So I'm new...

If anything, pictures help clarify discussions and details. They should, however, not be used as evidence for either side.

If anything, pictures help clarify discussions and details. They should, however, not be used as evidence for either side.

not true. photographs are used all the time in civil and criminal trials. people have been put to death and people have been exonerated, and multimillion dollar lawsuits won and lost - with cases built on photographic evidence. photographic evidence is invaluable or even irreplaceable and in many scientific fields.

to make your statement correct, you needed to add: "...unless their provenance and authenticity can be verified". an important distinction.

True, however on an internet forum that also hints at a global government conspiracy, such assurances of authenticity cannot be provided.

But can you prove it incorrect?

you can't prove incorrect what is immune from disproof. belief is not subject to forces of evidence and critical analysis. belief is the cryptonite of reason.

whenever you get p0wned, you run and hide behind the "conspiracy" argument. or more often, you just don't respond at all, conveniently sidestepping any conundrums. or you invoke the "in this arbitrary case photographic evidence is not valid" argument. etc. your toolkit of un-reason has no boundaries.

you have built a fortress of self-deception around yourself that no logic will ever get through. you are lost - and irrelevant. i suspect in more ways than just on an internet forum. but, to other (rational) people, your pathetic beliefs can be and regularly are disproven. and thank dog for that.

If you hold that photographs/moviesetc are not fake, then why do you have such an issue with them being used as sources?

You are being childish.  "You get to disqualify photos, so do I ! NYAAAAH"

If you hold that photographs/moviesetc are not fake, then why do you have such an issue with them being used as sources?

You are being childish.  "You get to disqualify photos, so do I ! NYAAAAH"

You do realise that discovery channel show was taking the piss out of flat earth believers, right? Because it was. The fact that Tom Bishop is now using it as evidence is hilarious.

The show is not what I'm discussing.  I'm discussing the tendency of Round Earthers to discount evidence they hold as valid just because we don't accept certain evidence we don't hold as valid.

The fact is simple, if you are to seriously debate FE thoeyr then you either disqualify all photographic evidence, or non at all. Unfortunately, for FE, the latter is suicide since including photographic evidence for both sides destroys the theory, due to all the pictures of the Round Earth.

not true. photographs are used all the time in civil and criminal trials. people have been put to death and people have been exonerated, and multimillion dollar lawsuits won and lost - with cases built on photographic evidence. photographic evidence is invaluable or even irreplaceable and in many scientific fields.

to make your statement correct, you needed to add: "...unless their provenance and authenticity can be verified". an important distinction.

Authenticity can never truly be verified, thus, photographic evidence is illogical to use in a debate to prove anything (only probabilities). Their usage in court doesn't prove their reliance. It merely proves that people easily accept things that appeal to their senses and common sense.

The fact is simple, if you are to seriously debate FE thoeyr then you either disqualify all photographic evidence, or non at all. Unfortunately, for FE, the latter is suicide since including photographic evidence for both sides destroys the theory, due to all the pictures of the Round Earth.

No, it is not true that you have to disqualify or allow it for both sides.  That does not logically follow, they are two very different circumstances.  However, I agree it is not needed for discussion.  But its funny how REers are so afraid of us using their own "evidence" against them.

No, it does follow. You create an unfair argument by only allowing photographic evidence for one side and not the other, especially when you have no evidence the photos showing a round earth are fake, and especially when photos provided in favor of FE appear to be fake.

It's like saying "England does not exist", then dissalowing all photos of England and only allowing images that don't show England. Before you disqualify one side's photgraphic evidence, prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are fake.

No, it does follow. You create an unfair argument by only allowing photographic evidence for one side and not the other, especially when you have no evidence the photos showing a round earth are fake, and especially when photos provided in favor of FE appear to be fake.

It's like saying "England does not exist", then dissalowing all photos of England and only allowing images that don't show England. Before you disqualify one side's photgraphic evidence, prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are fake.

Its not like that at all.  You hold photographs from NASA, et al, as valid.  If one could show inconsistencies with the photos the logical conclusion would either be that the theories or the source are wrong or dishonest. 

How can we gain evidence that photos showing a round earth are fake if we cannot reference them?

Quote from: Darth Bishop on October 30, 2007, 06:35:46 AM

No, it does follow. You create an unfair argument by only allowing photographic evidence for one side and not the other, especially when you have no evidence the photos showing a round earth are fake, and especially when photos provided in favor of FE appear to be fake.

It's like saying "England does not exist", then dissalowing all photos of England and only allowing images that don't show England. Before you disqualify one side's photgraphic evidence, prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are fake.

Its not like that at all.  You hold photographs from NASA, et al, as valid.  If one could show inconsistencies with the photos the logical conclusion would either be that the theories or the source are wrong or dishonest. 

How can we gain evidence that photos showing a round earth are fake if we cannot reference them?

Exactly, if you can't prove they are fake how can you discount them as faked by a conspiracy? By that logic we must assume all photgraphs are fake unless proven otherwise, an entirely more difficult exercise. Hence why, if we assume all photos to be fake, then they cannot be used as evidence for either side of the theory. If they are assumed to be real, they can't be dissallowed for one side and not the other.

Its not like that at all.  You hold photographs from NASA, et al, as valid.  If one could show inconsistencies with the photos the logical conclusion would either be that the theories or the source are wrong or dishonest. 

How can we gain evidence that photos showing a round earth are fake if we cannot reference them?

what do you mean, you cannot reference them? what is this then? some of these libraries have time, date, location, camera angle, camera make/model/film, lens focal length, etc.:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/index.html

searchable database of all types of media, and missions including sts, iss, skylab, apollo, gemini, and others.

before you fe'ers pathetically cry the tired mantra "but that's nasa the great conspiracy", give me something even remotely comparable from fe. or for that matter, why don't you start with a remotely plausible story on what a lunar eclipse is; what causes lunar phases; why does the sun and moon not grow and shrink as it passes overhead and disappear via perspective; why do we only see one side of the moon, ever, throughout a night, a month, or different places on earth; why do you stick to the absurd story that ships don't apparently "sink" when we (and i personally) have photos proving otherwise; what are the single points of light crossing the sky at night if not satellites; explain the motion of planets; why do all extrasolar objects cross the sky apparently pinned to two poles, all in exactly the same time; why do we have movies of the sun and moon at high zoom disappearing below the horizon. why is it that the re model easily, logically, and verifiably explains these phenomenon without invoking thinks like "it is unknown what powers the spotlight of the sun" or mysterious dark shadow planets, etc. you can't even explain the most basic of phenomenon that we regularly witness.

wake up!

you are too afraid to acknowledge that the fe model is an exercise in self-delusion and off-the-rails irrational wishful thinking.

bishop, i'm not talking to you. you are irrelevant. i don't care if you wake up or not. but people like username show some promise. (username why is it that you believe in a fe? you couldn't have just rationalized your way into it.)

Quote from: Username on October 30, 2007, 06:57:23 AM

Its not like that at all.  You hold photographs from NASA, et al, as valid.  If one could show inconsistencies with the photos the logical conclusion would either be that the theories or the source are wrong or dishonest. 

How can we gain evidence that photos showing a round earth are fake if we cannot reference them?

what do you mean, you cannot reference them? what is this then? some of these libraries have time, date, location, camera angle, camera make/model/film, lens focal length, etc.:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/index.html

searchable database of all types of media, and missions including sts, iss, skylab, apollo, gemini, and others.

By I cannot reference it, I mean - I am not allowed to reference it in an argument here.

before you fe'ers pathetically cry the tired mantra "but that's nasa the great conspiracy", give me something even remotely comparable from fe. or for that matter, why don't you start with a remotely plausible story on what a lunar eclipse is; what causes lunar phases; why does the sun and moon not grow and shrink as it passes overhead and disappear via perspective; why do we only see one side of the moon, ever, throughout a night, a month, or different places on earth; why do you stick to the absurd story that ships don't apparently "sink" when we (and i personally) have photos proving otherwise; what are the single points of light crossing the sky at night if not satellites; explain the motion of planets; why do all extrasolar objects cross the sky apparently pinned to two poles, all in exactly the same time; why do we have movies of the sun and moon at high zoom disappearing below the horizon. why is it that the re model easily, logically, and verifiably explains these phenomenon without invoking thinks like "it is unknown what powers the spotlight of the sun" or mysterious dark shadow planets, etc. you can't even explain the most basic of phenomenon that we regularly witness.

wake up!

you are too afraid to acknowledge that the fe model is an exercise in self-delusion and off-the-rails irrational wishful thinking.

bishop, i'm not talking to you. you are irrelevant. i don't care if you wake up or not. but people like username show some promise. (username why is it that you believe in a fe? you couldn't have just rationalized your way into it.)

No, my search for the truth started with a mystical experience.

No, my search for the truth started with a mystical experience.

well see, that makes perfect sense. an irrational belief triggered by an irrational experience. (and i'm not making fun of you.) i don't begrudge people that, nor religious experiences. personally i'm an atheist who was an atheist in a "foxhole" contrary to the saying that really pisses me off, but i once believed in god in a personally spiritual way, so i can relate some.

care to elaborate? i for one won't debate your experience, as there's most likely nothing to debate, it is what it is.

and at the same time, do you at least acknowledge that spiritual experiences don't necessarily have to be grounded in truth or reality? e.g. there was a study recently that involved mushroom-based (i think) hallucinogenics and (i think) guided imagery. most of the people reported deeply profound spiritual experiences of wide varieties, which literally transformed the lives of a few participants, even after follow ups after much time. i tried to google for a specific link but there is too much noise from other research, mainly lsd specifically it seems. this is not to discount your experience. hell, i wish i could have one. just pointing out that it doesn't have to reflect an actual truth in order to seem real, or still be meaningful. anyway, i'm interested to hear about yours for curiosity alone. what were you doing? where were you? etc.?

Quote from: Username on October 30, 2007, 12:40:29 PM

No, my search for the truth started with a mystical experience.

well see, that makes perfect sense. an irrational belief triggered by an irrational experience. (and i'm not making fun of you.) i don't begrudge people that, nor religious experiences. personally i'm an atheist who was an atheist in a "foxhole" contrary to the saying that really pisses me off, but i once believed in god in a personally spiritual way, so i can relate some.

I am also an atheist. 

care to elaborate? i for one won't debate your experience, as there's most likely nothing to debate, it is what it is.

and at the same time, do you at least acknowledge that spiritual experiences don't necessarily have to be grounded in truth or reality? e.g. there was a study recently that involved mushroom-based (i think) hallucinogenics and (i think) guided imagery. most of the people reported deeply profound spiritual experiences of wide varieties, which literally transformed the lives of a few participants, even after follow ups after much time. i tried to google for a specific link but there is too much noise from other research, mainly lsd specifically it seems. this is not to discount your experience. hell, i wish i could have one. just pointing out that it doesn't have to reflect an actual truth in order to seem real, or still be meaningful. anyway, i'm interested to hear about yours for curiosity alone. what were you doing? where were you? etc.?

I don't have time now, however I will when I get back.  I cited that study earlier when asked to explain this to emailking and the reasons (or maybe I just pointed at some sources that stated the reasons well, I dont remember) for why they are just as valid if induced with drugs, or even mental illness. And I also understand it may have also been wrong - but to discount such a monumental (for me, and my life) experience without at least searching to see if it is true is not something I could do.

I'll talk more of it later, at least the less personal stuff in a generic fashion.  However, it shouldn't be hard to find the thread.  Do a search on William James on the forums or The Varieties of Religious Experience.

Edit: here is the thread, but iirc it ok gotta go might get a few minutes later before we start driving http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17315.msg299570#msg299570

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on October 30, 2007, 01:01:03 PM

Quote from: Username on October 30, 2007, 12:40:29 PM

No, my search for the truth started with a mystical experience.

well see, that makes perfect sense. an irrational belief triggered by an irrational experience. (and i'm not making fun of you.) i don't begrudge people that, nor religious experiences. personally i'm an atheist who was an atheist in a "foxhole" contrary to the saying that really pisses me off, but i once believed in god in a personally spiritual way, so i can relate some.

I am also an atheist. 

Quote

care to elaborate? i for one won't debate your experience, as there's most likely nothing to debate, it is what it is.

and at the same time, do you at least acknowledge that spiritual experiences don't necessarily have to be grounded in truth or reality? e.g. there was a study recently that involved mushroom-based (i think) hallucinogenics and (i think) guided imagery. most of the people reported deeply profound spiritual experiences of wide varieties, which literally transformed the lives of a few participants, even after follow ups after much time. i tried to google for a specific link but there is too much noise from other research, mainly lsd specifically it seems. this is not to discount your experience. hell, i wish i could have one. just pointing out that it doesn't have to reflect an actual truth in order to seem real, or still be meaningful. anyway, i'm interested to hear about yours for curiosity alone. what were you doing? where were you? etc.?

I don't have time now, however I will when I get back.  I cited that study earlier when asked to explain this to emailking and the reasons (or maybe I just pointed at some sources that stated the reasons well, I dont remember) for why they are just as valid if induced with drugs, or even mental illness. And I also understand it may have also been wrong - but to discount such a monumental (for me, and my life) experience without at least searching to see if it is true is not something I could do.

I'll talk more of it later, at least the less personal stuff in a generic fashion.  However, it shouldn't be hard to find the thread.  Do a search on William James on the forums or The Varieties of Religious Experience.

will do, i appreciate it. looking forward to hearing more.

Get off the edge of youre seat. He smoked pot and had a 'trip'. End of story.

Get off the edge of youre seat. He smoked pot and had a 'trip'. End of story.

no, he had an experience that apparently changed the course of his life. not too many of us have experienced that, pot-smoking or not. (have you?) i don't particularly care about anyone on this forum, including you or username. (i do care about bishop though. i care about kicking his ass.) but while you may not feel username's experience is worthwhile to hear about, i do. i've had things radically change the course of my life, but not "inner journeys" over the span of (presumably) minutes/hours.

Ok I'm new too. I'm no trying to take away from anyones "trip" or that photographs can be doctored but, just a short little statement but I have flown a plane in my lifetime. And as you can see with the naked eye the Earth does make a spherical shape. I was not under the influence of any drug either. Just my two cents.

Ok I'm new too. I'm no trying to take away from anyones "trip" or that photographs can be doctored but, just a short little statement but I have flown a plane in my lifetime. And as you can see with the naked eye the Earth does make a spherical shape. I was not under the influence of any drug either. Just my two cents.

And, again, a pilot shows just HAPPENS to show up on these forums.  But, this time, there's Peter scraping his ass across the floor in the avatar.  How high did you fly this 'plane'?

Ok I'm new too. I'm no trying to take away from anyones "trip" or that photographs can be doctored but, just a short little statement but I have flown a plane in my lifetime. And as you can see with the naked eye the Earth does make a spherical shape. I was not under the influence of any drug either. Just my two cents.

It's an illusion.

Yep. Any curvature of the horizon you see is a masive optical illusion created by unkown means for an unknown reason.

Again, for those a little slow in the head, curvature of the horizon proves one thing, that it appears that way. It doesn't mean it is. Go back to watching your Criss Angel show.

Again, for those a little slow in the head, curvature of the horizon proves one thing, that it appears that way. It doesn't mean it is. Go back to watching your Criss Angel show.

The same could be applied to your moronic flat earth theory.

Looks like someone else can be added to 'slow in the head' group.

Quote from: divito the fascist on October 31, 2007, 05:05:01 AM

Again, for those a little slow in the head, curvature of the horizon proves one thing, that it appears that way. It doesn't mean it is. Go back to watching your Criss Angel show.

The same could be applied to your moronic flat earth theory.

Haha, that's a good one.

Quote from: dantheman40k on October 30, 2007, 01:56:08 PM

Get off the edge of youre seat. He smoked pot and had a 'trip'. End of story.

no, he had an experience that apparently changed the course of his life. not too many of us have experienced that, pot-smoking or not. (have you?) i don't particularly care about anyone on this forum, including you or username. (i do care about bishop though. i care about kicking his ass.) but while you may not feel username's experience is worthwhile to hear about, i do. i've had things radically change the course of my life, but not "inner journeys" over the span of (presumably) minutes/hours.

Pot doesn't give you a trip. If however, he was on mushrooms, acid, or ketamine, I totally understand his experience. I've had life changing experiences on hallucinogens.

Again, for those a little slow in the head, curvature of the horizon proves one thing, that it appears that way. It doesn't mean it is. Go back to watching your Criss Angel show.

Again for those slow in the head, looking out Tom Bishop's window proves one thing, that the earth appears flat. It doesn't mean it is.