard. You can't comment even once without a personal attack. BTW electrons don't exist. Only the lines of force. Look it up.
It wasn't a personal attack, it was an attack on your illogical rationalization, like the following:
"BTW electrons don't exist. Only the lines of force. Look it up."
Yet again, this is ONE OF THE STUPIDEST THINGS SOMEBODY EVER WROTE! I swear you have some kind of innate talent!
Wanna know how a personal attack looks like? Read the part in green...
-
Let's all stop with the personal attacks or the bam hammer will start swinging.
-
Like I've said before, for all intents and purposes THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT from a human's perspective on Earth.
Like most flat earthers, you place far too much stead on what the human eye can perceive and how that perception is interpreted. You may know that the Greek architects and stonemasons deliberately inbuilt a permanent positive camber into all the beams spanning the columns in their temples. It was to deceive the observer into thinking the beam was horizontal, as any long straight beam LOOKS to be "sagging" to the average human eye. So... what "looks" to be and what "is" can be two totally different things.
The majority of mankind has never, and will never, see the Earth from hundreds of miles in space so your so called evidence is bogus.
I'm assuming that you, personally, have never seen a bacterium, or a photon, or an oxygen molecule, but you're more than happy to accept their existence. Why the double standard? To claim that because one cannot physically see something and therefore its existence is "bogus" is very childlike reasoning. (And less than what I would've expected from you as an argument.)
I say if a certain percentage of people haven't actually experienced something, then the majority rules.
This is such a nonsensical argument I can't believe you've posted it! I've never sky-dived, but people who have told me they reached terminal velocity before opening their parachutes. As one of the majority who've never sky-dived, I'd be a fool to claim that they were lying. With you logic though, I'd be correct and they'd be wrong LOL.
That is exactly the case in this situation. Only 530 (or so) people have been to space out of BILLIONS. That's not enough. You lose.
Oh dear. Only 300 (or so) people belive the earth is flat out of BILLIONS. That's not enough. I win. By 230 people.
Sorry.
-
First of all, you do not know how many people think the Earth is flat. You're just counting the members of the FES. I'm not a member and I think it's flat. And you're excluding people who's opinions aren't even known.
Second of all, you should take your own advice when considering what you perceive with your eyes. That ship on the horizon may appear to "go down" on the horizon but it could be an illusion. And in fact, it is because there is another explanation for it.
As far as experience, the reason I accept things to be true is because of the numerous people who have also experienced it, even if I haven't. Only a very few have been to the moon. The odds are not in their favor. In other words, they have not EARNED the trust. I'm sorry, that's just how I see it. Now as far as the comment I made about the astronauts, I need to clarify something....I think it's quite possible they actually believe they are in space, even though they are still on Earth. I don't think the ISS is really what it's portrayed to be. I've discussed that on another thread so I'm not going to get into it again.
-
First of all, you do not know how many people think the Earth is flat. You're just counting the members of the FES. I'm not a member and I think it's flat. And you're excluding people who's opinions aren't even known.
Second of all, you should take your own advice when considering what you perceive with your eyes. That ship on the horizon may appear to "go down" on the horizon but it could be an illusion. And in fact, it is because there is another explanation for it.
As far as experience, the reason I accept things to be true is because of the numerous people who have also experienced it, even if I haven't. Only a very few have been to the moon. The odds are not in their favor. In other words, they have not EARNED the trust. I'm sorry, that's just how I see it. Now as far as the comment I made about the astronauts, I need to clarify something....I think it's quite possible they actually believe they are in space, even though they are still on Earth. I don't think the ISS is really what it's portrayed to be. I've discussed that on another thread so I'm not going to get into it again.
Does this mean there is another explanation for the sun setting across the world and satellite TV?
-
First of all, you do not know how many people think the Earth is flat. You're just counting the members of the FES. I'm not a member and I think it's flat. And you're excluding people who's opinions aren't even known.
I agree wholeheartedly; I have absolutely no idea of how many people believe the earth is flat. Therefore, can you please give me your estimate.
Second of all, you should take your own advice when considering what you perceive with your eyes. That ship on the horizon may appear to "go down" on the horizon but it could be an illusion. And in fact, it is because there is another explanation for it.
You're correct of course. The "sinking ship" phenomenon could be an optical illusion. But it's been proven by replicable geophysical theorems about the planet, and simple high-school geometry not to be. The practical observations of the ship match precisely with the proposed predictions made by mathematical theory—considering the earth to be spherical.
There's far too many proven optical theories dismissed by flat earthers as simply "illusions", and which in reality is an all-too-easy cop-out.
As far as experience, the reason I accept things to be true is because of the numerous people who have also experienced it, even if I haven't. Only a very few have been to the moon. The odds are not in their favor. In other words, they have not EARNED the trust.
So if I'm reading this correctly, you're claiming that every one of those 533 people who've viewed the planet from earth-orbit altitude, and the 12 astronauts who've walked on the moon are all lying? Bearing in mind that they come from around 20 different countries (with often opposing politico-military leanings)? For what specific purposes would they be (allegedly) lying about the geometry of the planet?
I'm sorry, that's just how I see it. Now as far as the comment I made about the astronauts, I need to clarify something....I think it's quite possible they actually believe they are in space [...]
So you have no viable evidence to support this bizarre claim—other than you "think" it's "possible" that they "believe" they're in space? Doesn't sound too scientific when you read it back does it? More so when you consider NASA's collection of moon rocks brought back to earth by various missions, and which have totally different chemical compositions to any to rocks found on earth (and thereby refuting in advance any claims made of fraud).
Or do you personally claim that these moon rocks are fraudulent, or were sourced on earth and NASA is lying (again!) about their origins and/or composition?
-
So if I'm reading this correctly, you're claiming that every one of those 533 people who've viewed the planet from earth-orbit altitude, and the 12 astronauts who've walked on the moon are all lying? Bearing in mind that they come from around 20 different countries (with often opposing politico-military leanings)? For what specific purposes would they be (allegedly) lying about the geometry of the planet?
No, I said they BELIEVE they are hundreds of miles above the Earth (on the ISS) but in reality, they aren't. You know, a psychological trip like one of those Disneyland rides. LOL Who knows with the 12 moon men. They could all be lying Freemasons...we know some of them were. Moon rocks don't mean squat. They could be taken from Antarctica or some other place few humans have ever been.
-
Think of all the people in the world that make money from filling us all full of absolute bull crap, from mediums to faith healers and so on and these people don't think a bunch of people can put on a space suit for pictures, then sit and badly lie about fake exploits. lol
Naive is an understatement with some of these.
-
Think of all the people in the world that make money from filling us all full of absolute bull crap, from mediums to faith healers and so on and these people don't think a bunch of people can put on a space suit for pictures, then sit and badly lie about fake exploits. lol
Naive is an understatement with some of these.
Oh, like Rowbotham, the known con artist?
-
No, I said they BELIEVE they are hundreds of miles above the Earth (on the ISS) but in reality, they aren't. You know, a psychological trip like one of those Disneyland rides. LOL Who knows with the 12 moon men.
So you're seriously suggesting that highly technically trained astronauts could be fooled by a Disneyland-type ride? Is that really the best that flat earthers can claim LOL.
Moon rocks don't mean squat. They could be taken from Antarctica or some other place few humans have ever been.
Apparently you missed the part of my comment wherein I said that when you consider NASA's collection of moon rocks brought back to earth by various missions, and which have totally different chemical compositions to any to rocks found on earth which thereby refutes any claims of fraud.
You really need to consider more thoroughly what people are actually writing rather than jumping to your own erroneous conclusions.
So... how would you explain the totally different rock composition? And please don't suggest Antarctica again where, literally, thousands—not a "few"—people have been.
-
Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)
-
I was watching a film,"transformers, dark side of the moon" and I thought, "wow, the special effects are amazing." I then looked at the flashbacks of the moonlanding scenario, as they were showing during the start of the film and it looked like they were on the moon, with the lander and everything, except more clear and a bit more hi-tech.
I then saw the scene where the transformers are waiting to get off the planet in a shuttle. It showed the shuttle, with a few extras added to it, on the launch pad, ready to take off.
It all looked so real. Watch the film, it really opens your eyes at how anything can be made to look real.
Anyone who hasn't seen the film...watch it and tell me that things can't be manipulated to show us what they want to show us.
The only difference between watching films like this and watching supposed reality, is, one is told to you in fictional terms and lets you know that. The other is told to you as real and forces that mindset onto you.
So what pictures or video can be deemed credible? The real answer, is, none, unless you decide what you want to decide.
Oh, one more thing. Guess who had a small part to play in the film? It was Buzz Aldrin. ;D
-
Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)
The actual truth regarding that incident:
The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon!
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!
-
Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)
The actual truth regarding that incident:
The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon!
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!
You do an absolute terrible job of trying to convince people. If anything, you're more inclined to make people seriously question the authenticity of it all, rather than convince them of lies being truths.
-
Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)
The actual truth regarding that incident:
The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon!
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!
You do an absolute terrible job of trying to convince people. If anything, you're more inclined to make people seriously question the authenticity of it all, rather than convince them of lies being truths.
Works for me. The one thing about conspiracy theorist they make assumptions and then it starts to look like facts. It circulates like wildfire because it looks like NASA is evil. Before you know it, a guy like tappet thinks he found proof that the moon landing never happen. You guy are so gullible with your own theories.
-
Ok, maybe that was a bad example. How about Big Foot and The Loch Ness Monster and Chupacadra in Mexico. Photos have been shown of those and they have not been proven to be fraudulent to my knowledge. I mean, currently there is a tv series that investigates Big Foot sightings.
And have you ever actually SEEN them with a sighting? I know i watched a couple of marathons for a while of it before, and not once did I ever see a clear, viable shot of it. And a fair number of photos of a lot have things, have been debunked and proven as either fakes, or misidentification of things.
The problem, as has been stated by many RE's before, is that you can't prove a negative. We can say there's no evidence for bigfoot, we can't say he doesn't exist.
I am an extreme sceptic of outrageous claims, its why i stop watching a lot of these "search" for shows (and i've watched quite a few of them), if they end every show with "we may not have found <blank this time> but we may never know", I know they're just trying to perpetuate the belief.
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/apple-maps-discovers-loch-ness-monster-world-discovers-190900038.html
-
Ok, maybe that was a bad example. How about Big Foot and The Loch Ness Monster and Chupacadra in Mexico. Photos have been shown of those and they have not been proven to be fraudulent to my knowledge. I mean, currently there is a tv series that investigates Big Foot sightings.
And have you ever actually SEEN them with a sighting? I know i watched a couple of marathons for a while of it before, and not once did I ever see a clear, viable shot of it. And a fair number of photos of a lot have things, have been debunked and proven as either fakes, or misidentification of things.
The problem, as has been stated by many RE's before, is that you can't prove a negative. We can say there's no evidence for bigfoot, we can't say he doesn't exist.
I am an extreme sceptic of outrageous claims, its why i stop watching a lot of these "search" for shows (and i've watched quite a few of them), if they end every show with "we may not have found <blank this time> but we may never know", I know they're just trying to perpetuate the belief.
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/apple-maps-discovers-loch-ness-monster-world-discovers-190900038.html
I thought you did not believe in satellites. So which one is it? The story is true or satellites are real?
-
Works for me. The one thing about conspiracy theorist they make assumptions and then it starts to look like facts. It circulates like wildfire because it looks like NASA is evil. Before you know it, a guy like tappet thinks he found proof that the moon landing never happen. You guy are so gullible with your own theories.
Whilst I agree that we can all be gullible with our theories (as none of us know the real truth)...you have to have the mind to sort the wheat from the chaff when you can plainly see how to separate the stand out parts.
Normal everyday people can see things amiss with a lot of stuff and it has nothing with their thoughts on Earth shape.
There's gullible and there's unconditional gullibility. You display the latter, as do a lot of your little friends.
-
Ok, maybe that was a bad example. How about Big Foot and The Loch Ness Monster and Chupacadra in Mexico. Photos have been shown of those and they have not been proven to be fraudulent to my knowledge. I mean, currently there is a tv series that investigates Big Foot sightings.
And have you ever actually SEEN them with a sighting? I know i watched a couple of marathons for a while of it before, and not once did I ever see a clear, viable shot of it. And a fair number of photos of a lot have things, have been debunked and proven as either fakes, or misidentification of things.
The problem, as has been stated by many RE's before, is that you can't prove a negative. We can say there's no evidence for bigfoot, we can't say he doesn't exist.
I am an extreme sceptic of outrageous claims, its why i stop watching a lot of these "search" for shows (and i've watched quite a few of them), if they end every show with "we may not have found <blank this time> but we may never know", I know they're just trying to perpetuate the belief.
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/apple-maps-discovers-loch-ness-monster-world-discovers-190900038.html
And if you zoom out a bit on that, you can clearly see a boat traveling directly through that area.
-
I was watching a film,"transformers, dark side of the moon" and I thought, "wow, the special effects are amazing." I then looked at the flashbacks of the moonlanding scenario, as they were showing during the start of the film and it looked like they were on the moon, with the lander and everything, except more clear and a bit more hi-tech.
I then saw the scene where the transformers are waiting to get off the planet in a shuttle. It showed the shuttle, with a few extras added to it, on the launch pad, ready to take off.
It all looked so real. Watch the film, it really opens your eyes at how anything can be made to look real.
Anyone who hasn't seen the film...watch it and tell me that things can't be manipulated to show us what they want to show us.
The only difference between watching films like this and watching supposed reality, is, one is told to you in fictional terms and lets you know that. The other is told to you as real and forces that mindset onto you.
So what pictures or video can be deemed credible? The real answer, is, none, unless you decide what you want to decide.
Oh, one more thing. Guess who had a small part to play in the film? It was Buzz Aldrin. ;D
I love those Transformers movies. And this is an example of why people shouldn't be so gullible and trusting of what they see on a screen.
-
And have you ever actually SEEN them with a sighting? I know i watched a couple of marathons for a while of it before, and not once did I ever see a clear, viable shot of it. And a fair number of photos of a lot have things, have been debunked and proven as either fakes, or misidentification of things.
The problem, as has been stated by many RE's before, is that you can't prove a negative. We can say there's no evidence for bigfoot, we can't say he doesn't exist.
I am an extreme sceptic of outrageous claims, its why i stop watching a lot of these "search" for shows (and i've watched quite a few of them), if they end every show with "we may not have found <blank this time> but we may never know", I know they're just trying to perpetuate the belief.
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/apple-maps-discovers-loch-ness-monster-world-discovers-190900038.html
I thought you did not believe in satellites. So which one is it? The story is true or satellites are real?
You're right, I don't. I just wanted to show an example how people can take a photo of something and people either accept it without question, they perpetuate the myth for money, or they investigate it. I admire those who investigate and look for other possible explanations. Most people are gullible fools.
-
And have you ever actually SEEN them with a sighting? I know i watched a couple of marathons for a while of it before, and not once did I ever see a clear, viable shot of it. And a fair number of photos of a lot have things, have been debunked and proven as either fakes, or misidentification of things.
The problem, as has been stated by many RE's before, is that you can't prove a negative. We can say there's no evidence for bigfoot, we can't say he doesn't exist.
I am an extreme sceptic of outrageous claims, its why i stop watching a lot of these "search" for shows (and i've watched quite a few of them), if they end every show with "we may not have found <blank this time> but we may never know", I know they're just trying to perpetuate the belief.
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/apple-maps-discovers-loch-ness-monster-world-discovers-190900038.html
I thought you did not believe in satellites. So which one is it? The story is true or satellites are real?
You're right, I don't. I just wanted to show an example how people can take a photo of something and people either accept it without question, they perpetuate the myth for money, or they investigate it. I admire those who investigate and look for other possible explanations. Most people are gullible fools.
If you do not believe in satellites then maybe you could explain how satellite TV works.
-
And have you ever actually SEEN them with a sighting? I know i watched a couple of marathons for a while of it before, and not once did I ever see a clear, viable shot of it. And a fair number of photos of a lot have things, have been debunked and proven as either fakes, or misidentification of things.
The problem, as has been stated by many RE's before, is that you can't prove a negative. We can say there's no evidence for bigfoot, we can't say he doesn't exist.
I am an extreme sceptic of outrageous claims, its why i stop watching a lot of these "search" for shows (and i've watched quite a few of them), if they end every show with "we may not have found <blank this time> but we may never know", I know they're just trying to perpetuate the belief.
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/apple-maps-discovers-loch-ness-monster-world-discovers-190900038.html
I thought you did not believe in satellites. So which one is it? The story is true or satellites are real?
You're right, I don't. I just wanted to show an example how people can take a photo of something and people either accept it without question, they perpetuate the myth for money, or they investigate it. I admire those who investigate and look for other possible explanations. Most people are gullible fools.
The people that make wrong conclusion are people like you. You look at a picture and go in this fake, suspicious with crazy mode. Most people don't believe those stores. It is like the tabloids.
-
No, starman, you're wrong. It's not about just looking at a picture and deciding it's fake. It's about starting from a certain point with something. For instance: If you see that something looks fine, then there is no reason to assume anything other, unless you have seen other pictures that you can pick holes in or don't appear to show reality, or basically look like mock up pictures.
If you showed me a picture of you with a painted sky and sea behind you and you were stood on a beach in a very skimpy bright yellow mankini, with spiders legs hanging out the sides, yet all you were stood on was a small portion of a stage covered in sand; I would look at the picture and think, "hmmm, what's that queer looking old man doing in that picture, which looks as if he's on some sunny beach, except, somehow, it looks a bit fake."
If I then said to you, "look, starman, I don't believe you were on a sunny beach...it looks like it's a stage set"...you could say, " ok, it's a fair cop...I had this picture taken to make out I was with ausGeoff on a sunny beach in Australia in one of Geoff's mankini's, so I could impress all the people on the flat Earth society."
Some dummy could come along, before you actually admitted to the deception...'you know'...someone like; Inquisitive and he would say, "wow,starman, nice picture, it looks so lovely where you are and your mankini looks fabulous on you; did you beam that live by satellite back to your Canadian friends."
You know; things like that.
-
HAHAHAHA :D HIL ARIOUS! I can't stop smiling. ;D
-
No, starman, you're wrong. It's not about just looking at a picture and deciding it's fake. It's about starting from a certain point with something. For instance: If you see that something looks fine, then there is no reason to assume anything other, unless you have seen other pictures that you can pick holes in or don't appear to show reality, or basically look like mock up pictures.
If you showed me a picture of you with a painted sky and sea behind you and you were stood on a beach in a very skimpy bright yellow mankini, with spiders legs hanging out the sides, yet all you were stood on was a small portion of a stage covered in sand; I would look at the picture and think, "hmmm, what's that queer looking old man doing in that picture, which looks as if he's on some sunny beach, except, somehow, it looks a bit fake."
If I then said to you, "look, starman, I don't believe you were on a sunny beach...it looks like it's a stage set"...you could say, " ok, it's a fair cop...I had this picture taken to make out I was with ausGeoff on a sunny beach in Australia in one of Geoff's mankini's, so I could impress all the people on the flat Earth society."
Some dummy could come along, before you actually admitted to the deception...'you know'...someone like; Inquisitive and he would say, "wow,starman, nice picture, it looks so lovely where you are and your mankini looks fabulous on you; did you beam that live by satellite back to your Canadian friends."
You know; things like that.
I understand that but on the picture it could be anything. There is always people that love to sensationalize things like that. That is why they called the Lockness monster. So in the end why was the article posted here?
-
I understand that but on the picture it could be anything. There is always people that love to sensationalize things like that. That is why they called the Lockness monster. So in the end why was the article posted here?
Because the topic is about pictures and video being deemed credible or not. We all don't perceive things to be the same no matter how much shouting and screaming is done with each person saying, "but surely you can see it's fake." The fact is, it all depends on the person and how they are basically set up in life.
You can see things as being real, because that's what your mind accepts, because you probably haven't really had to be put in any situations that's gave you any reason to question.
You said you talked to astronauts on the ISS and you firmly believe that without question. So anyone coming along and saying that the ISS is fake or the pictures are fake, or video is...it will be met with scorn from you. Even when video evidence shows anomalies , you will argue that they are legit, with no problems that you can see.
It's like being at the pub with a good friend who is the kindest most giving person in there, plus the most placid.
If someone took you aside and said, " ahh, you know him do you?" and you say, " yeah, he's a top bloke, what you see is what you get and kind hearted with it all."
If you were then to be told that your good friend beats the crap out of his wife on a regular basis...you are going to go into defensive mode and maybe tell the person to politely piss off as you are not listening to idle gossip.
If over time, other people kept mentioning the wife beater, you would then have two choices. You can plug your ears and close your eyes, not believing a word, or you can start to wonder if the person you're sitting with, is not the person you thought he was.
10 years down the line since seeing your friend, (due to moving into ausGeoffs, maybe), you see a write up about your pub chum on charges of wife battery, spanning decades. Only then would you loosen your mankini and look at ausGeoff and say, " oh my goodness, Geoffrey' you know that mate I used to drink with before I decided to stay with you in sunny Australia?" And Geoffrey would say, " yeah, what about it cobber?" And you would say, "the people were right, he was a wife beater and I just didn't bloody listen, sport." Then Geoffrey would say, "ok, cobber, but stop acting all Australian with this sport nonsense; you're Canadian and it should teach you a lesson to start listening."
From this point on, you could then decide that your conversations with your anti gravity acrobatic astronaut friends, may not be what you thought and they could be talking to you whilst sitting in a tea room at NASA, filling you full of any old guff.
Do you see what I mean, starman?
Of course; the opposite could happen and the whispers could be idle gossip. The point is; you will never know, unless you actually start to really take a good look. Take a different approach to things, even if it's just for your own peace of mind.
After all; who's going to be the most infuriated if it turns out we have been fed a load of clap trap? Me or you?
You see; I will simply say, "ah well, there you go, we found out it was bull crap.2
You will think, " you sly, duping, lying, acting buggers. You had me talking on my ham radio, thinking you were up there. I feel so let down that I'm inclined to run in front of ausGeoff and scream, then pull my mankini to one side and shout, WIGGLE WIGGLE, COBBER, WE'VE BEEN DONE UP LIKE A PAIR OF KIPPERS, COBBER."
Do you see what I'm saying, starman?
-
You are telling cute stories I am not interesting to read. People with dough about their beliefs will try very hard to convince others with long stories. What makes you think your world is real? You don't believe in anything. No news, reports, documents and deny almost everything. You have not seen anything that related to any important events. You just stick to you computer and look outside your window. I feel sorry for you.
-
You are telling cute stories I am not interesting to read. People with dough about their beliefs will try very hard to convince others with long stories. What makes you think your world is real? You don't believe in anything. No news, reports, documents and deny almost everything. You have not seen anything that related to any important events. You just stick to you computer and look outside your window. I feel sorry for you.
I don't think money has anything to do with what people believe, but anyway; I used to be like you. I don't mean wearing mankini's; I mean, I used to simply accept everything for what was told. I never thought to question it.
As I got older, that's when I started to see little things that didn't add up, so I delved further. In some ways I wish I hadn't, because it batters your head when you realise just how duped we have been all our lives.
-
You are telling cute stories I am not interesting to read. People with dough about their beliefs will try very hard to convince others with long stories. What makes you think your world is real? You don't believe in anything. No news, reports, documents and deny almost everything. You have not seen anything that related to any important events. You just stick to you computer and look outside your window. I feel sorry for you.
I don't think money has anything to do with what people believe, but anyway; I used to be like you. I don't mean wearing mankini's; I mean, I used to simply accept everything for what was told. I never thought to question it.
As I got older, that's when I started to see little things that didn't add up, so I delved further. In some ways I wish I hadn't, because it batters your head when you realise just how duped we have been all our lives.
This may comfort you or not but i will never be like you. I never accepted what was told. I questioned and made sure it all made sense based on a lot of other information and facts. You are talking about accepting things at face value. If you did that you were not that smart to begin with. Gathering knowledge is a long process. Some people understand things and some don't. Everything in the RE world fits perfectly with no loos ends and nothing in the FE works. If that is your world I feel sad for you because you live in suspicion of everything. You question everything with dough. That is not a happy way to live and like you said money has nothing to do with it.
-
You are telling cute stories I am not interesting to read. People with dough about their beliefs will try very hard to convince others with long stories. What makes you think your world is real? You don't believe in anything. No news, reports, documents and deny almost everything. You have not seen anything that related to any important events. You just stick to you computer and look outside your window. I feel sorry for you.
I don't think money has anything to do with what people believe, but anyway; I used to be like you. I don't mean wearing mankini's; I mean, I used to simply accept everything for what was told. I never thought to question it.
As I got older, that's when I started to see little things that didn't add up, so I delved further. In some ways I wish I hadn't, because it batters your head when you realise just how duped we have been all our lives.
This may comfort you or not but i will never be like you. I never accepted what was told. I questioned and made sure it all made sense based on a lot of other information and facts. You are talking about accepting things at face value. If you did that you were not that smart to begin with. Gathering knowledge is a long process. Some people understand things and some don't. Everything in the RE world fits perfectly with no loos ends and nothing in the FE works. If that is your world I feel sad for you because you live in suspicion of everything. You question everything with dough. That is not a happy way to live and like you said money has nothing to do with it.
I don't offer money whilst questioning things, so stop making out I use my wealth to do so, please.
I understand what I need to understand. I leave all the junk out of it, because most of space science is absolute junk theories and calculations.
To calculate anything, you need to know what you are calculating. You are on this site arguing a 240, 000 mile away. moon, a 93 million mile away sun, against a 3000 mile away moon and sun.
On top of that, you are also calculating against the very distinct possibility that the sun and moon are mere reflections, so how do you calculate a reflection?
Of course, you can shout and scream that your calculations you were given are correct. It seems that, so can the flat Earth believers.
Someone is very wrong. Maybe both are very wrong. The point is...someone is for absolute certain.
By flat Earth calculations, it marries up that their sun and moon are correct. Yet your calculations marry up to make yours correct.
How many more ways can it be correct?
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
Certainly, but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.
-
Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.
http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0 (http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0)
And how do you think you'll see the 20cm/km curvature on a panorama view from very close to the ground? Of course it appears flat.
And it's a panorama view. The sides are stretched.
The only way to properly see Earth's curvature is from a very high altitude, not from sea level.
Like in this photo:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg/800px-Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg)
Taken from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2002. They were on the dark side of Earth. You can even see the moon in the distance.
In that case the 'Space Shuttle Endeavour' has a curved tail fin.
-
Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".
Here's some examples of why people with a natural intelligence question everything: (http://) and #t=140 (http://#t=140)
At about 24:10 on the second video, yet again, a supposedly convex Earth going concave. I suppose, to be a good Russian citizen, you would have to believe anything and everything as told by the so-called 'Government', even when they routinely contradict themselves. Do you believe EVERYTHING your so-called 'Government' tells you? Just one example of 'NO' makes you a ... guess what: a CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!! Why would they lie to you? They wouldn't do THAT would they? Do YOU ever lie?
-
I got out of bed, looked at the floor of my bedroom. It was flat. I am now convinced the entire massive Earth is flat.
I advise all of you to do this experiment: Look at the floor of your bedroom upon awaking. Notice how it is flat. You can't see a curve. Case closed!
Note: If you look very carefully you will also notice your bed is flat and does not have a curvature. More evidence.
Now go out and walk about. Look around, then you will also notice it's fairly flat as well, apart from the usual hills and what not.
Look in the sky and watch the sun move, whilst you feel nice and still.
Get on a kids roundabout and spin it and watch the sun move and you will realise you are actually moving, because your body's balance will let you know.
There's millions of little things you can do to realise you are walking about on the most common sense terrain of a flat Earth. You listen to your own body's balance.
Reliance on the balancing bean that the mainstream science gives you is at best, nonsense and at worst, pure lunacy.
You just don't get it, do you... (http://)
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
Certainly, but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.
When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
Certainly, but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.
When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.
Where does the sun go when it sets?
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
Certainly, but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.
When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.
Where does the sun go when it sets?
It goes to the next part of the Earth to shine on that, out of your line of sight as it moves into the distance.
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
Certainly, but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.
When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.
Let me run that back at you.
When you deny all empirical evidence, then you see no reason to believe in facts. You follow that to that to the letter so that's gonna fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. You'll never open your mind to the facts.
-
It's more than apparent—judging by sceptimatic's confused attempts at debunking the NASA photographic images, that he has very little understanding of the technicalities of digital photography (or in some cases film photography). He also fails to comprehend the ongoing issues caused by lens flare, ghosting, and aberration.
As an example, when a lens is directed at a strong light source, a whitish flare is produced. When non-incident light reflects off the lens surfaces (especially internal elements) and the mirror frame, ghosting often occurs. Additionally, the lens' spherical front surface causes some degree of image distortion and contains irregularities that cause problems such as chromatic aberration, or color bleeding.
Also, when a lens is directed at a strong source point of light (like the sun in space), unneeded rays of light reflected from the lens surface, the aperture blades, or the camera mirror's frame can have a "blanketing" effect on the lens, and which causes all or part of the image to turn whitish, and sharpness is lost. This is exactly what's happening with the apparent white haze appearing to spill over the opposite side of the shuttle's tail.
Another effect is known as coma, which is a refractive problem that occurs in off-axis point light sources causing image aberrations. Due to the difference in refraction near the edges of a spherical lens element, or at the edge of the aperture blades, off-axis point sources of light may appear stretched and "haloed" at the focal plane. This results in improper convergence of light rather than convergence into a single focal point. Coma is generally a combination of both spherical aberration of a point light source and chromatic aberration to produce an effect that looks like a comet. It's also a problem that largely affects astrophotography, as isolated point light sources are most common in those scenarios.
Modern high-end technical lenses usually include an aspherical lens element which cause less refraction at the edges and more in the centre, resulting in proper convergence over a given focal length.
Possibly the most commonly caused aberration is lens flare, which is severe in the posted image of the sun. Flare occurs when non-incident light enters the lens and reflects off of the various internal lens elements or diaphragm. The effect, when strong enough, can create bright spots and streaks, and may also have a detrimental effect on contrast where it occurs. Flare is can also be caused by a very bright near off-scene light source, such as the sun, or a bright rearwards light illuminating the overall scene.
Without understanding the complexities of all these shortcomings in photography, it's very difficult to simply dismiss NASA images posted here as bogus or Photoshopped. It would also seem logical that if NASA were manipulating their images, they'd be taking a lot more care to delete any all-too-obvious giveaways.
And the flat earthers still haven't posted any of their images for the round earthers to examine. Again, why is this? Why are they so coy about showing us even just a couple of images? Shouldn't be all that difficult if—according to them—the earth is truly flat.
C'mon flat earthers. Put your money (or your images) where your mouths are!
Then perhaps you can explain why the space shuttles's tail fin is CURVED also.
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
Certainly, but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.
When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.
Let me run that back at you.
When you deny all empirical evidence, then you see no reason to believe in facts. You follow that to that to the letter so that's gonna fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. You'll never open your mind to the facts.
I'd dearly love to know what the FACTS are. One thing is for certain. What we are being told, are not FACTS.
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
Certainly, but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.
When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.
Where does the sun go when it sets?
It goes to the next part of the Earth to shine on that, out of your line of sight as it moves into the distance.
How do you explain it rising and setting on the horizon?
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
Certainly, but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.
When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.
Where does the sun go when it sets?
It goes to the next part of the Earth to shine on that, out of your line of sight as it moves into the distance.
How do you explain it rising and setting on the horizon?
I've just told you. It's not rising and setting, it's simply moving away from your line of sight and then appearing into your line of sight.
-
Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.
That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.
Certainly, but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.
When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.
Where does the sun go when it sets?
It goes to the next part of the Earth to shine on that, out of your line of sight as it moves into the distance.
How do you explain it rising and setting on the horizon?
I've just told you. It's not rising and setting, it's simply moving away from your line of sight and then appearing into your line of sight.
How high is it and do observations and measurements around the world prove this?
-
How high is it and do observations and measurements around the world prove this?
I don't know how high it is, it's a reflection, so it's as high as the sky, whatever that height is.
-
The funny thing is, the FE people have exactly the same arguments as the HE people (hollow earth). So which one is true? Is the earth flat, or is the earth hollow? xD
-
You are telling cute stories I am not interesting to read. People with dough about their beliefs will try very hard to convince others with long stories. What makes you think your world is real? You don't believe in anything. No news, reports, documents and deny almost everything. You have not seen anything that related to any important events. You just stick to you computer and look outside your window. I feel sorry for you.
I don't think money has anything to do with what people believe, but anyway; I used to be like you. I don't mean wearing mankini's; I mean, I used to simply accept everything for what was told. I never thought to question it.
As I got older, that's when I started to see little things that didn't add up, so I delved further. In some ways I wish I hadn't, because it batters your head when you realise just how duped we have been all our lives.
This may comfort you or not but i will never be like you. I never accepted what was told. I questioned and made sure it all made sense based on a lot of other information and facts. You are talking about accepting things at face value. If you did that you were not that smart to begin with. Gathering knowledge is a long process. Some people understand things and some don't. Everything in the RE world fits perfectly with no loos ends and nothing in the FE works. If that is your world I feel sad for you because you live in suspicion of everything. You question everything with dough. That is not a happy way to live and like you said money has nothing to do with it.
I don't offer money whilst questioning things, so stop making out I use my wealth to do so, please.
I understand what I need to understand. I leave all the junk out of it, because most of space science is absolute junk theories and calculations.
To calculate anything, you need to know what you are calculating. You are on this site arguing a 240, 000 mile away. moon, a 93 million mile away sun, against a 3000 mile away moon and sun.
On top of that, you are also calculating against the very distinct possibility that the sun and moon are mere reflections, so how do you calculate a reflection?
Of course, you can shout and scream that your calculations you were given are correct. It seems that, so can the flat Earth believers.
Someone is very wrong. Maybe both are very wrong. The point is...someone is for absolute certain.
By flat Earth calculations, it marries up that their sun and moon are correct. Yet your calculations marry up to make yours correct.
How many more ways can it be correct?
Now that you mentioned the moon is 3000 miles away. If the moon would be up 300 miles and you went 3000 miles east or west the angle to the moon would be 45 degrees right! At that angle you would see part of the back of the moon. If you went even further on the flat earth you would see even more. You can't do that it the moon is 240,000 miles away.
-
How high is it and do observations and measurements around the world prove this?
I don't know how high it is, it's a reflection, so it's as high as the sky, whatever that height is.
Oh so your senses are true only when "looking outside the window to see the world is flat", but when your visual senses tell you that the sun is setting below the horizon, THEN the senses aren't good anymore? Riiiiiiiiiiight... ::)
Oh the hypocrisy!
-
Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.
http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0 (http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0)
And how do you think you'll see the 20cm/km curvature on a panorama view from very close to the ground? Of course it appears flat.
And it's a panorama view. The sides are stretched.
The only way to properly see Earth's curvature is from a very high altitude, not from sea level.
Like in this photo:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg/800px-Earth%27s_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour.jpg)
Taken from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2002. They were on the dark side of Earth. You can even see the moon in the distance.
In that case the 'Space Shuttle Endeavour' has a curved tail fin.
You FE'ers are all the same you look at a picture and your mind is always looking for errors that are not there. Here is your picture with a straight line drawn from the tip to the bottom of the tail. It is not curved.
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj135/Starman937/800px-Earths_horizon_as_seen_from_Shuttle_Endeavour_zpsaf98a114.jpg)
-
Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)
The actual truth regarding that incident:
The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon!
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!
"The actual truth regarding that incident"
Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks?
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.
-
Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)
The actual truth regarding that incident:
The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon!
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!
"The actual truth regarding that incident"
Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks.
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.
The fact is the story got blown up. Fact is there it was a good will gesture. It was NEVER intended to replicate a moon rock. This is where the conspiracy people make assumption and got crazy with it. Besides why are you looking for thing like this?
-
Now that you mentioned the moon is 3000 miles away. If the moon would be up 300 miles and you went 3000 miles east or west the angle to the moon would be 45 degrees right! At that angle you would see part of the back of the moon. If you went even further on the flat earth you would see even more. You can't do that it the moon is 240,000 miles away.
Funny you mention that...what if the sun IS the back of the moon!
-
Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)
The actual truth regarding that incident:
The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon!
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!
"The actual truth regarding that incident"
Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks.
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.
The fact is the story got blown up. Fact is there it was a good will gesture. It was NEVER intended to replicate a moon rock. This is where the conspiracy people make assumption and got crazy with it. Besides why are you looking for thing like this?
You cannot know the truth you were not there.
None of us were there. We can only go off the stories they are telling us and the story keeps changing.
Stop being delusional.
Blown up or not there have been lies told. That is the only truthful part of that story.
-
Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)
The actual truth regarding that incident:
The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon!
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!
"The actual truth regarding that incident"
Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks.
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.
The fact is the story got blown up. Fact is there it was a good will gesture. It was NEVER intended to replicate a moon rock. This is where the conspiracy people make assumption and got crazy with it. Besides why are you looking for thing like this?
You cannot know the truth you were not there.
None of us were there. We can only go off the stories they are telling us and the story keeps changing.
Stop being delusional.
Blown up or not there have been lies told. That is the only truthful part of that story.
You were not there either. The lies are from the people that make false assumptions then spread it like you did. Everybody was happy with the tour and gesture expect people like you who spread the stories. In then end what was your point to tell us this story?
-
You cannot know the truth you were not there.
None of us were there. We can only go off the stories they are telling us and the story keeps changing.
Stop being delusional.
Blown up or not there have been lies told. That is the only truthful part of that story.
You were not there either. The lies are from the people that make false assumptions then spread it like you did. Everybody was happy with the tour and gesture expect people like you who spread the stories. In then end what was your point to tell us this story?
"Everybody was happy with the tour" so you were there to experience this were you?
Was it common for astronauts to hand out petrified wood back then? I cannot find info on this.
How many countries received the petrified wood gesture?
Or was it only the Dutch Prime minister that got wood?
-
You cannot know the truth you were not there.
None of us were there. We can only go off the stories they are telling us and the story keeps changing.
Stop being delusional.
Blown up or not there have been lies told. That is the only truthful part of that story.
You were not there either. The lies are from the people that make false assumptions then spread it like you did. Everybody was happy with the tour and gesture expect people like you who spread the stories. In then end what was your point to tell us this story?
"Everybody was happy with the tour" so you were there to experience this were you?
Was it common for astronauts to hand out petrified wood back then? I cannot find info on this.
How many countries received the petrified wood gesture?
Or was it only the Dutch Prime minister that got wood?
You are asking silly questions. So why did you bring this up?
-
Looks like everybody's copped wood.
http://thefw.com/grandma-raided-for-selling-moon-rock/ (http://thefw.com/grandma-raided-for-selling-moon-rock/)
http://wfgr.com/woman-tries-to-sell-moon-rocks/ (http://wfgr.com/woman-tries-to-sell-moon-rocks/)
-
Excuses, excuses.
Buzz's answer to the question doesn't exactly reek of being truthful, does it.
Jarrah White meets Buzz Aldrin (http://#)
-
Or was it only the Dutch Prime minister that got wood?
HAHA! The Dutch prime minister got wood! ;D
-
"The actual truth regarding that incident"
Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks?
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.
The article also reported that "Researchers at Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon".
-
"The actual truth regarding that incident"
Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks?
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.
The article also reported that "Researchers at Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon".
That's not the point. The point is: they were presented with supposed moon rock by the so called astronauts. They weren't presented with petrified wood as a sort of, " here you go, here's some petrified wood, because it resembles moon rock."
The silliness of people astounds me. I mean, you will have people who have paid fortunes for a bit of moon rock, or what they think is moon rock when all it is, is Earth rock. lol
You even get people that are paying for a little plot on the moon and get a certificate for it. Hahahaha.
The human race is scarily naive.
-
Here's some more photographic knowledge: (http://)
-
Here's some more photographic knowledge: (http://)
He is a conspiracy theorist like all the others. In the end he did not have the cameras used and the technology NASA used to take pictures on the moon. He assumed a lot of things he had no knowledge of. He assumed the lighting is the same and on earth and it is not. He ask how could the camera have the right lighting and focus. It is because he was not there to see the astronaut do the settings before the camera was set on the tripod to take pictures. In the end, HE was not there to set the camera. He also assumed they just aimed and click. Not so. Do you think NASA has a bunch of engineer that did not anything about cameras?
-
Yeah,,,Nasa,,,lol you know the word'' conditioning
-
Your posts will be moved to the lower fora if you do not take this site seriously. You may also be banned.