The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Thrown on April 19, 2013, 04:05:13 PM

Title: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Thrown on April 19, 2013, 04:05:13 PM
Some of you I'm sure will be familiar with Chris Hadfield, the Canadian currently residing in the International Space Station, orbiting Earth.

Maybe it's futile even mentioning this because all I'm going to get is a series of "Clearly fake" comments, but I just thought I would leave these here;
https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/325378775980326913/photo/1
https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/323214403740778496/photo/1

Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Thork on April 19, 2013, 04:15:28 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIP6RdhCQAA4VrS.jpg:large)


Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Rama Set on April 19, 2013, 05:34:22 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIP6RdhCQAA4VrS.jpg:large)


Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)

So then you accept there is an ISS?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pongo on April 19, 2013, 10:43:10 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIP6RdhCQAA4VrS.jpg:large)


Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)

That clearly looks like a flat disc.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Thork on April 20, 2013, 05:13:48 AM
So then you accept there is an ISS?
Nope. But high altitude balloons, sure.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: iwanttobelieve on April 20, 2013, 06:42:39 AM
looks like a planar Earth should, with the spherical sun shining down on it. 
The ISS is legit, so is this photograph of a planar Earth.

Thank you for sharing.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: jason_85 on April 20, 2013, 07:33:40 AM
Nope. But high altitude balloons, sure.

Completely impossible and easily disprovable tripe. Any rudimentary analysis of air resistance and observed velocity of the ISS leads to the obvious conclusion that it must be operating at altitudes well above any region of palpable bouyancy. The ISS cannot both be floating on the atmosphere and travelling at orbital velocity. Since the speed is readily observable the only logical explanation is that it is well within or above the rarefied domain of the atmosphere.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Thork on April 20, 2013, 07:39:22 AM
Thanks for the baseless assumptions, but I am actually saying this photo was taken from a balloon, not an imaginary spacestation. Now if you think you can prove that this photo was taken at an altitude too high for a balloon, carry on. I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 20, 2013, 07:55:26 AM
Thanks for the baseless assumptions, but I am actually saying this photo was taken from a balloon, not an imaginary spacestation. Now if you think you can prove that this photo was taken at an altitude too high for a balloon, carry on. I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.

All of these photographs were taken from separate balloons of cities thousands of miles apart on the same night? For what purpose?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: RealScientist on April 20, 2013, 08:51:16 AM
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)
Nobody can work for some time making this animation and still believe in a flat Earth. It is so blatantly inconsistent with the everyday experiences of just about every human being that the only thing you can do is laugh at the author.

Here you are showing the pattern of day and night during an Equinox but in no place on Earth there is 12 hours of daylight and 12 of nighttime. There is not even a coarse approximation to reality.

And the apparent position of the Sun on the sky is wrong for just about every possible observer on Earth, at every time of the day.

We know that you do not have an FE model (that is, a means to predict things based on current knowledge) but this is ridiculous. You are not even trying.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: 29silhouette on April 20, 2013, 10:03:38 AM
Meanwhile, comparing to what one would expect from a globe Earth when viewing the same place from roughly the same height and direction...
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/6942/newfoundland.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIP6RdhCQAA4VrS.jpg:large)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 20, 2013, 11:06:24 AM
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)

Please stop posting misleading animations of the sun, Thork. It was proven multiple times that the suns "circle of light" is more like this...

(http://oi45.tinypic.com/2qvds2d.jpg)

This is proven using World Clock, a very accurate tool to measure sunrise and sunset times. Also, the north pole in center with south pole around edge map was proven false in this thread.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57872.0.html#.UXLYoKI4vEY (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57872.0.html#.UXLYoKI4vEY)

This was proven with the fact that at any given time at night, anyone in the Southern Hemisphere can look south and see the south celestial pole. At any time of the year. This means that according to that map you posted, people looking in completely opposite directions are seeing the same stars. Sorry, thork. Any way I can help with closure?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2013, 12:29:59 PM
This is proven using World Clock, a very accurate tool to measure sunrise and sunset times.

World Clock is a calculator based on a certain model of the earth, it is not a compilation of observations. It does not "prove" anything.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 20, 2013, 12:36:20 PM
iv never seen anyone complain its wrong. have you tom?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 20, 2013, 12:39:18 PM
This is proven using World Clock, a very accurate tool to measure sunrise and sunset times.

World Clock is a calculator based on a certain model of the earth, it is not a compilation of observations. It does not "prove" anything.

So then do observations support these predictions or refute them? It's largely accurate where I am in Ohio.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2013, 12:47:48 PM
Not every longitude is necessarily accurate. The World Clock can only be considered accurate if it has been tested for every longitude on earth, on every day of the year, which has not been done.

Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 20, 2013, 01:34:11 PM
Not every longitude is necessarily accurate. The World Clock can only be considered accurate if it has been tested for every longitude on earth, on every day of the year, which has not been done.

...Seriously? This is your comeback? What time of day it is, at what hour sun sets and rises, is not bloody well known? Please. Even for this website that's just too much.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2013, 02:00:29 PM
How can it be well known if we only have calculators and not tables of observations?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 20, 2013, 02:23:33 PM
Because the calculators are accurate and thus we have no use for cumbersome tables of data from such observations.

You know at least a few people around the world, these days everyone does. Look up the sunset and sunrise times, give them a call and ask if it's off by hours.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 20, 2013, 02:29:02 PM
As an afterthought, you can do that experiment right here. I'll give you the first confirmation that the reported times for today are correct for northern europe. A few more confirmations from different continents and we're all set, no?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2013, 02:35:30 PM
No. The observations must be third-party, unconnected to this website and the discussion at hand.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 20, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
so get on the phone.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 20, 2013, 02:46:13 PM
How far off would you expect these calculations to be if they are based off of a wholly inaccurate model of the Earth? You pay attention tonight wherever you are and see what time the sun sets.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: jason_85 on April 20, 2013, 07:06:50 PM
Thanks for the baseless assumptions, but I am actually saying this photo was taken from a balloon, not an imaginary spacestation. Now if you think you can prove that this photo was taken at an altitude too high for a balloon, carry on. I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.

That's exactly what I'm saying. My assumptions weren't baseless they were based on the rather obvious conclusion that you cannot fake the ISS and that you cannot imitate those photos without blatantly faking them. Balloons climb to 50km (usually less, theoretically up to 55 or so), the ISS is at almost 400km. The difference is easily discernible from both the curvature and, if you don't believe that, the height of the apparent atmosphere.

Here is a photo from 370km altitude:

(http://www.dvice.com/sites/dvice/files/styles/blog_post_media/public/issnasa1.jpg)

And here is one from a balloon (no higher than 20-30km):

(http://wiki.hacdc.org/images/3/3b/Sb5_IMG_9220.JPG)

These do not look the same, and the difference in the apparent height of the atmosphere is palpable.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Scintific Method on April 20, 2013, 07:14:40 PM
I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.

I can't believe there are fully grown, educated adults walking around who believe the world is flat.

There is no evidence to support the position that the earth is flat, but mountains of evidence available to refute it, much of which can be gathered with very basic tools. If you actually do have something that proves that the earth is flat, it might be an idea to pop over to this thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57963.0.html) and post it.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 21, 2013, 12:52:18 AM
No. The observations must be third-party, unconnected to this website and the discussion at hand.

Oh. Thank you for kindly making up your own rules on evidence, and basically bossing us around. We don't have to bend to your stupid whims and utterly meaningless guidelines for evidence.

We (My family) have two exchange students in Japan. Another one is from China. I took the liberty a while back to ask them when exactly the sun set on that day (Since it is easier to see the sun set, because who likes to wake up early...). The times they gave me were spot on with world clock. I checked the sunrise time myself in my state, and in Utah (friend), and they both prove World Clock to be accurate.

Not every longitude is necessarily accurate. The World Clock can only be considered accurate if it has been tested for every longitude on earth, on every day of the year, which has not been done.

Lol. Um, how bout no. You are wrong.

Here, let me try.

"You cannot prove all atoms have protons and electrons, you must test every single one, including all their isotopes, ions, everything. Only then can we prove that atoms are made of at least protons and electrons. I know that the number of atoms is vast, but that is the peril with real science."

???

I am seriously not sure if you are trolling, or completely off your rocker. Please, get back on your rocker, Tom. K? Thanks.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2013, 08:57:40 AM
Oh. Thank you for kindly making up your own rules on evidence, and basically bossing us around. We don't have to bend to your stupid whims and utterly meaningless guidelines for evidence.

We (My family) have two exchange students in Japan. Another one is from China. I took the liberty a while back to ask them when exactly the sun set on that day (Since it is easier to see the sun set, because who likes to wake up early...). The times they gave me were spot on with world clock. I checked the sunrise time myself in my state, and in Utah (friend), and they both prove World Clock to be accurate.

Sure you did.

Quote from: darknavyseal
Lol. Um, how bout no. You are wrong.

Here, let me try.

"You cannot prove all atoms have protons and electrons, you must test every single one, including all their isotopes, ions, everything. Only then can we prove that atoms are made of at least protons and electrons. I know that the number of atoms is vast, but that is the peril with real science."

???

I am seriously not sure if you are trolling, or completely off your rocker. Please, get back on your rocker, Tom. K? Thanks.

If we knew nothing of rocks, water, dirt, plants, etc, it does not follow that because rocks are made out of atoms with protons and electrons, that other things are as well.

Only when we have a comprehensive body of observations, can deductions be made.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 21, 2013, 09:04:42 AM
Tom if you aren't going to believe anything anyone says, then just pay attention to when the sun sets tonight. If it corresponds to what the clock says how does that not help confirm it's accuracy? Better yet, if you can find any example where it ISN'T accurate, please do. You can't just say "there's no proof that it works" and shut your eyes and plug your ears and yell LA-LA-LA-LA you can't prove me wrong.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 21, 2013, 10:12:52 AM
You can't just say "there's no proof that it works" and shut your eyes and plug your ears and yell LA-LA-LA-LA you can't prove me wrong.

Wanna bet that's exactly what he can and will do, Ben?

Made those calls yet, Tom?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 21, 2013, 11:16:29 AM
Only when we have a comprehensive body of observations, can deductions be made.

Just to clarify - you're saying that we don't have a "comprehensive body of observations" regarding at what time sun sets and rises? Are you? Do you believe there are people who live in any part of the world experiencing uncertainty of at what time the sun will set and rise? Do you have data from observations, or anything at all for that matter, to support your idea that the sun's rising and setting times as reported (or rather, predicted) for an instance at worldclock are in some way inaccurate?

Because this is actually significant.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 21, 2013, 01:26:55 PM
Oh. Thank you for kindly making up your own rules on evidence, and basically bossing us around. We don't have to bend to your stupid whims and utterly meaningless guidelines for evidence.

We (My family) have two exchange students from Japan. Another one is from China. I took the liberty a while back to ask their parents when exactly the sun set on that day (Since it is easier to see the sun set, because who likes to wake up early...). The times they gave me were spot on with world clock. I checked the sunrise time myself in my state, and in Utah (friend), and they both prove World Clock to be accurate.

Sure you did.

Quote from: darknavyseal
Lol. Um, how bout no. You are wrong.

Here, let me try.

"You cannot prove all atoms have protons and electrons, you must test every single one, including all their isotopes, ions, everything. Only then can we prove that atoms are made of at least protons and electrons. I know that the number of atoms is vast, but that is the peril with real science."

???

I am seriously not sure if you are trolling, or completely off your rocker. Please, get back on your rocker, Tom. K? Thanks.

If we knew nothing of rocks, water, dirt, plants, etc, it does not follow that because rocks are made out of atoms with protons and electrons, that other things are as well.

Only when we have a comprehensive body of observations, can deductions be made.

So, everybody on Earth that can verify that the World Clock calculations are at least almost correct, if not off by a few minutes, is not enough of a comprehensive body of evidence that supports World Clock's accuracy? Keep in mind, in order for the animation Thork posted to be correct, world clock must be off by more than several hours in some locations. That animation also doesn't explain why the antarctic edge gets 24/7 daylight for almost 6 months straight when the orbit of the sun has a wider radius. Just accept that the map does not work. Lets take a tally.

World Clock, very good accuracy, proves that the "circle of sunlight" is more like the picture I posted.
Time lapses/stars. People in the southern hemisphere (outer edge of disk in FE) can look south and see the same stars.

What else do we need, Tom?

And, yes. We do have exchange students from the formerly mentioned locations. Whether you lack the trust to believe that I asked them to tell me when the sun set for them (their parents), that is your own fault. If you choose to blindfold yourself, refusing to acknowledge information like a stubborn child, you go right ahead. It doesn't make you right, it makes you immature.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: rottingroom on April 22, 2013, 06:05:55 AM
It's clearly round. Without question!
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2013, 07:33:00 AM
So, everybody on Earth that can verify that the World Clock calculations are at least almost correct, if not off by a few minutes, is not enough of a comprehensive body of evidence that supports World Clock's accuracy?

Where can I find this comprehensive body of evidence?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 22, 2013, 08:38:07 AM
So, everybody on Earth that can verify that the World Clock calculations are at least almost correct, if not off by a few minutes, is not enough of a comprehensive body of evidence that supports World Clock's accuracy?

Where can I find this comprehensive body of evidence?

You can start by opening your eyes tonight and seeing how accurate it is for where you are. You can ask people you know who live in other areas. Ask people you trust. If you do that and aren't convinced then we can go on from there. You can't find any evidence if you refuse to look.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2013, 08:39:51 AM
So, everybody on Earth that can verify that the World Clock calculations are at least almost correct, if not off by a few minutes, is not enough of a comprehensive body of evidence that supports World Clock's accuracy?

Where can I find this comprehensive body of evidence?

You can start by opening your eyes tonight and seeing how accurate it is for where you are. You can ask people you know who live in other areas. Ask people you trust. If you do that and aren't convinced then we can go on from there. You can't find any evidence if you refuse to look.

I was told that there is a body of evidence I could reference. How can it be evidence if it has not yet been observed?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Rama Set on April 22, 2013, 08:47:06 AM
So, everybody on Earth that can verify that the World Clock calculations are at least almost correct, if not off by a few minutes, is not enough of a comprehensive body of evidence that supports World Clock's accuracy?

Where can I find this comprehensive body of evidence?

You can start by opening your eyes tonight and seeing how accurate it is for where you are. You can ask people you know who live in other areas. Ask people you trust. If you do that and aren't convinced then we can go on from there. You can't find any evidence if you refuse to look.

I was told that there is a body of evidence I could reference. How can it be evidence if it has not yet been observed?

Exactly Tom.  Plenty of people have observed the accuracy of sunrise predictions.  That is evidence.  Go ahead and do it yourself.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 22, 2013, 08:57:24 AM
in fact i have never heard of a account made of the times being incorrect. maby you could provide us with one tom? some how i think not. lol.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2013, 09:07:03 AM
Exactly Tom.  Plenty of people have observed the accuracy of sunrise predictions.  That is evidence.  Go ahead and do it yourself.

"Go look yourself" doesn't sound like a body of evidence has been compiled to me.

It sounds like a denialist admitting that no such evidence exists.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 22, 2013, 09:10:55 AM
show us a account of it being wrong tom. impress us. that would be a first.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2013, 09:14:07 AM
show us a account of it being wrong tom. impress us. that would be a first.

I can't readily find any accounts what-so-ever, whether right or wrong, and apparently neither can anyone else in this thread.

So why should we blindly believe that the World Clock results are 100% accurate without verification of that fact?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 22, 2013, 09:15:22 AM
So, everybody on Earth that can verify that the World Clock calculations are at least almost correct, if not off by a few minutes, is not enough of a comprehensive body of evidence that supports World Clock's accuracy?

Where can I find this comprehensive body of evidence?

You can start by opening your eyes tonight and seeing how accurate it is for where you are. You can ask people you know who live in other areas. Ask people you trust. If you do that and aren't convinced then we can go on from there. You can't find any evidence if you refuse to look.

I was told that there is a body of evidence I could reference. How can it be evidence if it has not yet been observed?

Just because nobody has documented the observations and put them in a spreadsheet that you can Google in 5 seconds doesn't mean that nobody has observed it. Every day people look up when the sun is going to rise or set for various reasons. My mother and grandmother have taken countless sunset pictures in various locations, and they look up the time that it is going to set in order to do so. You can't retroactively prove it to yourself, so start now. You aren't going to believe the testimonies of anyone here anyway.

You also haven't answered my question from before. How far off do you expect these numbers to be?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 22, 2013, 09:17:10 AM
show us a account of it being wrong tom. impress us. that would be a first.

I can't readily find any accounts what-so-ever, whether right or wrong, and apparently neither can anyone else in this thread.

So why should we blindly believe that the World Clock results are 100% accurate without verification of that fact?

because no one has ever shown it to be wrong. you know an awful lot of people actually rely on these time being accurate right. im sure they would all be complaining if it wasnt. don't you think tom?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2013, 09:19:40 AM
Just because nobody has documented the observations and put them in a spreadsheet that you can Google in 5 seconds doesn't mean that nobody has observed it. Every day people look up when the sun is going to rise or set for various reasons. My mother and grandmother have taken countless sunset pictures in various locations, and they look up the time that it is going to set in order to do so. You can't retroactively prove it to yourself, so start now. You aren't going to believe the testimonies of anyone here anyway.

If they are not publishing their results, they may as well never have done it.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 22, 2013, 09:21:46 AM
tom, dont you think if the times given did not match observations that some one might have noticed?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 22, 2013, 09:25:14 AM
Just because nobody has documented the observations and put them in a spreadsheet that you can Google in 5 seconds doesn't mean that nobody has observed it. Every day people look up when the sun is going to rise or set for various reasons. My mother and grandmother have taken countless sunset pictures in various locations, and they look up the time that it is going to set in order to do so. You can't retroactively prove it to yourself, so start now. You aren't going to believe the testimonies of anyone here anyway.

If they are not publishing their results, they may as well never have done it.

Do you believe the sky to be blue? If you do, have you ever seen any published data that proves the sky to be blue to every observer in every latitude and longitude on Earth, or do you trust your own observation? Why is your own observation not enough in this instance?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2013, 09:26:18 AM
show us a account of it being wrong tom. impress us. that would be a first.

I can't readily find any accounts what-so-ever, whether right or wrong, and apparently neither can anyone else in this thread.

So why should we blindly believe that the World Clock results are 100% accurate without verification of that fact?

because no one has ever shown it to be wrong. you know an awful lot of people actually rely on these time being accurate right. im sure they would all be complaining if it wasnt. don't you think tom?

So because a calculator or website says that something will happen, apparently based on no experimental evidence, it's the burden of others to prove it wrong?

You might be interested in the following websites:

http://www.deathclock.com/ (http://www.deathclock.com/)
http://www.freshnewgames.com/daily_fortune_teller.html (http://www.freshnewgames.com/daily_fortune_teller.html)
http://www.kylottery.com/apps/draw_games/number_cruncher.html (http://www.kylottery.com/apps/draw_games/number_cruncher.html)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Shmeggley on April 22, 2013, 09:44:27 AM
show us a account of it being wrong tom. impress us. that would be a first.

I can't readily find any accounts what-so-ever, whether right or wrong, and apparently neither can anyone else in this thread.

So why should we blindly believe that the World Clock results are 100% accurate without verification of that fact?

because no one has ever shown it to be wrong. you know an awful lot of people actually rely on these time being accurate right. im sure they would all be complaining if it wasnt. don't you think tom?

So because a calculator or website says that something will happen, apparently based on no experimental evidence, it's the burden of others to prove it wrong?

You might be interested in the following websites:

http://www.deathclock.com/ (http://www.deathclock.com/)
http://www.freshnewgames.com/daily_fortune_teller.html (http://www.freshnewgames.com/daily_fortune_teller.html)
http://www.kylottery.com/apps/draw_games/number_cruncher.html (http://www.kylottery.com/apps/draw_games/number_cruncher.html)

I know you think you're being extremely clever Tom, but you're once again showing yourself to be an embarrassment to FES, Zeteticism, and reasonable people everywhere.

The fact that you think those websites anything to do with this discussion just show you know nothing about the World Clock and how it works.

I've seen the sunset and sunrise times on the weather report for years, and while I don't diligently check them, I have never heard anyone complain that they are hours off, or off at all.

So yes, the burden is on you to show that the World Clock system is wrong when the only argument you have is that you think it might be wrong.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2013, 09:49:30 AM
So because a calculator or website says that something will happen, apparently based on no experimental evidence, it's the burden of others to prove it wrong?

You might be interested in the following websites:

http://www.deathclock.com/ (http://www.deathclock.com/)
http://www.freshnewgames.com/daily_fortune_teller.html (http://www.freshnewgames.com/daily_fortune_teller.html)
http://www.kylottery.com/apps/draw_games/number_cruncher.html (http://www.kylottery.com/apps/draw_games/number_cruncher.html)

I know you think you're being extremely clever Tom, but you're once again showing yourself to be an embarrassment to FES, Zeteticism, and reasonable people everywhere.

The fact that you think those websites anything to do with this discussion just show you know nothing about the World Clock and how it works.

I've seen the sunset and sunrise times on the weather report for years, and while I don't diligently check them, I have never heard anyone complain that they are hours off, or off at all.

So yes, the burden is on you to show that the World Clock system is wrong when the only argument you have is that you think it might be wrong.

I have never heard that the predictions on that fortune telling flash app I linked to were wrong. Therefore the fortune telling app should be considered 100% correct, right?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Rama Set on April 22, 2013, 09:53:02 AM
I have seen accurate predictions made by this site. Have you seen otherwise?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 22, 2013, 09:56:34 AM
tom can you please provide an account of a accurate prediction from the death clock website please?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Shmeggley on April 22, 2013, 10:06:55 AM
So because a calculator or website says that something will happen, apparently based on no experimental evidence, it's the burden of others to prove it wrong?

You might be interested in the following websites:

http://www.deathclock.com/ (http://www.deathclock.com/)
http://www.freshnewgames.com/daily_fortune_teller.html (http://www.freshnewgames.com/daily_fortune_teller.html)
http://www.kylottery.com/apps/draw_games/number_cruncher.html (http://www.kylottery.com/apps/draw_games/number_cruncher.html)

I know you think you're being extremely clever Tom, but you're once again showing yourself to be an embarrassment to FES, Zeteticism, and reasonable people everywhere.

The fact that you think those websites anything to do with this discussion just show you know nothing about the World Clock and how it works.

I've seen the sunset and sunrise times on the weather report for years, and while I don't diligently check them, I have never heard anyone complain that they are hours off, or off at all.

So yes, the burden is on you to show that the World Clock system is wrong when the only argument you have is that you think it might be wrong.

I have never heard that the predictions on that fortune telling flash app I linked to were wrong. Therefore the fortune telling app should be considered 100% correct, right?

Tom, no one in their right mind expects the fortune teller site to be accurate.

Wait, do you think the fortune teller site is supposed to be real?!
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 22, 2013, 10:11:06 AM
says a lot about tom really lol. the fact he has to use fortune tellers websites as evidence is hysterical. tom, have you found a account of the death clock being accurate yet?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Shmeggley on April 22, 2013, 10:11:32 AM
I have seen accurate predictions made by this site. Have you seen otherwise?

Do you mean the death clock? I could actually see this one being accurate to some extent. I suppose it's based on actuarial tables, so it should be.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Rama Set on April 22, 2013, 10:29:52 AM
Tom, instead of drawing meaningless comparisons between these things, you should get real Zetetic for a week and see how accurate the World Clock is.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Cartesian on April 22, 2013, 10:39:20 AM
Yes Tom I'd like to see you being Zetetic for once but I don't think I can wait for another week to see that :)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 22, 2013, 11:41:43 AM
show us a account of it being wrong tom. impress us. that would be a first.

I can't readily find any accounts what-so-ever, whether right or wrong, and apparently neither can anyone else in this thread.

So why should we blindly believe that the World Clock results are 100% accurate without verification of that fact?

because no one has ever shown it to be wrong. you know an awful lot of people actually rely on these time being accurate right. im sure they would all be complaining if it wasnt. don't you think tom?

So because a calculator or website says that something will happen, apparently based on no experimental evidence, it's the burden of others to prove it wrong?


No-one here has claimed fortune telling to be accurate. Prediction of sun's setting and rising has already been proven accurate. You claim otherwise. So yes, it is your burden to prove it wrong. And, for once, it's easy, won't require any equipment that you wouldn't already have and will cost mere pennies - just make those phone calls.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2013, 12:00:46 PM
No-one here has claimed fortune telling to be accurate. Prediction of sun's setting and rising has already been proven accurate.

Who proved the world clock accurate?  ???
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 22, 2013, 12:03:55 PM
everyone that uses it? ??? including me. have you found a reference to the death clock being accurate yet tom?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: rottingroom on April 22, 2013, 12:51:26 PM
I do this for a living in the Navy. We use the SLAP (Solar Lunar Almanac Prediction System). I know it works because I get requests from pilots for this information and they rely on the data I provide. It is accurate.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 22, 2013, 01:07:20 PM
Why not just confirm it yourself, Tom, it's not at all difficult. I realize this might collide with your worldview but that's just how things are - we DO know when the sun sets and rises.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 22, 2013, 03:28:57 PM
No-one here has claimed fortune telling to be accurate. Prediction of sun's setting and rising has already been proven accurate.

Who proved the world clock accurate?  ???

Accurate for me too. Coming from the West Coast of USA. It is also confirmed to be accurate in Japan. As well as China. Anyone want to confirm it in Europe?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pilgrim on April 22, 2013, 03:43:13 PM
I can confirm that the time in England, United Kingdom, is (as of now) correct to the second.

Regards,

Pilgrim.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: jason_85 on April 22, 2013, 03:49:39 PM
I can't readily find any accounts what-so-ever, whether right or wrong, and apparently neither can anyone else in this thread.

So why should we blindly believe that the World Clock results are 100% accurate without verification of that fact?

So being wrong about everything else you've ever said wasn't enough, now you've found something that is so obvious no one's able to find documentation for it.

Congratulations Tom, you can sleep well at night knowing that you'll have just enough reason not to feel guilty about being a complete embarrassment to reasonable human beings everywhere. But then, you don't have to take that seriously either because I'm just one of the naive masses who's responding with anger to a threat to my world view, right?

Tell me, if I provided you with a list of thousands of photos with sunsets and sunrises at recorded times of the day, would you honestly admit you were wrong? Or would your request conveniently become rhetorical and you'd forever just avoid the topic like you do with everything else that you're inevitably wrong about?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 22, 2013, 03:53:46 PM
I can confirm that the time in England, United Kingdom, is (as of now) correct to the second.

Regards,

Pilgrim.

The time may be correct, but I think we were asking for the time of the sunset/sunrise. Unless, of course, that is what you meant. Did you mean the time of sunset was accurate? Just now?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pilgrim on April 22, 2013, 04:35:39 PM
My apologies, I did indeed mean the time of the sunset this (now yesterday) evening was correct to the second - it was rather beautiful actually. I couldn't post at the actually time of sunset, as I was enjoying it with my wife.

I shall observe the sunrise and post pictures with a time / date stamp in the morning, incase my miscommunication earlier leads any to dismiss my evidence.

Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Rama Set on April 22, 2013, 04:38:52 PM
My apologies, I did indeed mean the time of the sunset this (now yesterday) evening was correct to the second - it was rather beautiful actually. I couldn't post at the actually time of sunset, as I was enjoying it with my wife.

I shall observe the sunrise and post pictures with a time / date stamp in the morning, incase my miscommunication earlier leads any to dismiss my evidence.

Don't worry Tom will likely avoid this thread like the plague now that real consequences have developed from it.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Dog on April 22, 2013, 08:29:39 PM
No-one here has claimed fortune telling to be accurate. Prediction of sun's setting and rising has already been proven accurate.

Who proved the world clock accurate?  ???

Darknavyseal proved it, his friends in asia proved it, pythagoras proved it, and I myself have f*cking observed it and proved it. Now stop dancing around and making yourself look like a complete embarrassment, and show us SOMETHING, ANYTHING that shows that we MIGHT be wrong, because this is getting old.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Scintific Method on April 22, 2013, 10:37:48 PM
Who proved the world clock accurate?  ???

Anyone who has ever used it, anywhere, ever. That's a lot of people!
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 03:39:45 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIP6RdhCQAA4VrS.jpg:large)


Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.

Hi.

First, let me present myself. I'm working in VFX shop, as lead technical director for lighting & shading.
I guess I'm part of the conspiracy, as I did some "round globe" shots for advertising in the past.

It seems that you are taking that photo as real.
You are probably right. Unlike most of FE are thinking,  it's very hard to fake, even with today technology.

Assuming this photo is real, you are saying it's show a flat earth.

That might be true if you ignore two simple optics rules I'm dealing on a daily basis :

1. The law of reflection (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/optics/lr.cfm (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/optics/lr.cfm)).

Notice that water is acting is doing a rather sharp reflection of the sun in the photo, resulting in a bright spot in the middle.
According to the position of that spot, and the assumed position of the camera, you can easily determined a vector where the sun must be to produce at glare at that exact position.
Then, assuming that rule 2. is incorrect because some crazy theory, it's impossible that the sun is in a position to make a circular area like this. Actually, the specular area

2. Inverse-square law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#Light_and_other_electromagnetic_radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#Light_and_other_electromagnetic_radiation))

Notice the terminator of the light in that photo. To have a short drop-off like this with a point light source, the light has to be :
- Very close.
But according to rule 1. that would mean that the sun would be visible in that picture, and comically small and very close to earth.
You can do the experiment very easily with a light bulb and a piece of paper.
- A spot light. But then you have to explain me how it works.


Also, why the terminator area should be so blue ?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 26, 2013, 03:57:42 AM
It's nice hear from a expert the subject. Apart from all FE photographic and graphical experts that inhabit this site of course lol.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pilgrim on April 26, 2013, 03:59:26 AM
Hi Ze_PilOt! Welcome to this wonderful and thought provoking society!

You present interesting queries. However, while I am sure your position as a 'lead technical director for lighting and shading' makes you very knowledgeable about how light works within the confines of small scale, Earth based studies, I am fairly sure that supporters of the Flat Earth Theory (FET) will likely argue that light behaves differently to what you expect through atmospheric circumstance such as this, or on this scale, or in this particular environment. The points you raise may be true on a round Earth model, but if the Earth is flat, you will have to demonstrate that it works on both infallibly. Also, photographic evidence is not a particularly reliable source of evidence for proponents of either FET or RET, so your argument may simply be dismissed on those grounds.

Again, welcome to the Flat Earth Society.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 04:47:09 AM
you will have to demonstrate that it works on both infallibly. Also, photographic evidence is not a particularly reliable source of evidence for proponents of either FET or RET, so your argument may simply be dismissed on those grounds.

Again, welcome to the Flat Earth Society.

That is true, but then they will have to prove me how to fake these sort of things (in real-time for some, like the red bull challenge or the ISS interviews), because I don't know any technology on earth that can do that now.

ie. the thread about fluids in zero-G being faked because Abyss exists.. That guy seriously need some glasses if the abyss fluids look real :)

By the way, still about "faking" things, a video about why faking the moon landing was pretty much impossible from a pure technical point of view :

moon hoax not (http://#ws)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: hoppy on April 26, 2013, 05:22:30 AM
I can confirm that the time in England, United Kingdom, is (as of now) correct to the second.

Regards,

Pilgrim.
I confirm that the time is not accurate Maryland, it is off by 2 hours and 10 minutes.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pilgrim on April 26, 2013, 05:29:54 AM
I can confirm that the time in England, United Kingdom, is (as of now) correct to the second.

Regards,

Pilgrim.
I confirm that the time is not accurate Maryland, it is off by 2 hours and 10 minutes.

Ah! Compelling. Interesting that it is correct for some, but not others. It does mean that it can't be used as irrefutable proof though. (EDIT: Assuming you were using it to check on sunrise / sunset time)

Quote from: Ze_PilOt
By the way, still about "faking" things, a video about why faking the moon landing was pretty much impossible from a pure technical point of view :

I really enjoy this video, and not just because of his witty demeanor. However, for Flat Earth proponents, he does somewhat provide ammunition by stating that (while unlikely) there is a process by which it would be possible to create the film. He does then suggests it is probably easier to just go to the moon, and this is the crux of the argument. It might be easier to go to the moon in the RET, but as it is an impossibility to go to the moon in the FET, then the only conclusion for the FE theorist to conclude is that it must be faked - however difficult that faking process would have been to achieve. The only other conclusion is that the FE model is incorrect, which is for the FE proponent to decide. 



Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 26, 2013, 05:30:19 AM
Hoppy your sun just rose? The Sun in Ohio has been up since at least 7:00 AM when I got up. Explain that.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Scintific Method on April 26, 2013, 06:41:35 AM
Quote from: Ze_PilOt
By the way, still about "faking" things, a video about why faking the moon landing was pretty much impossible from a pure technical point of view :

I really enjoy this video, and not just because of his witty demeanor. However, for Flat Earth proponents, he does somewhat provide ammunition by stating that (while unlikely) there is a process by which it would be possible to create the film. He does then suggests it is probably easier to just go to the moon, and this is the crux of the argument. It might be easier to go to the moon in the RET, but as it is an impossibility to go to the moon in the FET, then the only conclusion for the FE theorist to conclude is that it must be faked - however difficult that faking process would have been to achieve. The only other conclusion is that the FE model is incorrect, which is for the FE proponent to decide.

Just a brief comment on that video: he points out the technical difficulty of doing that amount of slow motion film, but does not mention that even slo-mo doesn't look right. I'm not picking on the video, it is excellent! I'm just saying that, even if that amount of slow motion footage could have been created, it still would not look the same as what we saw. Mythbusters did a special on the moon landing, I recommend seeking it out and watching it.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 06:49:20 AM
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 07:03:54 AM
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 26, 2013, 08:01:14 AM
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?
well considering you can see them its a good guess.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 26, 2013, 08:10:48 AM
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?

Where do you think it went?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 26, 2013, 08:18:29 AM
you see things like this.

(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2733/space134issdiscoveryspa.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/15/space134issdiscoveryspa.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 26, 2013, 08:26:33 AM
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?

Where do you think it went?
Into the ocean where they all go.

By what route?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 08:27:33 AM
Into the ocean where they all go.

Any proof of that ?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 26, 2013, 08:31:03 AM
stumped by evidence so you resort to sarcasm? iv seen a similar image with my own eyes. if you could be bothered to look yourself you could see the same thing. but considering your an arm chair idiot we wont expect anything from you any time soon.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 26, 2013, 08:37:56 AM
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?

Where do you think it went?
Into the ocean where they all go.

By what route?
The bloody ocean route, what do you mean. what route.

They very clearly go into the air. What route do they take to go into the ocean?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 08:41:44 AM
Only pictures.
Do you have any proof they go into space?

Only (tons) of  pictures and videos from the same sources than you.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 08:44:44 AM
So we are both stumped for real evidence then aren't we.

As the take off and moon landing are nearly impossible to fake, not really.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 26, 2013, 08:46:48 AM
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?

Where do you think it went?
Into the ocean where they all go.

By what route?
The bloody ocean route, what do you mean. what route.

They very clearly go into the air. What route do they take to go into the ocean?
Yes they go into the air and they go into the ocean, where the ocean is.

Air is up. Ocean is down. How high do they go that they go out of sight of everyone before they turn around?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 08:57:12 AM
How can you say they are nearly impossible to fake. From what I've seen, I'd say they could have been faked just as good in Charlie Chaplin film days, they're that bloody stupid, seriously.

Look at the youtube video I've posted.

I'm working in VFX, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how image faking works.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 09:04:53 AM
You can't be that good if you believe all these rocket launches and moon and space stuff.

http://www.nozon.com/work/showreel/Showreel.html (http://www.nozon.com/work/showreel/Showreel.html)

As you can see, they are some (faked) earth / mars shots I did.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 09:15:30 AM
It Shows how easy it is to fake stuff doesn't it.

How many man and machine hours do you think the first shot of the showreel took to make ?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 09:35:12 AM
It Shows how easy it is to fake stuff doesn't it.

How many man and machine hours do you think the first shot of the showreel took to make ?
1000?

1000 man hours for a 2 seconds shot is "easy" ?
And we are in 2013. They did not have computers in 1969. They did not have any digital camera either.

I'm really interested in knowing the technology they are supposedly used to fake it back then.

From there, I will be able to explain you the closest "real" technique, how it works, and why it's not easy.

Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 26, 2013, 10:00:05 AM
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?

Where do you think it went?
Into the ocean where they all go.

By what route?
The bloody ocean route, what do you mean. what route.

They very clearly go into the air. What route do they take to go into the ocean?
Yes they go into the air and they go into the ocean, where the ocean is.

Air is up. Ocean is down. How high do they go that they go out of sight of everyone before they turn around?
You actually see them all arcing in the sky. Go and look at the real pictures. And no, I don't mean the fake Saturn V lift off ones where the sky goes black and blue on command.  ;)

It's going straight up. It's just bendy light making you think it's curved.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Kintanon on April 26, 2013, 10:22:59 AM
Are any of you aware that a reflective plates were placed on the moon by one of the moon missions which anyone can target with a sufficiently powerful laser and receive a return signal off of?

Doesn't that pretty definitively prove that we went there, which further disproves the whole flat earth thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)



Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pilgrim on April 26, 2013, 10:43:23 AM
Kintanon,

Welcome. You have severely missed the boat with your first post though. There are plenty of threads on just such a topic that the handy 'Search' features of these forums will reveal.

Ultimately though, no, you have no definitively proved anything. Prove we went to the moon, that the laser ranging experiment is possible and that it all corresponds to a model which is infallible (i.e, don't assume things based on a round earth model when that is not the accepted belief amongst those you are trying to persuade) and you will have a starting point.

You will quickly learn, if you stick around here, that posting evidence of experiments or claims that go against the Flat Earth model will generally result in dismissal based on lies, fabrication or simple impossibility, unless you can categorically and infallibly demonstrate it yourself. Even then, prepare to defend your stance against an onslaught of counter claims, evidence and proofs from proponents of the Flat Earth Theory.

I wish you luck, and welcome.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 26, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
The same technology they used to film Capricorn 1.

And what is that technology ?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 26, 2013, 12:00:55 PM
The same technology they used to film Capricorn 1.

And what is that technology ?

Sup, ZE_Pilot. I feel I should warn you about skeptimatic. Among the FE crowd, he is probably the least intelligent. Look up his post history. In the several thousands of posts he has made, he has not learned a single, I repeat, a single thing. He doesn't understand reference frames of motion, he thinks the Felix Baumgartner jump was faked, he thinks anything resembling a photo is fake....I could go on. Even the FE people encourage people to not respond to him.

He is either a classic troll...I think you know the other option. Also, Hoppy is a flat out troll.

I confirm that the time is not accurate Maryland, it is off by 2 hours and 10 minutes.

He frequently posts false or misleading information. He sometimes agrees with skeptimatic in a post, only so that post is riddled with more comments, making reading it impossibly difficult.
Regarding hoppy's comment, I believe the world clock is accurate if you are watching the sunset/sunrise from the coast. Otherwise, land mass will get in the way of the actual sunset. Also, elevation is important too.

Welcome again to the Flat Earth Society.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: SpiroGyra on April 26, 2013, 12:37:15 PM
The same technology they used to film Capricorn 1.

And what is that technology ?

Sup, ZE_Pilot. I feel I should warn you about skeptimatic. Among the FE crowd, he is probably the least intelligent. Look up his post history. In the several thousands of posts he has made, he has not learned a single, I repeat, a single thing. He doesn't understand reference frames of motion, he thinks the Felix Baumgartner jump was faked, he thinks anything resembling a photo is fake....I could go on. Even the FE people encourage people to not respond to him.

He is either a classic troll...I think you know the other option. Also, Hoppy is a flat out troll.

I confirm that the time is not accurate Maryland, it is off by 2 hours and 10 minutes.

He frequently posts false or misleading information. He sometimes agrees with skeptimatic in a post, only so that post is riddled with more comments, making reading it impossibly difficult.
Regarding hoppy's comment, I believe the world clock is accurate if you are watching the sunset/sunrise from the coast. Otherwise, land mass will get in the way of the actual sunset. Also, elevation is important too.

Welcome again to the Flat Earth Society.

I'm new to this board, but I strongly believe the Felix Baumgartner jump was faked. Aside from the obvious, which you are missing, the earth is flat and to say otherwise is to venture down the path of folly.

Where is Felix Baumgartner now? Was there ever a post jump interview? None that I've seen. NASA, SETI, to name a few have perpetuated the hoax to such a degree that even these modern day "stunts" prove little other than how far we've come in creating science fiction for the masses.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 26, 2013, 12:42:06 PM
The same technology they used to film Capricorn 1.

And what is that technology ?

Sup, ZE_Pilot. I feel I should warn you about skeptimatic. Among the FE crowd, he is probably the least intelligent. Look up his post history. In the several thousands of posts he has made, he has not learned a single, I repeat, a single thing. He doesn't understand reference frames of motion, he thinks the Felix Baumgartner jump was faked, he thinks anything resembling a photo is fake....I could go on. Even the FE people encourage people to not respond to him.

He is either a classic troll...I think you know the other option. Also, Hoppy is a flat out troll.

I confirm that the time is not accurate Maryland, it is off by 2 hours and 10 minutes.

He frequently posts false or misleading information. He sometimes agrees with skeptimatic in a post, only so that post is riddled with more comments, making reading it impossibly difficult.
Regarding hoppy's comment, I believe the world clock is accurate if you are watching the sunset/sunrise from the coast. Otherwise, land mass will get in the way of the actual sunset. Also, elevation is important too.

Welcome again to the Flat Earth Society.

I'm new to this board, but I strongly believe the Felix Baumgartner jump was faked. Aside from the obvious, which you are missing, the earth is flat and to say otherwise is to venture down the path of folly.

Where is Felix Baumgartner now? Was there ever a post jump interview? None that I've seen. NASA, SETI, to name a few have perpetuated the hoax to such a degree that even these modern day "stunts" prove little other than how far we've come in creating science fiction for the masses.

Felix Baumgartner : interview after jump ( english ) (http://#ws)
 Post jump video...but probably faked.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: SpiroGyra on April 26, 2013, 01:01:48 PM
If you look at the footage at around :22 in that video, it's obviously animated and shot from a 2nd party perspective. This guy is a trained professional actor.  ::)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 26, 2013, 01:17:53 PM
If you look at the footage at around :22 in that video, it's obviously animated and shot from a 2nd party perspective. This guy is a trained professional actor.  ::)

so first you say you think its fake because their was no post jump interview.



Where is Felix Baumgartner now? Was there ever a post jump interview? None that I've seen. NASA, SETI, to name a few have perpetuated the hoax to such a degree that even these modern day "stunts" prove little other than how far we've come in creating science fiction for the masses.

then we show you a interview. so you then say that he is a trained actor and the footage is obviously fake? i think you might need to get your theory straight.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: SpiroGyra on April 26, 2013, 01:24:09 PM
You don't expect anyone to believe that technology even exits, do you? You can scour the 4 corners of the internet and not find one piece of credible evidence that suggests we have the ability to launch a vehicle into space let alone send a man up to jump from above the stratosphere.

People are being misled to such a degree it's just incomprehensible. Wake up!
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 26, 2013, 01:39:44 PM
If you look at the footage at around :22 in that video, it's obviously animated and shot from a 2nd party perspective. This guy is a trained professional actor.  ::)

Yes they showed an animation... but that looked nothing like the footage from the actual jump...
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: rottingroom on April 26, 2013, 02:04:55 PM
If you look at the footage at around :22 in that video, it's obviously animated and shot from a 2nd party perspective. This guy is a trained professional actor.  ::)

yeah, that part at 22 seconds does look animated but I don't think anyone was implying (no round earthers here or anyone who made the video) that that was supposed to be real footage. It is however... REAL footage of a post jump interview which is what you asked for.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 26, 2013, 02:25:21 PM
You don't expect anyone to believe that technology even exits, do you? You can scour the 4 corners of the internet and not find one piece of credible evidence that suggests we have the ability to launch a vehicle into space let alone send a man up to jump from above the stratosphere.

People are being misled to such a degree it's just incomprehensible. Wake up!

Hello, skeptimatic. Is that you? Why do you make new accounts?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: SpiroGyra on April 26, 2013, 04:11:59 PM
 ???
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Shmeggley on April 26, 2013, 05:40:35 PM
The same technology they used to film Capricorn 1.

And what is that technology ?

Sup, ZE_Pilot. I feel I should warn you about skeptimatic. Among the FE crowd, he is probably the least intelligent. Look up his post history. In the several thousands of posts he has made, he has not learned a single, I repeat, a single thing. He doesn't understand reference frames of motion, he thinks the Felix Baumgartner jump was faked, he thinks anything resembling a photo is fake....I could go on. Even the FE people encourage people to not respond to him.

He is either a classic troll...I think you know the other option. Also, Hoppy is a flat out troll.

I confirm that the time is not accurate Maryland, it is off by 2 hours and 10 minutes.

He frequently posts false or misleading information. He sometimes agrees with skeptimatic in a post, only so that post is riddled with more comments, making reading it impossibly difficult.
Regarding hoppy's comment, I believe the world clock is accurate if you are watching the sunset/sunrise from the coast. Otherwise, land mass will get in the way of the actual sunset. Also, elevation is important too.

Welcome again to the Flat Earth Society.

I'm new to this board, but I strongly believe the Felix Baumgartner jump was faked. Aside from the obvious, which you are missing, the earth is flat and to say otherwise is to venture down the path of folly.

Where is Felix Baumgartner now? Was there ever a post jump interview? None that I've seen. NASA, SETI, to name a few have perpetuated the hoax to such a degree that even these modern day "stunts" prove little other than how far we've come in creating science fiction for the masses.

Felix Baumgartner has give many interviews. He gave several just after his jump, and most recently in GQ just yesterday.

I'd post the links, but for some reason FES is not letting me. Do I smell a counter conspiracy? ??? (no I don't, conspiracy theories are for the weak minded).

EDIT: Here they are!


Obviously you have not even tried to look. Pathetic.


http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2013-04/25/felix-baumgartner-space-jump-interview (http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2013-04/25/felix-baumgartner-space-jump-interview)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/arieladams/2012/10/25/interview-with-space-jumper-felix-baumgartner/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/arieladams/2012/10/25/interview-with-space-jumper-felix-baumgartner/)

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/24/felix-baumgartner-the-austrian-daredevil-on-his-world-record-jump-fear-and-not-saying-goodbye/ (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/24/felix-baumgartner-the-austrian-daredevil-on-his-world-record-jump-fear-and-not-saying-goodbye/)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/03/felix-baumgartner-space-jump-interview (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/03/felix-baumgartner-space-jump-interview)

Felix Baumgartner Jump Interview - CNN AC360 - Oct 24 2012 (http://#ws)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20051474 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20051474)

http://www.eonline.com/news/355526/fearless-felix-baumgartner-gives-first-interview-about-record-setting-supersonic-jump (http://www.eonline.com/news/355526/fearless-felix-baumgartner-gives-first-interview-about-record-setting-supersonic-jump)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9636188/Fearless-Felix-Baumgartner-Mars-is-a-waste-of-money.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9636188/Fearless-Felix-Baumgartner-Mars-is-a-waste-of-money.html)

This is nothing but the top few Google results by the way.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 26, 2013, 09:29:11 PM
???

If this is not Skeptimatic, I sincerely apologize. Your posting style is very similar to his, being that you question everything. Not that it is bad, but I actually thought he made an alt account.

Cheers.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 27, 2013, 02:13:25 AM
You don't expect anyone to believe that technology even exits, do you? You can scour the 4 corners of the internet and not find one piece of credible evidence that suggests we have the ability to launch a vehicle into space let alone send a man up to jump from above the stratosphere.

People are being misled to such a degree it's just incomprehensible. Wake up!

If you find it impossible after "scouting four corners of the internet" to find evidence for existence of helium balloons you might be doing some wrong. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 27, 2013, 03:54:34 AM
What's wrong with them? Seems like your clutching at straws to be honest
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 27, 2013, 06:20:08 AM
What's wrong with them? Seems like your clutching at straws to be honest
What's right with them?
Why don't you compare them and tell me if that fits.
Well, when I say that, I mean, I know it will all fit with you, because you question absolutely nothing about anything, if it's deemed a conspiracy.

Why don't you try explaining what you think is wrong with them instead of telling people it's obvious and dancing around actually putting your points in words.  For example you could say "When you compare the suits, they look nearly identical after 50 years" (I haven't compared the suits yet so I don't actually know what does look different about them).
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 27, 2013, 06:27:58 AM
well don sceptic. you have shown that in 70 years technology and safety has improved. round of applause for sceptic everyone
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: BenW on April 27, 2013, 06:35:15 AM
What's wrong with them? Seems like your clutching at straws to be honest
What's right with them?
Why don't you compare them and tell me if that fits.
Well, when I say that, I mean, I know it will all fit with you, because you question absolutely nothing about anything, if it's deemed a conspiracy.

Kittinger

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/xa50744a72.jpg)

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/dc50744a5d.jpg)


Look at pictures of televisions from the 1940s and from the 1990s. Do you doubt that televisions exist too?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 27, 2013, 06:39:40 AM
What's wrong with them? Seems like your clutching at straws to be honest
What's right with them?
Why don't you compare them and tell me if that fits.
Well, when I say that, I mean, I know it will all fit with you, because you question absolutely nothing about anything, if it's deemed a conspiracy.

Why don't you try explaining what you think is wrong with them instead of telling people it's obvious and dancing around actually putting your points in words.  For example you could say "When you compare the suits, they look nearly identical after 50 years" (I haven't compared the suits yet so I don't actually know what does look different about them).
Well here's a little clue.
Felix goes up in a "pressurised" capsule.
Kittinger is a tough guy and uses none of that. He's just happy to go up in his suit inside a bloody glorified basket.
They think everyone is  stupid.

One would expect a modern capsule to be more technologically advanced than the first.  When you fly in an airplane, the cabin is pressurized, is there a problem with this?  If I'm not mistaken, Felix traveled higher than Kittinger, it would make sense that they would want to have him in a pressurized capsule.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 27, 2013, 06:46:20 AM
It speaks for itself as a hoax. Come on lads, what are you actually fighting against here.  ;D
Pressurised capsule V a bag of crap capsule.

is their an argument mixed into those words somewhere? ???
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 27, 2013, 06:54:03 AM
you got that

It speaks for itself as a hoax. Come on lads, what are you actually fighting against here.  ;D
Pressurised capsule V a bag of crap capsule.

is their an argument mixed into those words somewhere? ???
Yes.
Kittinger didn't go very high and neither did Felix. All they did was a parachute jump in a mock up space like suit what we are led to believe work in near vacuums.

from that
It speaks for itself as a hoax. Come on lads, what are you actually fighting against here.  ;D
Pressurised capsule V a bag of crap capsule.

how?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 27, 2013, 06:54:26 AM
It speaks for itself as a hoax. Come on lads, what are you actually fighting against here.  ;D
Pressurised capsule V a bag of crap capsule.

Kittinger used a pressurized suit. So did Baumgartner. Baumgartner also enjoyed the benefit of a pressurized capsule, Kittinger did not.

So what? Honestly it's difficult to see what you're arguing about? What is the significance of the capsules being pressurized or not?

I also don't see why FE wants to claim it was faked. A guy went up in a balloon, jumped off and landed with a parachute. So friggin' what?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: rottingroom on April 27, 2013, 06:54:52 AM
What's wrong with them? Seems like your clutching at straws to be honest
What's right with them?
Why don't you compare them and tell me if that fits.
Well, when I say that, I mean, I know it will all fit with you, because you question absolutely nothing about anything, if it's deemed a conspiracy.

Why don't you try explaining what you think is wrong with them instead of telling people it's obvious and dancing around actually putting your points in words.  For example you could say "When you compare the suits, they look nearly identical after 50 years" (I haven't compared the suits yet so I don't actually know what does look different about them).
Well here's a little clue.
Felix goes up in a "pressurised" capsule.
Kittinger is a tough guy and uses none of that. He's just happy to go up in his suit inside a bloody glorified basket.
They think everyone is  stupid.

One would expect a modern capsule to be more technologically advanced than the first.  When you fly in an airplane, the cabin is pressurized, is there a problem with this?  If I'm not mistaken, Felix traveled higher than Kittinger, it would make sense that they would want to have him in a pressurized capsule.

Yeah, Kittinger jumped from 19.5 miles while Baumgartner did it from 24 miles.

It speaks for itself as a hoax. Come on lads, what are you actually fighting against here.  ;D
Pressurised capsule V a bag of crap capsule.

is their an argument mixed into those words somewhere? ???
Yes.
Kittinger didn't go very high and neither did Felix. All they did was a parachute jump in a mock up space like suit what we are led to believe work in near vacuums.

Everything you said here was true except for your implication that we are led to believe. Once again, nobody is messing with your head but yourself. Also, that's not an argument.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: rottingroom on April 27, 2013, 06:58:56 AM
It speaks for itself as a hoax. Come on lads, what are you actually fighting against here.  ;D
Pressurised capsule V a bag of crap capsule.

Kittinger used a pressurized suit. So did Baumgartner. Baumgartner also enjoyed the benefit of a pressurized capsule, Kittinger did not.

So what? Honestly it's difficult to see what you're arguing about? What is the significance of the capsules being pressurized or not?

I also don't see why FE wants to claim it was faked. A guy went up in a balloon, jumped off and landed with a parachute. So friggin' what?

the part that they have a problem with is that it has footage of the earth being round. So anything that ever implies that must be fake because they think it's a fact that the earth is flat. That's reasoning I guess.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 27, 2013, 07:48:49 AM
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 27, 2013, 08:24:13 AM
What is the maximum height we are able to reach to be "real" ?

They knew he was 70 km off because he had a tracking device. That's how they stay on focus with him.
Or maybe GPS and lenses does not exists ?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: rottingroom on April 27, 2013, 08:26:39 AM
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

20,000 ft is extremely low. I'm working with a helo today flying at 25,000 ft. It's nothing.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 27, 2013, 08:27:53 AM
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

What makes 20,000 feet an incredible feat (judging its incredible by you being extremely generous with the height)?  Commercial jets fly above 30,000 feet.  Weather balloons routinely break 60,000 feet.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: rottingroom on April 27, 2013, 08:36:05 AM
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

What makes 20,000 feet an incredible feat (judging its incredible by you being extremely generous with the height)?  Commercial jets fly above 30,000 feet.  Weather balloons routinely break 60,000 feet.

right, and the felix jump was a little over twice what a weather balloon does. A weather balloon is designed to carry a light package called a radiosonde while felix's was designed to carry a vessel large enough for him and his equipment.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 27, 2013, 09:16:12 AM
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

What makes 20,000 feet an incredible feat (judging its incredible by you being extremely generous with the height)?  Commercial jets fly above 30,000 feet.  Weather balloons routinely break 60,000 feet.
Parachuting humans don't though.

Why can't they?  I don't see a single reason why it's not possible.  A person would hit terminal velocity if jumping from 20,000 feet, so it can't be their speed would be too great.  Parachutes don't open immediately upon the jump, so that can't be it.  So what makes this impossible?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: 29silhouette on April 27, 2013, 09:28:01 AM
  So what makes this impossible?
Because if it involves atmosphere, relative motion, light, optics, video cameras, math, photography, or any type of physics in general, then it's beyond Sceptimatic's ability or willingness to comprehend, and therefore they're magic and fake, etc.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 27, 2013, 09:54:52 AM
  So what makes this impossible?
Because if it involves atmosphere, relative motion, light, optics, video cameras, math, photography, or any type of physics in general, then it's beyond Sceptimatic's ability or willingness to comprehend, and therefore they're magic and fake, etc.

THIS, people. It's funny how you guys didn't catch on yet.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 27, 2013, 10:29:49 AM
Yes, but I was (still am) interested to hear a genuine answer from Scepti for *why* it just isn't possible to ride a balloon and jump off. Okay recently he said it's possible at 20kft, but why not at a different altitude, we still don't know.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ze_PilOt on April 27, 2013, 11:20:23 AM
Trying to get his logic :

The air is pushed upward by the UA, so when there is no air, you aren't pushed anymore and so you stay there or drop.

Don't ask me why we are not falling toward the sky.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Pythagoras on April 27, 2013, 11:57:20 AM
well they would be rubbish if you did if you did so probably not, no.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: odes on April 27, 2013, 12:04:10 PM
Do I need to put any words to this?

[video clip]

It looks like a fantasy. How were many of the shots even taken? And he descended with his board?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: neimoka on April 27, 2013, 12:52:14 PM
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

What makes 20,000 feet an incredible feat (judging its incredible by you being extremely generous with the height)?  Commercial jets fly above 30,000 feet.  Weather balloons routinely break 60,000 feet.
Parachuting humans don't though.
Parachuting from 20kft isn't that unusual, not even 30k.

#t=02m30s (http://#t=02m30s)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: darknavyseal on April 27, 2013, 05:44:01 PM
^That video is obviously fake. You can't think that's real, can you? Come ON, guys!!



....
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 13, 2013, 08:20:27 PM
They clearly used a fish-eye lens in Felix's jump.  That alone is deceiving.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: 29silhouette on May 13, 2013, 10:05:41 PM
They clearly used a fish-eye lens in Felix's jump.  That alone is deceiving.
And?.....

People use fish-eye lenses for snowboarding, kayaking, quads, all kinds of video.  Are those all deceiving too?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 30, 2013, 03:18:13 PM
Yep!
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 30, 2013, 03:39:44 PM
Yep!

Have a look at the following pictures. Below the google earth image from roughly the same location, same altitude and same perspective as the first high altitude picture. Same curvature. It would be very coincidentally if both google and the photo have the same distortion.
(remember to scroll to the left and right, or download the picture to view on your computer

(http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/166/linevn.jpg)

(http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2184/googleyk.jpg)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on June 05, 2013, 08:57:39 AM
LolFlat,

The question is, what camera lens was used to take that first photo?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: icanbeanything on June 05, 2013, 09:11:36 AM
LolFlat,

The question is, what camera lens was used to take that first photo?

The same one as in the second photo. And judging by the plane's fuselage, it's not a wide angle lens.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Rama Set on June 05, 2013, 09:59:26 AM
Yep!

Have a look at the following pictures. Below the google earth image from roughly the same location, same altitude and same perspective as the first high altitude picture. Same curvature. It would be very coincidentally if both google and the photo have the same distortion.
(remember to scroll to the left and right, or download the picture to view on your computer

(http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/166/linevn.jpg)

(http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2184/googleyk.jpg)

If there was a fish eye effect in the first photo, then you would see the line of the plane engine curving in a concave manner.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: The Captain on June 21, 2013, 11:16:38 PM
Thanks for the baseless assumptions, but I am actually saying this photo was taken from a balloon, not an imaginary spacestation. Now if you think you can prove that this photo was taken at an altitude too high for a balloon, carry on. I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.

I find it ironic that you say you can't believe there are people who believe in space stations... Yeah all that money and research was for fun. I'd rather believe in balloons somehow floating in space. Makes much more sense.
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Kamikaze on June 28, 2013, 11:54:44 AM
LolFlat,

The question is, what camera lens was used to take that first photo?
Uh, even if it were a fish eye lens wouldn't the wing be bent concave?
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Googleotomy on June 28, 2013, 04:02:49 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIP6RdhCQAA4VrS.jpg:large)


Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)

Another thing that seems quite obvious to me (IMHO)  in Thork's animation :
The moon and the sun are shown in the same orbit and are always 180 degrees apart.
Which of course they are obviously  not in reality.

IMHO Round Earthers can justifiably say "fake" about the animation.  :D ;D ::)
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Thinker on June 28, 2013, 07:54:22 PM
ok What Continent is that?  I'm pretty sure its no continent actually and is just some small island... ok so if that small island looks that big to 1/4 of the earth then why isnt it a continent again?... yea its called ratio. FAKE

EDIT: Otherwise.. seriously folks I think we have newly discovered continent here.. this is HUGE news.. what should we name it how about "Afakerica."
Title: Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
Post by: Ski on June 29, 2013, 04:52:01 PM
^That video is obviously fake. You can't think that's real, can you? Come ON, guys!!



....

The horizon looks terribly concave as they jump out of the aircraft. Perhaps it is convincing enough for you to change your mind on the shape of the earth?