The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Riles on November 14, 2007, 10:07:17 PM

Title: Doctored Photos
Post by: Riles on November 14, 2007, 10:07:17 PM
It's claimed that  NASA and who ever else is in on the conspiracy is doctoring all the space photos of Earth.
It would seem to me that the very consistency of the images would negate the "Doctoring " theory. If its been done for many years, by many different people , on many different different machines with different technology as it develops you would HAVE to have inconsistencies.
It would not be possible to get it the same every time .
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Mystified on November 14, 2007, 10:13:03 PM
Ah yes, but you can always look 'back' at your older photos and say "Oh that? That's just an artefact left over from photo processing. You know how technology was back THEN!" or even from another machine as you say. It can all go 'round in circles no matter how many times you say it.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 14, 2007, 10:13:54 PM
You know...

If these 'photographs' have been taken over many years, by many different people with many different camera rigs with completely different technology as it develops, you would HAVE to have inconsistencies. I mean, honestly, you just couldn't get it the same every time...




Right?

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: questions on November 14, 2007, 10:17:17 PM
You know...

If these 'photographs' have been taken over many years, by many different people with many different camera rigs with completely different technology as it develops, you would HAVE to have inconsistencies. I mean, honestly, you just couldn't get it the same every time...




Right?

~D-Draw

Blurs and "fuzzies" would become sharper and clearer over time.  But if you take a picture of the same thing from one year to the next at the same angle with different cameras, it'll still be the same.

Try it!

Tennis ball + 5 cameras (one from the 60s, one from the 70s, one from the 80s, one from the 90s, one from current times)

Take one pic with each.

Isn't it just the same 'ole tennis ball?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 14, 2007, 10:22:49 PM
Surely, a tennis ball doesn't compare nearly to the complexity of the Earth. What I'm saying is that the fact that one might believe there are no INCONSISTENCIES in sattelite photographs taken over the course of 40 years of the EARTH of all things is just ridiculous. Really, the only reason one might think of making this a point is if they were specifically aiming to prove the flat Earth theory wrong and not caring about the other side (because he obviously wasn't thinking about what was happening with his own theory). Face it, you're going to get inconsistencies in these pictures, and no, I don't mean "a little blur," or even a very large blur. Hell, continents could move in that amount of time. You wouldn't call that an INCONSISTENCY? Because I have reason to believe that's the definition of it.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: questions on November 14, 2007, 10:25:28 PM
Surely, a tennis ball doesn't compare nearly to the complexity of the Earth. What I'm saying is that the fact that one might believe there are no INCONSISTENCIES in sattelite photographs taken over the course of 40 years of the EARTH of all things is just ridiculous. Really, the only reason one might think of making this a point is if they were specifically aiming to prove the flat Earth theory wrong and not caring about the other side (because he obviously wasn't thinking about what was happening with his own theory). Face it, you're going to get inconsistencies in these pictures, and no, I don't mean "a little blur," or even a very large blur. Hell, continents could move in that amount of time. You wouldn't call that an INCONSISTENCY? Because I have reason to believe that's the definition of it.

~D-Draw

...Continents... Move... In fourty years?!  Bwahahahaha!!!   ;D

Come on, diego.  You're supposed to be one of the smart ones.

Don't give me that BS.   ::)  At least come up with a PLAUSIBLE argument.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: divito the truthist on November 14, 2007, 10:28:19 PM
Um....why are you guys talking about cameras and such? If the Earth is really flat, what pictures are they taking in which to doctor?

Consistency in photos just means that they use the same filters and techniques.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: questions on November 14, 2007, 10:29:51 PM
Um....why are you guys talking about cameras and such? If the Earth is really flat, what pictures are they taking in which to doctor?

Consistency in photos just means that they use the same filters and techniques.

...Like that!   ;D
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 14, 2007, 10:35:17 PM
Surely, a tennis ball doesn't compare nearly to the complexity of the Earth. What I'm saying is that the fact that one might believe there are no INCONSISTENCIES in sattelite photographs taken over the course of 40 years of the EARTH of all things is just ridiculous. Really, the only reason one might think of making this a point is if they were specifically aiming to prove the flat Earth theory wrong and not caring about the other side (because he obviously wasn't thinking about what was happening with his own theory). Face it, you're going to get inconsistencies in these pictures, and no, I don't mean "a little blur," or even a very large blur. Hell, continents could move in that amount of time. You wouldn't call that an INCONSISTENCY? Because I have reason to believe that's the definition of it.

~D-Draw

...Continents... Move... In fourty years?!  Bwahahahaha!!!   ;D

Come on, diego.  You're supposed to be one of the smart ones.

Don't give me that BS.   ::)  At least come up with a PLAUSIBLE argument.

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. I didn't mean Africa was going to go meet up with South America for a couple of drinks. But rivers could widen, rifts could, mountains can change height, topography can easily be manipulated by humans or otherwise. Et cetera. Not incredibly obvious, but those are inconsistencies if I've ever seen them.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: questions on November 14, 2007, 10:37:30 PM
Surely, a tennis ball doesn't compare nearly to the complexity of the Earth. What I'm saying is that the fact that one might believe there are no INCONSISTENCIES in sattelite photographs taken over the course of 40 years of the EARTH of all things is just ridiculous. Really, the only reason one might think of making this a point is if they were specifically aiming to prove the flat Earth theory wrong and not caring about the other side (because he obviously wasn't thinking about what was happening with his own theory). Face it, you're going to get inconsistencies in these pictures, and no, I don't mean "a little blur," or even a very large blur. Hell, continents could move in that amount of time. You wouldn't call that an INCONSISTENCY? Because I have reason to believe that's the definition of it.

~D-Draw

...Continents... Move... In fourty years?!  Bwahahahaha!!!   ;D

Come on, diego.  You're supposed to be one of the smart ones.

Don't give me that BS.   ::)  At least come up with a PLAUSIBLE argument.

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. I didn't mean Africa was going to go meet up with South America for a couple of drinks. But rivers could widen, rifts could, mountains can change height, topography can easily be manipulated by humans or otherwise. Et cetera. Not incredibly obvious, but those are inconsistencies if I've ever seen them.

~D-Draw

Heehehehehe... That made me giggle inside.   ;D

And on the topic: Yes, that would be evidence... But of what?

If inconsistencies arose, would they be evidence for a FE?  For a RE?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on November 14, 2007, 10:40:58 PM
Neither. But that was just an example of the possible inconsistencies. The point that I'm arguing against was that the OP implied that there would NOT be any inconsistencies in photographs if the Earth was round, but if the photos were doctored, THEN there WOULD be inconsistencies. I just find that implication absolutely bogus. Basically, this point is null for either side.


~D-Draw
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: divito the truthist on November 14, 2007, 11:02:00 PM
The funny part is that even if there were inconsistencies, they could be attributed to camera issues or even atmospheric issues.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: MayhemNeutral on November 15, 2007, 12:34:16 AM
Has anyone from FE ever proven them to be doctored in the first place?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: divito the truthist on November 15, 2007, 01:00:44 AM
Has anyone from FE ever proven them to be doctored in the first place?

How would you like that done?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: MayhemNeutral on November 15, 2007, 01:12:03 AM
Has anyone from FE ever proven them to be doctored in the first place?

How would you like that done?

That's why I'm asking.

EDIT: I mean, then it all goes to no-where at all;
Round earth says the earth is round, comes with pictures.
Flat earth says the earth is flat, says the pictures are fake.
Round earth says no
Flat earth says yes
Round earth says no
Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

That's just stupid, amirite?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 15, 2007, 01:20:18 AM
That's just stupid, amirite?

Yes, which is why REers should really just leave pictures out of it.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Jack on November 15, 2007, 01:24:31 AM
EDIT: I mean, then it all goes to no-where at all;
Round earth says the earth is round, comes with pictures.
Flat earth says the earth is flat, says the pictures are fake.
Round earth says no
Flat earth says yes
Round earth says no
Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

That's just stupid, amirite?
Right, that's why people shouldn't get all worked up on the Internets.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: mick on November 15, 2007, 03:26:50 AM
Everything is a friggin conspiracy theory to you losers.  Shouldn't you all be playing World of Warcraft instead of talking shit.
This is a great place for a laugh.  I can't believe there are people like this walking round in public. FRUITS!!!!
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Trekky0623 on November 15, 2007, 06:11:04 AM
Why are we talking about photography?  His question was why aren't doctored photos filled with inconsistencies.

Everything is a friggin conspiracy theory to you losers.  Shouldn't you all be playing World of Warcraft instead of talking shit.
This is a great place for a laugh.  I can't believe there are people like this walking round in public. FRUITS!!!!

1) 97% of all people here believe the Earth is round.
2) You're not very likely to meet one of the "losers" as you call them since about 3 people here genuinely believe the Earth is flat.
3) World of Warcraft?  Get a life.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2007, 09:14:55 AM
The photos of a Round Earth ARE inconsistent. This has been shown on this forum many times.

The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown. The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another. Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: johnfrusciante on November 15, 2007, 09:49:28 AM
The photos of a Round Earth ARE inconsistent. This has been shown on this forum many times.



oh, well as long as it's been proven on THIS FORUM.  why not submit some of your breakthroughs to an established journal?  that's what real scientists do...
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: eric bloedow on November 15, 2007, 07:16:44 PM
Tom, you idiot, you are comparing pictures of DIFFERENT parts of the earth!

of course the earth isn't 100% green or 100% brown! that's caused by the change in SEASONS! or the difference between JUNGLE and DESERT!

of course the glare is not always the same! that's caused by different angles relative to the sun, like the difference between DAWN and NOON!

of course clouds will have different shadows, because clouds MOVE! haven't you ever looked out of your OWN window?!

now here's a link to a genuinely doctored photo:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/photos/touristguy.html
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 15, 2007, 08:44:32 PM
Actually I'm pretty sure he's talking about different shots of the same views of earth.  What led you to think otherwise?  ???
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: eric bloedow on November 15, 2007, 08:55:34 PM
or maybe he's comparing summer shots to winter shots of the same place, and saying one is fake because there's different amounts of white!

give us some EXAMPLES, Tom! SHOW us some photos and POINT out the differences that you CLAIM are "doctored"!!!!!
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: SushiTsunami on November 15, 2007, 09:53:34 PM
or maybe he's comparing summer shots to winter shots of the same place, and saying one is fake because there's different amounts of white!

give us some EXAMPLES, Tom! SHOW us some photos and POINT out the differences that you CLAIM are "doctored"!!!!!
The funniest thing about your posts is that you keep making them, while claiming people on this forum are idiots and are wasting our time. A tall glass of irony anyone?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Gabe on November 16, 2007, 07:27:22 AM
Waste of time? Is the challenge to provide evidence or the comment on what entertains you more of a waste?  :P
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: eric bloedow on November 16, 2007, 07:52:20 AM
Tom Bishop is the biggest idiot on these forums!
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: divito the truthist on November 16, 2007, 08:01:25 AM
Tom Bishop is the biggest idiot on these forums!

So? Ignore him you dipshit.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 16, 2007, 12:23:29 PM
Tom Bishop is the biggest idiot on these forums!

I think there's a pretty good chance that at this moment you're actually the biggest idiot on these forums.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: divito the truthist on November 16, 2007, 12:29:32 PM
I think there's a pretty good chance that at this moment you're actually the biggest idiot on these forums.

Hah, well said.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: eric bloedow on November 16, 2007, 12:35:23 PM
i'm still waiting for Tom to show some pictures and show WHY he thinks they are doctored...
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on November 16, 2007, 01:50:28 PM
He thinks they're doctored because he believes the earth is flat.  Arguments that go in circles like this are exactly the reason why REers should just accept that photographs aren't considered valid evidence here and move to arguments in favor of RE that actually make a POINT.

It's impossible to know whether a photograph has been faked or not and they're not considered valid evidence on these forums.  Deal with it.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: eric bloedow on November 16, 2007, 03:24:16 PM
so i should just ACCEPT Tom B's claim that ALL photos by NASA are fakes?

how should i put this?

picture a giant balance-style scale; the kind with the 2 arms.

on one side: every single member of NASA, every single person who has ever taken photos from an airplane, anyone who has ever taken photos from a mountain or tall building.

on the other side: Tom Bishop, all alone, who doesn't even OWN a camera!

do you really think Tom's side would carry more weight?

WHY are photos not considered evidence? JUST because TOM arbitrarily decided that they are not?

so, either millions of people are lying, or Tom, and only Tom, is.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Gabe on November 16, 2007, 04:18:49 PM
They decided photos can't be used because they disprove FE. If any more evidence arises, it will be discredited through the excuse of being faked by the conspiracy, inaccurate, or fictitious.  :'(

But yeah, Tom seems to run away from everything he can't explain.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: questions on November 17, 2007, 07:16:10 PM
Hey guys,

Sorry for being off-topic, but I just had to put my two cents in...



If I had to pick a "biggest idiot" award winner for this forum, it would be TomB.

No matter how stupid other people's arguments are, his are stupid consistently.  And that wouldn't be so bad.  Some RE'ers have the same dilemma.  But then, he exchanges one stupidity for another.  One unbelievable postulation for another, contradictory idea which turns out to be just as hard to believe.

No matter who you are, FE or RE proponent, I think you have to agree:  Tom Bishop is the epitome of idiocy on the FES forums.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Username on November 17, 2007, 07:52:02 PM
Hey guys,

Sorry for being off-topic, but I just had to put my two cents in...



If I had to pick a "biggest idiot" award winner for this forum, it would be TomB.

No matter how stupid other people's arguments are, his are stupid consistently.  And that wouldn't be so bad.  Some RE'ers have the same dilemma.  But then, he exchanges one stupidity for another.  One unbelievable postulation for another, contradictory idea which turns out to be just as hard to believe.

No matter who you are, FE or RE proponent, I think you have to agree:  Tom Bishop is the epitome of idiocy on the FES forums.
He's more disingenuous than stupid.  Sometimes some of the things he says are pretty clever if they weren't rediculous. 

Other members, and I won't name names, clearly don't *understand* anything.  At all.   Ever.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: questions on November 17, 2007, 08:05:58 PM
Hey guys,

Sorry for being off-topic, but I just had to put my two cents in...



If I had to pick a "biggest idiot" award winner for this forum, it would be TomB.

No matter how stupid other people's arguments are, his are stupid consistently.  And that wouldn't be so bad.  Some RE'ers have the same dilemma.  But then, he exchanges one stupidity for another.  One unbelievable postulation for another, contradictory idea which turns out to be just as hard to believe.

No matter who you are, FE or RE proponent, I think you have to agree:  Tom Bishop is the epitome of idiocy on the FES forums.
He's more disingenuous than stupid.  Sometimes some of the things he says are pretty clever if they weren't rediculous. 

Other members, and I won't name names, clearly don't *understand* anything.  At all.   Ever.

Actually, username, I'm not convinced TomB even understands why his ideas are stupid.  They can't be clever and ridiculous at the same time. 

It's like explaining a rainbow to an 8 year old by scientific means.  The child will never fully comprehend what you said, and even if he gets a little of it correct, the rest is so completely off-the-wall that it is no longer the explanation you gave.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 07, 2007, 12:28:53 PM
The photos of a Round Earth ARE inconsistent. This has been shown on this forum many times.

The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown. The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another. Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.

i stumbled on this old post.  and noticed that bishop never submitted for inspection, these allegedly inconsistent re photos.  it's as if he thinks that just by making wild unfounded assertions, somehow makes them so.  let's see 'em, tom.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2007, 12:31:49 PM
Quote
i stumbled on this old post.  and noticed that bishop never submitted for inspection, these allegedly inconsistent re photos.  it's as if he thinks that just by making wild unfounded assertions, somehow makes them so.  let's see 'em, tom.

The problems with the photos are numerous. Post any one picture of the Round Earth and I'll give you a detailed list of the problems with it.

Go ahead, I dare you.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Dipshit on December 07, 2007, 12:37:52 PM
Quote
i stumbled on this old post.  and noticed that bishop never submitted for inspection, these allegedly inconsistent re photos.  it's as if he thinks that just by making wild unfounded assertions, somehow makes them so.  let's see 'em, tom.

The problems with the photos are numerous. Post any one picture of the Round Earth and I'll give you a detailed list of the problems with it.

Go ahead, I dare you.
(http://www.math.montana.edu/frankw/ccp/cases/Global-Positioning/round-earth/apollo17.gif)
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2007, 12:48:09 PM
The problem with that image is that image was taken from Apollo 17. The Apollo missions did not occur.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Dipshit on December 07, 2007, 12:49:05 PM
Then prove this photo!

(http://www.math.montana.edu/frankw/ccp/cases/Global-Positioning/round-earth/apollo17.gif)
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 07, 2007, 12:58:21 PM
Quote
i stumbled on this old post.  and noticed that bishop never submitted for inspection, these allegedly inconsistent re photos.  it's as if he thinks that just by making wild unfounded assertions, somehow makes them so.  let's see 'em, tom.

The problems with the photos are numerous. Post any one picture of the Round Earth and I'll give you a detailed list of the problems with it.

Go ahead, I dare you.

nice try, lazy liar.  you made assertions about a very specific list of problems with earth photos.  it is incumbent upon you to back up your own words, with your own submissions supporting your claims.  that's how it works.  or are your own words so much mental vomit as they are to us, that you don't even take yourself seriously?  to refresh your memory, here is what you said:

...The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown. The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another. Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.

or was that just the wild-ass hit-and-run, unfounded assertion it seems to be?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Riles on December 07, 2007, 01:08:23 PM
Tom would you seriously have us take U Tube  as a repository for fact over libraries of text books?

Edit: grammar
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Username on December 07, 2007, 01:11:55 PM
Well the footage is supposedly from NASA.  Can anyone track down the documentary?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Riles on December 07, 2007, 01:16:02 PM
Whist the footage is a NASA in origin the conclusions certainly are not.
"Conclusions" being a generous term read unsubstantiated assumptions....
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 07, 2007, 01:18:18 PM
The problem with that image is that image was taken from Apollo 17. The Apollo missions did not occur.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

wow.  just...wow.  i love a good conspiracy video, and i've seen practically all of the "better" ones...except this one.  that is so bad.  (i thought i've seen "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"...must have missed this segment.)  if i were a moon hoax believer, i would conclude that it proved nothing, and disproved nothing.  it's as if the narrator were talking about some other video entirely.  the assumptions the writers made and things they "saw" were fantastically preposterous.  it is also well debunked.

there are far more compelling videos out there arguing for a moon hoax.  i'm guessing the reason you didn't post one is that they use the same old tired arguments that have been debunked over...and over...and over...

here are some debunking sites.  happy reading.  i dare you.

Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Username on December 07, 2007, 01:21:44 PM
mm I actually didn't watch the movie yet with sound, I just assumed there was an audio clip that supported the text claim.


Opps.  I'll check it out at home later.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 07, 2007, 01:21:46 PM
but let's get back to bishop providing the photos proving doctored re photos.  there are other websites dedicated to the apollo hoax.  i'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.

bishop, nice diversion.  but let's get back to you presenting photos that you have so precisely critiqued, to support your (so far) unfounded, bold assertions.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Riles on December 07, 2007, 01:30:50 PM
I'm not sure Tom sees it as a diversion rather a point he is confident of regardless of other queries.
The whole point of the thread was to point out that the "Doctored" photos are too consistent to allow for human error ,changing technology and different equipment by different people to be played with.
Now if FE was to say that the photos require an alternative interpretation of what we are seeing ...that would be more appropriate,you could even still fit in a conspiracy angle in there somehow .But not doctoring.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 07, 2007, 01:36:25 PM
I'm not sure Tom sees it as a diversion rather a point he is confident of regardless of other queries.
The whole point of the thread was to point out that the "Doctored" photos are too consistent to allow for human error ,changing technology and different equipment by different people to be played with.
Now if FE was to say that the photos require an alternative interpretation of what we are seeing ...that would be more appropriate,you could even still fit in a conspiracy angle in there somehow .But not doctoring.

well, this thread was dead.  i resurrected it only to challenge bishop's claims of a specific list of anomalies in re photos.  so in that sense, the original subject of the thread doesn't matter.  i suppose i should have started a new thread for it, and maybe i will depending on how this unfolds.

so to be clear to all (namely bishop), this thread was resurrected from the dead, not to continue the original purpose, but as a call for bishop to provide the specific re photos that he found a list of very specific problems with, in a post within this thread. 


if people prefer to continue on with the original purpose of this thread that's fine, i can start another one, state you preference if so.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Riles on December 07, 2007, 01:53:23 PM


well, this thread was dead.  i resurrected it only to challenge bishop's claims of a specific list of anomalies in re photos.  so in that sense, the original subject of the thread doesn't matter.  i suppose i should have started a new thread for it, and maybe i will depending on how this unfolds.

so to be clear to all (namely bishop), this thread was resurrected from the dead, not to continue the original purpose, but as a call for bishop to provide the specific re photos that he found a list of very specific problems with, in a post within this thread. 


if people prefer to continue on with the original purpose of this thread that's fine, i can start another one, state you preference if so.

I see post 48 and 49 having the same end motive ...... cant see you problem, oh well.

Why cant a thread have two courses running through it? Ive got no dramas at all with you asking or posting what ever you want to in it as no one owns a thread least of all me.

But thats me , you seem to think otherwise, I'll be sure to ask your permission in the future before posting on this forum.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 07, 2007, 02:01:13 PM


well, this thread was dead.  i resurrected it only to challenge bishop's claims of a specific list of anomalies in re photos.  so in that sense, the original subject of the thread doesn't matter.  i suppose i should have started a new thread for it, and maybe i will depending on how this unfolds.

so to be clear to all (namely bishop), this thread was resurrected from the dead, not to continue the original purpose, but as a call for bishop to provide the specific re photos that he found a list of very specific problems with, in a post within this thread. 


if people prefer to continue on with the original purpose of this thread that's fine, i can start another one, state you preference if so.

I see post 48 and 49 having the same end motive ...... cant see you problem, oh well.

Why cant a thread have two courses running through it? Ive got no dramas at all with you asking or posting what ever you want to in it as no one owns a thread least of all me.

But thats me , you seem to think otherwise, I'll be sure to ask your permission in the future before posting on this forum.

i think you mistook my respect for and deference to the op, for a demand for respect and deference to me.  or something.  not sure how you misread it.  i was responding to the post above mine that pointed out that i was the one off-topic. 

i don't care who owns what as long as bishop coughs up the photos.  the hoaxed hoax video he posted in response to my direct challenge for his photos was a (purposeful?) diversion.

oh, and you can ask my permission before posting on this forum, if that strikes your fancy.  i'm up for anything.

edit: i think i see how you misread it.  trust me, that wasn't my intention.  i don't care if there are multiple threads.  i only want to make sure bishop coughs up the photos to support his wild assertions, and to point out that bishop purposely split the discussion (likely on purpose), as a diversion.  it's what he does.  he evades having to do real work, and answer real questions.  that's the only thing he's good at.  but i am not going to let him slide on this one.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Riles on December 07, 2007, 02:04:34 PM
Oh, OK....Sorry
 :-[

Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: fl@earth4life on December 08, 2007, 05:43:57 AM
Why are we talking about photography?  His question was why aren't doctored photos filled with inconsistencies.

Everything is a friggin conspiracy theory to you losers.  Shouldn't you all be playing World of Warcraft instead of talking shit.
This is a great place for a laugh.  I can't believe there are people like this walking round in public. FRUITS!!!!

1) 97% of all people here believe the Earth is round.


You might want to change your signature then asshole.


Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: fl@earth4life on December 08, 2007, 05:51:20 AM
The problem with that image is that image was taken from Apollo 17. The Apollo missions did not occur.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

tom i gotta say that video was actually interesting
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Dipshit on December 08, 2007, 06:23:27 AM
Why are we talking about photography?  His question was why aren't doctored photos filled with inconsistencies.

Everything is a friggin conspiracy theory to you losers.  Shouldn't you all be playing World of Warcraft instead of talking shit.
This is a great place for a laugh.  I can't believe there are people like this walking round in public. FRUITS!!!!

1) 97% of all people here believe the Earth is round.


You might want to change your signature then asshole.



His signature is saying active users asshole.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 08, 2007, 01:21:56 PM
Oh, OK....Sorry
 :-[



np, thanks
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: fl@earth4life on December 08, 2007, 03:32:51 PM
Why are we talking about photography?  His question was why aren't doctored photos filled with inconsistencies.

Everything is a friggin conspiracy theory to you losers.  Shouldn't you all be playing World of Warcraft instead of talking shit.
This is a great place for a laugh.  I can't believe there are people like this walking round in public. FRUITS!!!!

1) 97% of all people here believe the Earth is round.


You might want to change your signature then asshole.



His signature is saying active users asshole.

Aye aye, flat head.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Dipshit on December 08, 2007, 05:07:06 PM
Why are we talking about photography?  His question was why aren't doctored photos filled with inconsistencies.

Everything is a friggin conspiracy theory to you losers.  Shouldn't you all be playing World of Warcraft instead of talking shit.
This is a great place for a laugh.  I can't believe there are people like this walking round in public. FRUITS!!!!

1) 97% of all people here believe the Earth is round.


You might want to change your signature then asshole.



His signature is saying active users asshole.

Aye aye, flat head.
lol, you're not one to talk, in fact you can't talk!
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 10, 2007, 11:20:27 AM
answer police: bump.

bishop made a set of very specific criticisms (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18069.msg318325#msg318325) about nasa photos.  and fortunately, bishop is good about posting links to photos (e.g. rowbotham scans).

so bishop, show us the specific photos to back up your very specific claims of nasa forgery?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2007, 01:07:57 PM
Quote
answer police: bump.

bishop made a set of very specific criticisms about nasa photos.  and fortunately, bishop is good about posting links to photos (e.g. rowbotham scans).

so bishop, show us the specific photos to back up your very specific claims of nasa forgery?

Item 1:

Watch this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0). It's part of a documentary about a leaked video from the Apollo missions which demonstrated how the astronauts faked their earth shots. You will notice several discrepancies; the earth turn oblong to round in different takes; the earth blows up to enormous proportions when the black transparency is removed.

Item 2:

Watch this movie: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/flyby_movie.html

It's allegedly a shot of the earth as the Messenger spacecreft recedes into space. Notice how there is a persistent and apparent glare upon the earth as if it were a polished billiard ball:

(http://i18.tinypic.com/2ah6xj9.jpg)

You will need quicktime to view the movie. The persistent glare can be seen passing over clouds, land, and water as the earth spins away.

Now, why do some images of the Round Earth have glares, but not others? If the earth has reflectivity similar to a polished billiard ball then any shot showing the entire earth should in a photograph have this huge glare from the sun.

Lets take these Apollo images for example:
- http://live-support-reviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/5697APH-19%20-%20Earth%20From%20Space%20-%20Photo.jpg
- http://www.jrbassett.com/others/Earth1b.JPG

Where's the glare? Now, one might say that the glare is just on the other side of the earth. But if it's a glare it should be visible in all shots of the earth. As an analogy lets take a polished billiard ball or mountain dew can into a room with a single light source. You will find that the glare from the light will appear upon the ball or can no matter how you tilt or angle your head around the object. The glare follows you in each new position because the area of the glare is the point where the rays of light are most direct.

Unless you obscure the object with your shadow, or look directly behind it at its "night" half, the glare will be visible at every single angle you could imagine. The glare follows your eye as long as the object's "day" side is in view. Two observers in the room would see different glares.

This considered, how is it possible that some full shot images of the earth have glares, but others do not?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 10, 2007, 01:32:29 PM
Your hilarious Tom. Disproofs of these are many times more abundant and yet you only see what you want to.

I slap you with a link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Someone else found this first but I forget where on this site that was.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2007, 01:36:01 PM
Quote
Your hilarious Tom. Disproofs of these are many times more abundant and yet you only see what you want to.

I slap you with a link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Someone else found this first but I forget where on this site that was.

How does a later video where NASA uses a different method disprove this particular behind-the-scenes outtake where they are obviously setting up fake Apollo footage? That video does not address the activities in the video I posted at all.

Why don't you address what they are doing in the video I linked?

Why does the astronaut LIE when he says he's half way to the moon, when he's not? When he takes the prop off the window we see a very close and near earth in the background.

Why does the astronaut LIE when he says that the camera is right up against the spacecraft's window, when we see that after the lights are turned on it's clearly not?

Why is the earth mishapen at the beginning of the video?

Who is that guy saying "Talk" over the radio?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 10, 2007, 01:46:32 PM
Quote
Your hilarious Tom. Disproofs of these are many times more abundant and yet you only see what you want to.

I slap you with a link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Someone else found this first but I forget where on this site that was.

How does a later video where NASA perfects its method disprove this behind-the-scenes outtake where they are obviously setting up fake Apollo footage?

Why don't you address what they are doing in the video I linked?

Why does the astronaut LIE when he says he's half way to the moon, when he's not? When he takes the prop off the window we see a very close and near earth in the background.

Why does the astronaut LIE when he says that the camera is right up against the spacecraft's window, when we see that it's not?

1. Later video? It was taken and available at the same time, just not used in the videos trying to discredit the moon landing. IT ruined their ability to make a profit by tricking gullible people.
2. I slap you again with something that more directly deals with your link.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
3. He doesn't; we don't.
4. He doesn't; we don't.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2007, 01:55:03 PM
Quote
1. Later video? It was taken and available at the same time, just not used in the videos trying to discredit the moon landing.

NASA is obviously using a different method in that released video.

What does that have to do with these trial runs in the unreleased video I've provided? That "rebuttal" video in no way deals with the events which transpire in the video I've linked.

Quote
3. He doesn't; we don't.

Actually, yes, we do see a very close and near earth when the black prop is removed. It's pretty clear at the 4:15 mark that the astronaut is not half way to the moon.

Quote
4. He doesn't; we don't.

The astronaut tells us that his window is filled with the camera. However, when the lights turn on we see that the camera is  at the back of the cabin. That's a clear cut lie.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 10, 2007, 02:06:00 PM
Watch this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0). It's part of a documentary about a leaked video from the Apollo missions which demonstrated how the astronauts faked their earth shots. You will notice several discrepancies; the earth turn oblong to round in different takes; the earth blows up to enormous proportions when the black transparency is removed.

seen it.  preposterously bad.  and i've already debunked it, in this thread no less.  you either have a very bad memory, or don't bother to read the threads you respond to.  here are a tiny sampling of the links:



Watch this movie: http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/the_mission/flyby_movie.html

It's allegedly a shot of the earth as the Messenger spacecreft recedes into space. Notice how there is a persistent and apparent glare upon the earth as if it were a polished billiard ball...The persistent glare can be seen passing over clouds, land, and water as the earth spins away.

i'm not sure what video you watched, but i downloaded that link (seen it before) and watched it.  very pretty isn't it.  and nothing you claimed stands up to even the most *passing* scrutiny.  really pathetic, bishop.  you'll have to try quite a bit harder than that.  here are a few problems with your assertions:


there are three verifiable proofs that you are *flat*wrong*.

Lets take these Apollo images for example:
- http://live-support-reviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/5697APH-19%20-%20Earth%20From%20Space%20-%20Photo.jpg
- http://www.jrbassett.com/others/Earth1b.JPG

Where's the glare? Now, one might say that the glare is just on the other side of the earth.

*you* might say that.  but any reasonably intelligent person with a spatially-minded cell in their brain would not.  do not put words in more intelligent peoples' mouths.


three very clear and resounding failures bishop.  but hey, i'll give you credit for coughing up *something*, however lackluster (no pun intended), to back up *one* of your wild assertions.  you do still have these two remaining assertions to back up:

The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown...Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2007, 02:19:08 PM
Quote
seen it.  preposterously bad.  and i've already debunked it, in this thread no less.  you either have a very bad memory, or don't bother to read the threads you respond to.  here are a tiny sampling of the links:

    * Bart Winfield Sibrel
    * A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory
    * wikipedia: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
    * moon base clavius
    * bad astronomy: Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax

Care to explain how the earth can have two unequal halves as seen at the beginning of the first video I've linked?

The Globe Earth should NEVER have two unequal halves. Please do tell us in detail how this is possible.

Quote
i'm not sure what video you watched, but i downloaded that link (seen it before) and watched it.  very pretty isn't it.  and nothing you claimed stands up to even the most *passing* scrutiny.  really pathetic, bishop.  you'll have to try quite a bit harder than that.  here are a few problems with your assertions:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The glare clearly reflects off of the clouds, sea, and land in the video.

Care to point out where the glare is in this shot?

http://s94958815.onlinehome.us/angryastronomer/MESSENGER-Earth.jpg
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Tom Dipshit on December 10, 2007, 02:21:56 PM
Quote
seen it.  preposterously bad.  and i've already debunked it, in this thread no less.  you either have a very bad memory, or don't bother to read the threads you respond to.  here are a tiny sampling of the links:

    * Bart Winfield Sibrel
    * A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory
    * wikipedia: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
    * moon base clavius
    * bad astronomy: Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax

Care to explain how the earth can have two unequal halves as seen at the beginning of the first video I've linked?

The Globe Earth should NEVER have two unequal halves. Please do tell us in detail how this is possible.
If its unequal then there can't be two halves.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: eric bloedow on December 10, 2007, 02:23:32 PM
the earth, as seen from space, can have un-equal halves for the exact same reason the moon has phases: the relative angle of the sun!

and on the flat earth, it would have a big circle that was lighted NEAR THE MIDDLE and the rest would be black! still not equally light and dark!
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 10, 2007, 02:59:30 PM
Quote
seen it.  preposterously bad.  and i've already debunked it, in this thread no less.  you either have a very bad memory, or don't bother to read the threads you respond to.  here are a tiny sampling of the links:

    * Bart Winfield Sibrel
    * A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory
    * wikipedia: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
    * moon base clavius
    * bad astronomy: Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax

Care to explain how the earth can have two unequal halves as seen at the beginning of the first video I've linked?

The Globe Earth should NEVER have two unequal halves. Please do tell us in detail how this is possible.

Quote
i'm not sure what video you watched, but i downloaded that link (seen it before) and watched it.  very pretty isn't it.  and nothing you claimed stands up to even the most *passing* scrutiny.  really pathetic, bishop.  you'll have to try quite a bit harder than that.  here are a few problems with your assertions:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The glare clearly reflects off of the clouds, sea, and land in the video.

wrong, wrong, and wrong.  are you freaking *blind*?  watch your own freakin video.  frame by frame.  i did.  i pointed out to you a *specific frame* you can go to if you choose to.  you are so blatantly wrong on this is pathetic.  you know what, don't bother me any more with this nonsense. 

i do however challenge everyone reading this thread to download the movie and watch it frame by frame.  see if i am wrong, or bishop is clearly, unambiguously a jackass.  (and also wrong.)

bishop, if in that video you actually, genuinely do somehow see a continuous sun reflection unbroken by clouds or australia and africa, this casts serious doubt on your ability to observe *anything* and not see only what you previously believed you would see.  i am not just being inflammatory, there is seriously something wrong with you.

Care to point out where the glare is in this shot?

http://s94958815.onlinehome.us/angryastronomer/MESSENGER-Earth.jpg

the number of shots you can find with a high cirrus cloud layer, and/or a landmass, and/or thick cumulous clouds where the sun's specular highlight would otherwise be (as in your photo link - above south america), number in the tens of thousands.  statistically, it would probably be most of them.  i can scarcely understand what you think you are trying to prove by linking to them.  but hey, at least you are trying.  which is, i must admit, an improvement.

oh and bishop, you are still conveniently ignoring the call of "bullshit" on your other two claims which you have yet failed to try to defend.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 10, 2007, 03:01:05 PM
Care to explain how the earth can have two unequal halves as seen at the beginning of the first video I've linked?

The Globe Earth should NEVER have two unequal halves. Please do tell us in detail how this is possible.

i forgot to adress this gem.  i have no idea what you are trying to say.  care to make sense?
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: eric bloedow on December 10, 2007, 03:46:33 PM
apparently Tom is so certain that space travel iis fake he never bothered to look at any pictures! spaceships don't hover above one part of the earth, they go around it in big circles!
so when they pass above the part of earth where it's noon, earth will appear fully lit, when they pass above the part that's dusk or dawn earth will appear half light and half dark, and when they pass over the part where it's midnight, earth will appear fully dark!

he's saying, "the light and dark parts are not exactly the same in every single photo ever taken, therefore all of them are faked!" that's his so-called "logic"!

just for fun, here's a video from the ISS:

this shows a space sunrise.

and check this one out:
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 10, 2007, 03:52:56 PM
i created this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18418.0) to talk about the apollo moon video ("a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"), so we can get hopefully back to tom providing evidence for this three specific assertions of fraudulent nasa photos:

1) The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown.  2) The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another.  3) Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.

the bold numbers are mine.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Midnight on December 11, 2007, 04:34:54 AM
I love all these little people "Exposing the Bishop" when that is long since past. The gravy is cold, you simpleton fucks.

ﮎingulaЯiτy IS Tom, you idiots. :-*

There is only one me, and that was all it took. months ago.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 11, 2007, 08:53:44 AM
I love all these little people "Exposing the Bishop" when that is long since past. The gravy is cold, you simpleton fucks.

what you don't [seem to] understand is that i and many others could care less what "is long since past".  it didn't happen in *my* past here, so the statement is irrelevant to me.  if it's not in the faq and doesn't show up in a quick search, it's fair game.  if you're lucky enough even to get that.  i would wager - and you probably would too - that the majority of active people on this site are relatively new due to constant churn endemic to internet forums, which are always and forever doomed to repeating the same things.  just like this forum.  you know that.  sucks for you and other long timers i know [if 9+ months is a long-timer...and it is relatively speaking], and it will for me too if i make it as long as you [which i doubt].  i'm not above apologizing for your trouble, but then i'd be doing nothing but apologizing, for myself and others, for repeating debates.

which kind of begs the question, why *would* anyone hang around for nine months or more?

anyway, i would also suggest that you have repeated your share of debates that came before your time as well.  i don't care to do the tedious research to back that assertion up with examples, but it's such a statistical safe bet as to be near certainty, safe enough for me to say: "people in glass houses..."

the gravy is *always* cold.  get over it.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: Midnight on December 12, 2007, 09:45:52 AM
The only word in that post that has any meaning is "irrelevant".
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 12, 2007, 12:11:08 PM
The only word in that post that has any meaning is "irrelevant".

um, you really showed me, i guess.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 12, 2007, 12:14:40 PM
thank god i am able to turn off animated gifs.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 12, 2007, 09:31:49 PM
i created this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18418.0) to talk about the apollo moon video ("a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"), so we can get hopefully back to tom providing evidence for this three specific assertions of fraudulent nasa photos:

1) The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown.  2) The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another.  3) Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.

the bold numbers are mine.

bump.  waiting for the photos to back up *all three* of bishop's specific assertions.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: cpt_bthimes on December 14, 2007, 11:31:50 AM
i created this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18418.0) to talk about the apollo moon video ("a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"), so we can get hopefully back to tom providing evidence for this three specific assertions of fraudulent nasa photos:

1) The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown.  2) The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another.  3) Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera.

the bold numbers are mine.

bump.  where are the nasa photos to back up your three very specific claims of photographic fraud?  you only provided a movie to back up one, which you failed miserably at.  you have two more to go to maintain credibility.  otherwise they are just hollow yet very specific accusations.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 16, 2007, 06:33:52 PM
Quote
1. Later video? It was taken and available at the same time, just not used in the videos trying to discredit the moon landing.

NASA is obviously using a different method in that released video.
Explain why you think this or how it is obvious.

Quote
What does that have to do with these trial runs in the unreleased video I've provided? That "rebuttal" video in no way deals with the events which transpire in the video I've linked.
You have yet to prove these events. The video I provided explained why your events were impossible. I find myself once again asking, 'Did you watch it?'

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
3. He doesn't; we don't.

Actually, yes, we do see a very close and near earth when the black prop is removed. It's pretty clear at the 4:15 mark that the astronaut is not half way to the moon.
You interpretation is flawed and unsupportable. You could be watching a video of a car running over a cat and then argue the cat was trying to commit suicide. It doesn't make you right.  ::)
You're seeing what you want to see. I know I am not because I find the notion of a flat Earth interesting and would love to be proved wrong. I'm just honest with myself.

Quote
Quote
4. He doesn't; we don't.

The astronaut tells us that his window is filled with the camera. However, when the lights turn on we see that the camera is  at the back of the cabin. That's a clear cut lie.

They had the camera in the window in one clip. They didn't in the next. If I say I am in my car while on my phone, then I hang up and get out, it doesn't make me a liar.
I seem to have won point 2 since you didn't respond.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 16, 2007, 06:44:47 PM
ﮎingulaЯiτy IS Tom, you idiots.
That's insulting.  :(
I'm ashamed that I share the genetic code of the human species with him.
Title: Re: Doctored Photos
Post by: me25 on December 21, 2007, 07:41:51 PM
The only word in that post that has any meaning is "irrelevant".
The word irrelevant is by it's very nature... irrelevant, therefore it can't have meaning, that would be a paradox.
PARADOXS ARE FUN!