Dang they became great at photoshop

Except that there are photos where it is painfully (for you) obvious that no fish-eye lens was used as a craft or astronaut is in the picture in front of the glorious globe.

Quote

Take careful note, class, that Tom attempts no quantification of the level of processing power required for the Washington to target its missiles beyond the vague fuzzy statement of 'one can imagine', nor does he show the resolution of the output systems for their computers.

By comparison, the game of Pong came out November 29, 1972. Pong was, to the the public, the most advanced simulation at the time.

If, by 1959 the government had the computer advancements necessary to launch and track nuclear missiles on the fly from remote locations, it is by no large stretch of the imagination that they had other undisclosed advancements.

Quote

Remember, in order to distribute these falsified Round-earth photos, the conspiracy would need to digitize the image, store it in memory, alter it to their satisfaction, and then print it out again.

Not really. I could warp an image of the flat horizon into a round or concave horizon using 1600's levels of technology. Simply take a picture of the scene, or parts of a scene, with a special lens that gives the Curvature of Field effect. The fabrication of lenses are well within 1600's levels of technology. No computers are even necessary.

I'll repeat what has already been said by someone else. What has flight guidance and Pong got to do with the kind of advanced image editing required to create photos that are not just realistic but are EXACTLY LIKE REAL LIFE. They can barely do it now you moron.

Except that there are photos where it is painfully (for you) obvious that no fish-eye lens was used as a craft or astronaut is in the picture in front of the glorious globe.

Stitching scenes together without the use of a computer is still possible. It just becomes more labor intensive. It's also possible to keep an object in the foreground from warping with the background through means of focus.

Your young mind is just stuck in a "computers are magic" mode, unfortunately.

I'll repeat what has already been said by someone else. What has flight guidance and Pong got to do with the kind of advanced image editing required to create photos that are not just realistic but are EXACTLY LIKE REAL LIFE. They can barely do it now you moron.

They can barely do it now? A basement teenager running a filter or two in photoshop is hardly a pinnacle of achievement.

Your knowledge of history is appalling. Humans were not cave people prior to the 1960's. Man has always been quite innovating.

They're not stitched together. And they'd still have to generate the content of the stitched together images if they were. Good job they're not.

If a fish eye lens were used it would be extremely obvious as there would be more curvature towards the edges in order to keep the object in the middle un-warped. Also it would be warped slightly anyway. Do you see how I'm using facts to back myself up and you're using "well maybe this....maybe that...maybe the other". What a load of fallacious bull you spout at every opportunity.

They're not stitched together. And they'd still have to generate the content of the stitched together images if they were. Good job they're not.

If a fish eye lens were used it would be extremely obvious as there would be more curvature towards the edges in order to keep the object in the middle un-warped. Also it would be warped slightly anyway. Do you see how I'm using facts to back myself up and you're using "well maybe this....maybe that...maybe the other". What a load of fallacious bull you spout at every opportunity.

Listen dumbshoe, computers are not the be-all end-all of technology.

If I were perpetuating a multi-billion dollar scam in the 1960's I would make sure that my illusion of a round earth was concrete. If I wanted to place an object from one picture into a background scene all I'd have to do is cut it out, glue it onto the background photograph, feather the edges of the cutout, and take another picture of the finished product. That's all there is to it.

If my first results weren't satisfying, I'd hire a fine artist do it with a magnifying glass. You can find them on the streets of any city willing to work for minimum wage. 

I might also make sure that the final picture was a bit fuzzy, as the 1960's pictures were, to do away with any potential mistakes.

By comparison, the game of Pong came out November 29, 1972. Pong was, to the the public, the most advanced simulation at the time.

Incorrect. "Spacewar!", made in 1961, was a far more sofisticated simulation created using a PDP-1. This machine had a mere 9 Kilobytes of memory and ran to 200kHz. The machine was roughly half the size of a fridge, and was able to simulate the balistic motion of two objects in realtime while taking input from a user. (With those specifications, it would be paralyzed by attempting to run a simple GUI like Windows 3.1. Detailed visuals are far more strenuous for a computer than raw number-crunching) The machine on which Spacewar was made belonged to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Or do you not considder universities to be part of "the public". Are mere civilian students of computer programming privy the Conspiracy's Super-technology?)

Pong was an advancement in miniaturization and affordability. It fit an amusing little program into a box smaller than a contemporary stereo system, at a price that a middle-class person could afford.

The computers mounted on a nuclear submarine were far larger than the PDP-1, they would have easily been able to accomodate their tasks related to navigation and targeting of missiles, but would have frozen in place had they attempted to run anything resembling decent Image-editing software.

If, by 1959 the government had the computer advancement necessary to launch and track nuclear missiles on the fly from remote locations, it is by no large stretch of the imagination that they had other undisclosed advancements.

Launching and tracking a missile is a comparatively simple task from a mathematics point of view. One need only feed the machine your location, and that of the target for it to use simple geometry to determine the distance between you and the angles required. Vector addition can account for winds,

Tracking the missile in flight requires only that it carry a beacon tuned to a frequency which your radar can readily identify.

Balsitic tracking is not comparible to photo editing with regards to processing power.


And if you intend to shift the goalposts to using entirely photographic methods of forging evidence of Round-Earth, why even bring up the computers of a nuclear submarine? It's an entirely pointless act if you concede that the first NASA photographs of Earth could not have been made with the computers of the time.


I leave battling your arguments about photographic techniques to Kasroa, as optics are far from central to my field of study.

Quote

They're not stitched together. And they'd still have to generate the content of the stitched together images if they were. Good job they're not.

If a fish eye lens were used it would be extremely obvious as there would be more curvature towards the edges in order to keep the object in the middle un-warped. Also it would be warped slightly anyway. Do you see how I'm using facts to back myself up and you're using "well maybe this....maybe that...maybe the other". What a load of fallacious bull you spout at every opportunity.

Listen dumbshoe, computers are not the be-all end-all of technology.

If I were perpetuating a multi-billion dollar scam in the 1960's I would make sure that my illusion of a round earth was concrete. If I wanted to place an object from one picture into a background scene all I'd have to do is cut it out, glue it onto the background photograph, feather the edges of the cutout, and take another picture of the finished product. That's all there is to it.

If my first results weren't satisfying, I'd hire a fine artist do it with a magnifying glass. You can find them on the streets of any city willing to work for minimum wage. 

I might also make sure that the final picture was a bit fuzzy, as the 1960's pictures were, to do away with any potential mistakes.

Were you this fine artist?
Is this how you know the earth is flat?

Quote

They're not stitched together. And they'd still have to generate the content of the stitched together images if they were. Good job they're not.

If a fish eye lens were used it would be extremely obvious as there would be more curvature towards the edges in order to keep the object in the middle un-warped. Also it would be warped slightly anyway. Do you see how I'm using facts to back myself up and you're using "well maybe this....maybe that...maybe the other". What a load of fallacious bull you spout at every opportunity.

Listen dumbshoe, computers are not the be-all end-all of technology.

If I were perpetuating a multi-billion dollar scam in the 1960's I would make sure that my illusion of a round earth was concrete. If I wanted to place an object from one picture into a background scene all I'd have to do is cut it out, glue it onto the background photograph, feather the edges of the cutout, and take another picture of the finished product. That's all there is to it.

If my first results weren't satisfying, I'd hire a fine artist do it with a magnifying glass. You can find them on the streets of any city willing to work for minimum wage. 

I might also make sure that the final picture was a bit fuzzy, as the 1960's pictures were, to do away with any potential mistakes.

In good conspircay theory style, due to massive evidence against it the argument has now changed from "lol photoshopped in the 60's" to "lol didn't even need photoshop". If you're going to be a "dumbshoe" at least be consistent.

They are real photographs, they have not been stitched together. Fish eye lenses were not used. Man has orbited the planet. You have exactly zero evidence to prove that the Earth is flat. Zero.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2007, 04:04:13 PM

1.) Open each of those NASA Round Earth pictures in notepad and note the photoshop headers.

The header is probably there in every image that is saved with photoshop, it doesn't have to mean it's "made" with photoshop.

DING DING DING, i was wondering if FEers would ever stop to think that it was just saved w/a common program, photoshop, which everyone is pretty much capable of having, the fact that it's saved under photoshop does in no way say that it was fucked around with by photoshop, your sole reason for believing it's photoshopped is purely because of the header, this again, proves absolutely nothing but assumption

yea plus they'd need to adjust the quality/size/format so the pic isnt 192874918274 x1294712487 and 100 gigs

Quote

So Tom you admit they don't look photoshopped? Because your only defense seems to be "lol photoshop headers" which is 100% irrelevant.

Images 1 and 3 have obvious inconsistencies with the other images. Obviously illustrations or 3D models of some sort.

Images 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 looks like planet renderings straight out of the original Star Trek.

The remainders were probably contrived through one of NASA's planet simulators.

Quote

Still no explanation for all the photos taken when computers had all the processing power of a wrist watch and were ths size of buildings.

Early shots of the round earth were high altitude shots taken with slight fish-eye lenses. The fabrication of lenses is a technology that date back to the 1600's.

you say nothing of pic 2

I'm confused, why would the US military need to have a sub marine that could launch a nuclear missile anywhere in the world...all of the world;s governments are peaceful with each other and are really just buds in the greater conspiracy.

So you are saying when I went up in Space Shuttle Orbiter Endeavour, the government drugged me and put me in some sort of simulation? Or am I part of the conspiracy?

So you are saying when I went up in Space Shuttle Orbiter Endeavour, the government drugged me and put me in some sort of simulation? Or am I part of the conspiracy?

Yea, because you were there...

Quote from: Darkfrog on March 16, 2007, 11:17:55 AM

So you are saying when I went up in Space Shuttle Orbiter Endeavour, the government drugged me and put me in some sort of simulation? Or am I part of the conspiracy?

Yea, because you were there...

yea what? Which one? I'm a conspirator, or I was given drugs and then put in an incredibly realistic simulation?

  To you being on the shuttle.

Quote from: kasroa on March 09, 2007, 09:39:26 AM

Tom give it a rest, they didn't have advanced photo editing software in the 60's. They barely had software at all.

As Tom said, the government has more advanced technology than the general public. Consider all the money that NASA space programme's have recieved - isn't it likely that they would put some of the money into developing photo manipulation technology?



It looks pretty flat to me :p

Yeah, but then your theoretical ice wall is only on two sides. GG

I guess then it's a good thing that's not how the FE looks.

You mean the FE model, right?

I guess then it's a good thing that's not how the FE looks.

yeah, but you refernced " looks flat to me "

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 16, 2007, 11:29:18 PM

I guess then it's a good thing that's not how the FE looks.

yeah, but you refernced " looks flat to me "

What?

That wasn't him... he's more intelligent than that.

Though I never thought you were a pilot either.

Well, I am, and have been, for a number of years.

Then why can't he be an astronaut? You have no way of knowing either way... it's not impossible an astronaut found this site. Though they'd probably pass you off as idiots and not post....

Well, let's see:  He's cussed, claimed Einstein was wrong and has the mathematical proof of it.  As astronauts are extremely well educated, I find it hard to believe that they would never have taken a class on Relavitity, as it's part of the job.  Plus, the whole cussing thing is not very professional.  His posts, as well as mine, speak for themselves.

Though I still have no reason to believe you are a pilot. Only your word... which I don't trust... so good luck on that.

Oh, believe me, I couldn't care less whether or not you believe I am a pilot.

Flight Simulator doesn't count....

Actually, flight simulators do.

Flight Simulator... by Microsoft? that makes you a pilot?

<----- for reference