The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: ausGeoff on April 03, 2015, 08:32:12 AM

Title: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: ausGeoff on April 03, 2015, 08:32:12 AM
Astronauts aboard the International Space Station have captured some fantastic and awe-inspiring shots of Super Typhoon Maysak and its cavernous eye.  The typhoon, now spinning in the far western Pacific Ocean with winds of 225km/h, is forecast to weaken and hit the Philippines over the weekend with winds of about 170km/h.  The curvature of the earth and its limb are clearly identified.


(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/whmdsrzdi3jsoxoazkfe.gif)


Typhoon Maysak taken from the International Space Station.
Photo: Samantha Cristoforetti

Samantha Cristoforetti MSME is a European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut of Italian nationality, and was trained specifically for the second long duration mission of the Italian Space Agency (ASI) on board the International Space Station.  She will be a Flight Engineer for Expeditions 42 and 43 between December 2014 and May 2015. The Soyuz TMA-15M carrying Cristoforetti and two other astronauts was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan.  (Note:  These two missions have no connection with NASA.)
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 08:44:27 AM
Thank you for proving the FET.  You can obviously tell that this phenomenon is caused by aetheric whirlpools and the apparent curvature of the earth is caused by aetheric lensing.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Lemmiwinks on April 03, 2015, 08:55:30 AM
Its all caused by fairies. Duh
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on April 03, 2015, 09:08:04 AM
Nonsense, this is clearly the P4 force in action. The hole is the centre of the earth's torus. TET proved.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 09:15:20 AM
If only they could have shown both sides of the earth to prove DET
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on April 03, 2015, 12:20:46 PM
it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Mainframes on April 03, 2015, 12:34:07 PM
Or the Earth is really big.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 03, 2015, 12:48:36 PM
it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.

It's the usual argument from authority fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority):

Quote
The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct


geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:20:33 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:24:40 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?
So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Lemmiwinks on April 03, 2015, 01:25:04 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?

Really?

The sky is blue because I see it everyday, I have a picture.

I just argued from authority, am I wrong?
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:32:08 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?

Really?

The sky is blue because I see it everyday, I have a picture.

I just argued from authority, am I wrong?

You are not an authority, so, no, you are incorrect. That is not argument from authority.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:33:03 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?
So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Lemmiwinks on April 03, 2015, 01:36:03 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?

Really?

The sky is blue because I see it everyday, I have a picture.

I just argued from authority, am I wrong?

You are not an authority, so, no, you are incorrect. That is not argument from authority.

Oh, so if I were a specialist in the sky, suddenly my statement that the sky is blue would have been false?

Even you have to see how insipid that is.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:38:44 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?

Really?

The sky is blue because I see it everyday, I have a picture.

I just argued from authority, am I wrong?

You are not an authority, so, no, you are incorrect. That is not argument from authority.

Oh, so if I were a specialist in the sky, suddenly my statement that the sky is blue would have been false?

Even you have to see how insipid that is.

We can both verify the sky is blue under certain conditions. Authority is not needed. You need a better example.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:46:09 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?
So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

And what you quoted is not what is being presented here.

The fallacy does not mention anything about supporting evidence.  Therefore, if someone presents supporting evidence, it is no longer an argument from authority.

The argument is NOT
-NASA is an authority on the shape of the world
-NASA says the world is round
-Therefore, the world is round

The argument presented here is
-Here is a photo of a typhoon
-You can see curvature in the photo
-Therefore the world is round

So what was your point of bringing up a logical fallacy that isn't in use here?
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 03, 2015, 02:00:51 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?
So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

And what you quoted is not what is being presented here.

The fallacy does not mention anything about supporting evidence.  Therefore, if someone presents supporting evidence, it is no longer an argument from authority.

The argument is NOT
-NASA is an authority on the shape of the world
-NASA says the world is round
-Therefore, the world is round

The argument presented here is
-Here is a photo of a typhoon
-You can see curvature in the photo
-Therefore the world is round

So what was your point of bringing up a logical fallacy that isn't in use here?

1. Here are some awesome photos showing the shape of the earth.
2. They were taken by a space agency (an authority).
3. Therefore, they prove the earth is curved.

I don't expect you to understand. My posts are not meant for you.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 02:08:34 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?
So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

And what you quoted is not what is being presented here.

The fallacy does not mention anything about supporting evidence.  Therefore, if someone presents supporting evidence, it is no longer an argument from authority.

The argument is NOT
-NASA is an authority on the shape of the world
-NASA says the world is round
-Therefore, the world is round

The argument presented here is
-Here is a photo of a typhoon
-You can see curvature in the photo
-Therefore the world is round

So what was your point of bringing up a logical fallacy that isn't in use here?

1. Here are some awesome photos showing the shape of the earth.
2. They were taken by a space agency (an authority).
3. Therefore, they prove the earth is curved.

I don't expect you to understand. My posts are not meant for you.
That is not what argument from authority is, and you know it.  As you said earlier,
Quote
The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.
Now you want to change it around to suit your needs. 
If you have a problem with the photo, then you need to show why it is not genuine.
Unless we are to take your authority on the subject.

Tapet says the photos are fake
Tapet is coming off as an expert on photo analysis
Therefore tapet is correct.

Seems that you are coming off as the one falling into the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Also, if your posts aren't intended for me, block me.  Otherwise I will respond to your posts as I see fit.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 03, 2015, 02:16:55 PM
You forgot to quote this part.
Quote
s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?
So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

And what you quoted is not what is being presented here.

The fallacy does not mention anything about supporting evidence.  Therefore, if someone presents supporting evidence, it is no longer an argument from authority.

The argument is NOT
-NASA is an authority on the shape of the world
-NASA says the world is round
-Therefore, the world is round

The argument presented here is
-Here is a photo of a typhoon
-You can see curvature in the photo
-Therefore the world is round

So what was your point of bringing up a logical fallacy that isn't in use here?

1. Here are some awesome photos showing the shape of the earth.
2. They were taken by a space agency (an authority).
3. Therefore, they prove the earth is curved.

I don't expect you to understand. My posts are not meant for you.
That is not what argument from authority is, and you know it.  As you said earlier,
Quote
The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.
Now you want to change it around to suit your needs. 
If you have a problem with the photo, then you need to show why it is not genuine.
Unless we are to take your authority on the subject.

Tapet says the photos are fake
Tapet is coming off as an expert on photo analysis
Therefore tapet is correct.

Seems that you are coming off as the one falling into the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Also, if your posts aren't intended for me, block me.  Otherwise I will respond to your posts as I see fit.

1 and 2 are premises. 3 is the conclusion. The order of the premises is irrelevant.

I have no need to block you, or anyone else. I meant that my posts are for the more intelligent reader. Those who understand what evidence is, for example. Photos usually don't count. Unless they come from numerous, independent sources. Maybe.

Edit: To illustrate:

1. NASA took these photos I'm presenting.
2. In these photos, the earth is curved.
3. Therefore, we can be sure the earth is indeed, curved.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 02:44:41 PM
But there is evidence presented.  That means it is not any longer an argument from authority. 

Argument from authority, as you have so duly quoted, and you also asserted that there was nothing more to it than what you quoted would be as such.

NASA says the earth is round
NASA is an expert
Therefore the earth is round

Now since there is evidence presented, we are no longer taking their authority at face value.  We have evidence to discuss.
If you have an issue with the evidence, address that.  Show us why it is wrong. 
Otherwise we just have your authority on the subject to go by.

Also, you still have not shown us why all arguments from authority are logical fallacies when the page you yourself presented says that it is only a logical fallacy when misused.

I present you with this
Quote
An argument from authority (also appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam[2] and argumentum ab auctoritate), when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source
and
Quote
The appeal to authority is based around the following syllogism:
Premise 1 - Experts on a subject are usually correct.
Premise 2 - Experts on the subject have a consensus that P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is probably correct.
In its fallacious form, it could read:
Premise 1 - People with qualifications are usually correct.
Premise 2 - Those people say P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is definitely correct.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

Since NASA is and authority on the subject, it is not fallacious at all to use their authority to form a valid argument. 
Now if the argument was
NASA says trees need sunlight to survive
NASA is an expert
Therefore trees need sunlight to survive
Is fallacious reasoning, even though the conclusion is correct because NASA is not an expert in the area of arbology.

Also picked this one up to
Quote
Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.  As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority)

Both sites support my assertion that you are wrong in your assertion that all arguments from authority are fallacious. 

So now that we have gotten past your attempt to do a bunch of hand waving so you can just ignore the evidence presented, why don't you just get on with telling me what you believe is wrong with the pictures presented.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: FlatOrange on April 03, 2015, 10:40:25 PM
it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.

It's the usual argument from authority fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority):

Quote
The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct


geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

Thanks for reminding me! I've got a thread of this nature in the bank.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: ausGeoff on April 04, 2015, 05:04:25 AM
it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.

LOL... I was wondering how long it'd take this whack-job to chime in with one of his silly denials and misrepresentations of what we're seeing with these images.  And I'm prone to thinking that "intelligent flat earther" is an oxymoron in the major leagues.

    ;D    ;D    ;D
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: ausGeoff on April 04, 2015, 05:19:32 AM
It's the usual argument from authority fallacy...

Quote
The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct


geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

Poor old legion doesn't even understand what an argument from authority actually is, and is confusing it with ipse dixit (he himself said it).

I personally never claimed myself as the authority in this scenario.  Put another way, the perpetrator of an ipse-dixitism makes an unfounded assertion and expects his word to be the final say.  I simply threw the pics and their source open for general discussion and/or people's interest.  And true to form—and just like his flat earth peers—legion gets so hot and bothered that he totally misses the point of my topic.

Sad really.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: neimoka on April 04, 2015, 05:56:54 AM
i don't know of any intelligent flat earther

Me neither.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: ausGeoff on April 04, 2015, 06:48:29 AM
There's now independanet terrestrial-based evidence supporting the veracity of the images I posted...

"At least four people have died after a super typhoon ripped through several small islands in the Federated States of Micronesia in the central and western Pacific.  Super Typhoon Maysak slammed into the outlying atolls of Fais and Ulithi in Yap state on Tuesday night, with sustained winds of around 250 kilometres per hour". 
ABC News Australia

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6369966-4x3-940x705.jpg)


(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6369028-4x3-940x705.jpg)

I challenge any flat earther to deny the correlation between the ISS photographs and those taken on the ground in the path of Typhoon Maysak.



This is a satellite image (colour enhanced) of the typhoon with the Micronesian islands shown in red:


(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6363496-3x2-940x627.jpg)

                                      [Image NOAA]

Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:17:17 PM
It's the usual argument from authority fallacy...

Quote
The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct


geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

Poor old legion doesn't even understand what an argument from authority actually is, and is confusing it with ipse dixit (he himself said it).

I personally never claimed myself as the authority in this scenario.  Put another way, the perpetrator of an ipse-dixitism makes an unfounded assertion and expects his word to be the final say.  I simply threw the pics and their source open for general discussion and/or people's interest.  And true to form—and just like his flat earth peers—legion gets so hot and bothered that he totally misses the point of my topic.

Sad really.

Get real geoffrey. Of course you aren't an authority, in any scenario.

Why does one of the three images in the gif you posted show an apparently straight line for the edge of the earth?

Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:28:03 PM
Here it is (screenshot grab complete with my pointer  :'():

(http://i.imgur.com/HPorpLP.png) (http://imgur.com/HPorpLP)
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:36:09 PM
it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.

It's the usual argument from authority fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority):

Quote
The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct


geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

Thanks for reminding me! I've got a thread of this nature in the bank.

Get it posted. I love your topics.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: BJ1234 on April 04, 2015, 02:38:01 PM

Why does one of the three images in the gif you posted show an apparently straight line for the edge of the earth?
My guess is that the amount of the horizon that is shown in the picture is tiny and the curvature isn't as apparent.

But what of the curvature in the other pictures?
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM

Why does one of the three images in the gif you posted show an apparently straight line for the edge of the earth?
My guess is that the amount of the horizon that is shown in the picture is tiny and the curvature isn't as apparent.

But what of the curvature in the other pictures?

What of it? I do not trust the source.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: BJ1234 on April 04, 2015, 03:16:41 PM

Why does one of the three images in the gif you posted show an apparently straight line for the edge of the earth?
My guess is that the amount of the horizon that is shown in the picture is tiny and the curvature isn't as apparent.

But what of the curvature in the other pictures?

What of it? I do not trust the source.
OK can I ask why you don't trust the source?  Other than your belief that space travel is impossible or that NASA is lying.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Lemmiwinks on April 05, 2015, 07:47:17 PM

Why does one of the three images in the gif you posted show an apparently straight line for the edge of the earth?
My guess is that the amount of the horizon that is shown in the picture is tiny and the curvature isn't as apparent.

But what of the curvature in the other pictures?

What of it? I do not trust the source.
OK can I ask why you don't trust the source?  Other than your belief that space travel is impossible or that NASA is lying.

Thats the question isnt it? Why doesn't he trust NASA. It has to be because he personally doesn't believe they can do what they do, because there is no widespread verification that NASA is a lying entity. The vast majority of the worlds experts all look at what NASA does and say, "yep, they did that"

So isn't he arguing from the most pretentious of authority positions?
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Jet Fission on April 05, 2015, 07:52:07 PM
It's the usual argument from authority fallacy...

Quote
The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct


geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

Poor old legion doesn't even understand what an argument from authority actually is, and is confusing it with ipse dixit (he himself said it).

I personally never claimed myself as the authority in this scenario.  Put another way, the perpetrator of an ipse-dixitism makes an unfounded assertion and expects his word to be the final say.  I simply threw the pics and their source open for general discussion and/or people's interest.  And true to form—and just like his flat earth peers—legion gets so hot and bothered that he totally misses the point of my topic.

Sad really.

Get real geoffrey. Of course you aren't an authority, in any scenario.

Why does one of the three images in the gif you posted show an apparently straight line for the edge of the earth?
Uh, maybe because it's zoomed in? Are you seriously asking this or...
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: ausGeoff on April 06, 2015, 07:48:38 AM
Here it is (screenshot grab complete with my pointer

(http://imgur.com/HPorpLP.png)

LOL... now you're really grasping at straws legion.  Often massive cloud fronts can give the appearance of virtually straight lines, but the point to note with this particular image is that the limb of the earth is showing a definite negative curvature—as you'd expect from that altitude.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: 29silhouette on April 06, 2015, 10:20:42 AM
Here it is (screenshot grab complete with my pointer  :'():

http://imgur.com/HPorpLP (http://imgur.com/HPorpLP)
Actually, if you draw a line from one end to the other, there is still a little bit of curvature.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Dog on April 07, 2015, 04:07:47 PM
Damn. Legion is on a roll.

Using a fallacy improperly
Hypocrisy
Calling photos from a reliable source "fake" (pssst, burden of proof is on you to discredit photos from a reliable source)
Not recognizing arc length is directly proportional to perceived curvature
Typical nutjob distrust of NASA, the super-duper-bad-guy-lying-omniscient organization.

Keep it up. This is gold.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2015, 06:15:55 PM
Yes, this is legion's darkest hour. It's like one who buries himself in lies. There is so much nonsense coming from his fingers that he can no longer keep it straight.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: markjo on April 08, 2015, 01:24:24 PM

Why does one of the three images in the gif you posted show an apparently straight line for the edge of the earth?
My guess is that the amount of the horizon that is shown in the picture is tiny and the curvature isn't as apparent.

But what of the curvature in the other pictures?
I could be going out on a limb here, but I would go so far as to sat that the earth's curvature (or lack thereof) isn't really relevant part of those pictures.  I'd contend that the relevant part is the rather large hurricane that could not have been reasonably photographed from anything lower than low earth orbit.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 08, 2015, 01:28:23 PM
Here it is (screenshot grab complete with my pointer

(http://imgur.com/HPorpLP.png)

LOL... now you're really grasping at straws legion.  Often massive cloud fronts can give the appearance of virtually straight lines, but the point to note with this particular image is that the limb of the earth is showing a definite negative curvature—as you'd expect from that altitude.

Can you explain the bolded section.

Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 09, 2015, 12:20:57 PM
geoffrey, after you've completed my last request, can you post the original link where you found those photos images. That animated gif is a bit embarrassing. Even for you.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 09, 2015, 12:52:37 PM
Damn. Legion is on a roll.

1. Using a fallacy improperly
2. Hypocrisy
3. Calling photos from a reliable source "fake" (pssst, burden of proof is on you to discredit photos from a reliable source)
4. Not recognizing arc length is directly proportional to perceived curvature
5. Typical nutjob distrust of NASA, the super-duper-bad-guy-lying-omniscient organization.

6. Keep it up. This is gold.

1. I suppose I could be persuaded to change the fallacy to appeal to false authority.
2. Hypocrisy? Me?
3. When did I say the photos were fake? Putting words in my mouth, bub?
4. From the animated gif you people seem happy to accept as proof...?
5. Ad hominem.

6. You need to try harder. Then, it may be gold.

No wonder I don't see you post often. You are pretty bad at this.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 09, 2015, 01:29:16 PM
Which are fake photos? The first? The second? Both...?

(http://i.imgur.com/NfWsMQt.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/UjSyu0P.jpg)

Edit: Links got messed up. See below

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568294/Summer-storm-weather-warning-super-typhoon-Maysak-violent-ripple-effect (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568294/Summer-storm-weather-warning-super-typhoon-Maysak-violent-ripple-effect)

https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/583235655842562048/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/583235655842562048/photo/1)
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2015, 05:18:53 PM
Which are fake photos? The first? The second? Both...?

(http://i.imgur.com/NfWsMQt.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/UjSyu0P.jpg)

Edit: Links got messed up. See below

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568294/Summer-storm-weather-warning-super-typhoon-Maysak-violent-ripple-effect (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568294/Summer-storm-weather-warning-super-typhoon-Maysak-violent-ripple-effect)

https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/583235655842562048/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/583235655842562048/photo/1)

Good for you.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2015, 05:25:22 PM
Damn. Legion is on a roll.

1. Using a fallacy improperly
2. Hypocrisy
3. Calling photos from a reliable source "fake" (pssst, burden of proof is on you to discredit photos from a reliable source)
4. Not recognizing arc length is directly proportional to perceived curvature
5. Typical nutjob distrust of NASA, the super-duper-bad-guy-lying-omniscient organization.

6. Keep it up. This is gold.

1. I suppose I could be persuaded to change the fallacy to appeal to false authority.
2. Hypocrisy? Me?
3. When did I say the photos were fake? Putting words in my mouth, bub?
4. From the animated gif you people seem happy to accept as proof...?
5. Ad hominem.

6. You need to try harder. Then, it may be gold.

No wonder I don't see you post often. You are pretty bad at this.

1. You still don't know what an appeal to authority is.
2. Yes you.
3. You still think if you don't say something it can't be inferred. How cute. Why don't you just tell us what you think?
4. Is incredulity really your only rebuttal? Stretch yourself.
5. Yup. (This is what admitting you are wrong is like. You should try it.)
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 10, 2015, 01:30:22 PM
Damn. Legion is on a roll.

1. Using a fallacy improperly
2. Hypocrisy
3. Calling photos from a reliable source "fake" (pssst, burden of proof is on you to discredit photos from a reliable source)
4. Not recognizing arc length is directly proportional to perceived curvature
5. Typical nutjob distrust of NASA, the super-duper-bad-guy-lying-omniscient organization.

6. Keep it up. This is gold.

1. I suppose I could be persuaded to change the fallacy to appeal to false authority.
2. Hypocrisy? Me?
3. When did I say the photos were fake? Putting words in my mouth, bub?
4. From the animated gif you people seem happy to accept as proof...?
5. Ad hominem.

6. You need to try harder. Then, it may be gold.

No wonder I don't see you post often. You are pretty bad at this.

1. You still don't know what an appeal to authority is.
2. Yes you.
3. You still think if you don't say something it can't be inferred. How cute. Why don't you just tell us what you think?
4. Is incredulity really your only rebuttal? Stretch yourself.
5. Yup. (This is what admitting you are wrong is like. You should try it.)

1. Wrong. Demonstrate that posting a low res gif, from "an authority", to support an argument (unrelated to the subject matter of said gif) is not an appeal to authority. Re-read geoffreys original post to follow his "logic" (you clearly need to).
2. Reasoning?
3. Infer what you want. I don't accept the animated gif as anything other than a lame attempt from geoffrey to prove his case. It doesn't.
4. See above.
5. No idea what you are babbling about.

Disappointed in you, rama. I expect better.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Rama Set on April 10, 2015, 04:47:44 PM
That's all you get when I have 30 seconds to take a dump before putting my son to bed.

However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

The rebuttal of low resolution is feeble because the resolution in no way muddles the obvious sphericity of the Earth.

Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 11, 2015, 02:58:29 PM
That's all you get when I have 30 seconds to take a dump before putting my son to bed.

However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

The rebuttal of low resolution is feeble because the resolution in no way muddles the obvious sphericity of the Earth.

Data point? Obvious sphericity? Taking a dump?

No further comments are needed.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Rama Set on April 11, 2015, 03:43:06 PM
That's all you get when I have 30 seconds to take a dump before putting my son to bed.

However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

The rebuttal of low resolution is feeble because the resolution in no way muddles the obvious sphericity of the Earth.

Data point? Obvious sphericity? Taking a dump?

No further comments are needed.

You seem intent on never making a decent point so I suppose in this case you are right.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: ausGeoff on April 13, 2015, 10:22:32 AM
However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

It's well-known to most people on these forums that legion never lets any scientific evidence get in the way of his absurd notions about astrophysics or astronautics.  Or even photography for that matter LOL.

For some unknown reason, my topic seems to have really hit a raw nerve with the guy.  Seventeen responses?  Seriously?
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on April 13, 2015, 12:19:51 PM
However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

It's well-known to most people on these forums that legion never lets any scientific evidence get in the way of his absurd notions about astrophysics or astronautics.  Or even photography for that matter LOL.

For some unknown reason, my topic seems to have really hit a raw nerve with the guy.  Seventeen responses?  Seriously?

Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Dog on April 14, 2015, 02:38:07 PM
Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?

Have you proved the gif is not sincere yet? No? Alright people will continue to dismiss you then.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: ausGeoff on May 12, 2015, 07:48:46 AM
Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?

Have you proved the gif is not sincere yet? No? Alright people will continue to dismiss you then.

Of course legion hasn't been able to provide any viable evidence that the GIFs (in my first post) are anything other than absolutely genuine.

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.  As per this non-response of his, he simply goes quiet and hopes nobody questions him further and asks for his "evidence".  He's the classic case of all talk and no action.

And which is why most people here dismiss his nonsensical claims.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on May 12, 2015, 12:52:52 PM
Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?

Have you proved the gif is not sincere yet? No? Alright people will continue to dismiss you then.

Of course legion hasn't been able to provide any viable evidence that the GIFs (in my first post) are anything other than absolutely genuine.

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.  As per this non-response of his, he simply goes quiet and hopes nobody questions him further and asks for his "evidence".  He's the classic case of all talk and no action.

And which is why most people here dismiss his nonsensical claims.

I don't need to disprove your 'evidence'. The fact that you write:
Quote
He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.

shows your naivety, at best, or your stupidity, at worst. I'll let other readers decide which.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Rama Set on May 12, 2015, 05:40:40 PM
I think Legion is afraid to offer genuine criticism so instead resorts to a high school level understanding of epistemology. That is all his response delivered in the way of information.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Dog on May 12, 2015, 08:38:39 PM
Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?

Have you proved the gif is not sincere yet? No? Alright people will continue to dismiss you then.

Of course legion hasn't been able to provide any viable evidence that the GIFs (in my first post) are anything other than absolutely genuine.

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.  As per this non-response of his, he simply goes quiet and hopes nobody questions him further and asks for his "evidence".  He's the classic case of all talk and no action.

And which is why most people here dismiss his nonsensical claims.

I don't need to disprove your 'evidence'. The fact that you write:
Quote
He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.

shows your naivety, at best, or your stupidity, at worst. I'll let other readers decide which.

Another opportunity to come forward with evidence....... wasted. Not surprising.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on May 13, 2015, 01:03:28 PM
I think Legion is afraid to offer genuine criticism so instead resorts to a high school level understanding of epistemology. That is all his response delivered in the way of information.

Oh dear, rama. Have you had a lobotomy? Or are you serious that the burden of proof falls on me to disprove some silly animated gifs? Are you also serious that geoffreys incredulity that I laugh at "even photographic images" is valid in our age of being able to fake anything using software?

Quote

Of course legion hasn't been able to provide any viable evidence that the GIFs (in my first post) are anything other than absolutely genuine.

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2015, 01:16:42 PM
Rama Set said: 'That's all you get when I have 30 seconds to take a dump before putting my son to bed'.

Really?

Plus just WTF???

Think I'm getting an idea of who the sock-puppet master round here is.

Cos so many of you talking in the same, frankly very creepy, manner is highly unlikely.

Plus, just WTF??? Again.

Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on May 13, 2015, 01:36:13 PM
Which are fake photos? The first? The second? Both...?

(http://i.imgur.com/NfWsMQt.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/UjSyu0P.jpg)

Edit: Links got messed up. See below

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568294/Summer-storm-weather-warning-super-typhoon-Maysak-violent-ripple-effect (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568294/Summer-storm-weather-warning-super-typhoon-Maysak-violent-ripple-effect)

https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/583235655842562048/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/583235655842562048/photo/1)

Good for you.

"Good for you" fails to answer my question. Which of the photos are fake? How can you tell?

Edit: Any other believer can chip in with their reasons why one photo is "genuine" and one is the result of manipulation.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Rama Set on May 13, 2015, 02:28:24 PM
It is very generous of you to allow anyone to chip in on a public forum.  Your photos are pretty.
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on May 13, 2015, 02:40:00 PM
It is very generous of you to allow anyone to chip in on a public forum.  Your photos are pretty.

They are also conclusive of how idiotic anybody is to accept anything as "photographic images" proof.

Go on, write something else not funny and a bit sad and pathetic! I'm sure you'll have the other trolls in howls of embarrassed laughter!





Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Rama Set on May 13, 2015, 02:48:05 PM
It is very generous of you to allow anyone to chip in on a public forum.  Your photos are pretty.

They are also conclusive of how idiotic anybody is to accept anything as "photographic images" proof.

Go on, write something else not funny and a bit sad and pathetic! I'm sure you'll have the other trolls in howls of embarrassed laughter!

You think putting a woman with an umbrella in a photo with a hurricane is believable?  When was the last time you went outside?

*Cue embarrassed laugh track*
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: legion on May 13, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
It is very generous of you to allow anyone to chip in on a public forum.  Your photos are pretty.

They are also conclusive of how idiotic anybody is to accept anything as "photographic images" proof.

Go on, write something else not funny and a bit sad and pathetic! I'm sure you'll have the other trolls in howls of embarrassed laughter!

You think putting a woman with an umbrella in a photo with a hurricane is believable?  When was the last time you went outside?

*Cue embarrassed laugh track*

You think putting a solar panel with a hurricane is believable? When was the last time you went in to space?

*loud laughter at rama having a lobotomy*
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Rama Set on May 13, 2015, 05:26:15 PM
It is very generous of you to allow anyone to chip in on a public forum.  Your photos are pretty.

They are also conclusive of how idiotic anybody is to accept anything as "photographic images" proof.

Go on, write something else not funny and a bit sad and pathetic! I'm sure you'll have the other trolls in howls of embarrassed laughter!

You think putting a woman with an umbrella in a photo with a hurricane is believable?  When was the last time you went outside?

*Cue embarrassed laugh track*

You think putting a solar panel with a hurricane is believable?

What are you putting words in my mouth?

Quote
When was the last time you went in to space?

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote
*loud laughter at rama having a lobotomy*

Wow.  How is the home life?
Title: Re: Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
Post by: Lemmiwinks on May 13, 2015, 05:28:08 PM
Wow.  How is the home life?

I'd guess not great.