Doctored Photos

It's claimed that  NASA and who ever else is in on the conspiracy is doctoring all the space photos of Earth.
It would seem to me that the very consistency of the images would negate the "Doctoring " theory. If its been done for many years, by many different people , on many different different machines with different technology as it develops you would HAVE to have inconsistencies.
It would not be possible to get it the same every time .

Ah yes, but you can always look 'back' at your older photos and say "Oh that? That's just an artefact left over from photo processing. You know how technology was back THEN!" or even from another machine as you say. It can all go 'round in circles no matter how many times you say it.

You know...

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




Right?

~D-Draw

You know...

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




Right?

~D-Draw

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

Try it!

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

Take one pic with each.

Isn't it just the same 'ole tennis ball?

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

~D-Draw

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

~D-Draw

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

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

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

Um....why are you guys talking about cameras and such? If the Earth is really flat, what pictures are they taking in which to doctor?

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

Um....why are you guys talking about cameras and such? If the Earth is really flat, what pictures are they taking in which to doctor?

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

...Like that!   

Quote from: Diego Draw, Tamer of Beasts on November 14, 2007, 10:22:49 PM

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

~D-Draw

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

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

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

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

~D-Draw

Quote from: questions on November 14, 2007, 10:25:28 PM

Quote from: Diego Draw, Tamer of Beasts on November 14, 2007, 10:22:49 PM

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

~D-Draw

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

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

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

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

~D-Draw

Heehehehehe... That made me giggle inside.   

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

If inconsistencies arose, would they be evidence for a FE?  For a RE?

Neither. But that was just an example of the possible inconsistencies. The point that I'm arguing against was that the OP implied that there would NOT be any inconsistencies in photographs if the Earth was round, but if the photos were doctored, THEN there WOULD be inconsistencies. I just find that implication absolutely bogus. Basically, this point is null for either side.


~D-Draw

The funny part is that even if there were inconsistencies, they could be attributed to camera issues or even atmospheric issues.

Has anyone from FE ever proven them to be doctored in the first place?

Has anyone from FE ever proven them to be doctored in the first place?

How would you like that done?

Quote from: MayhemNeutral on November 15, 2007, 12:34:16 AM

Has anyone from FE ever proven them to be doctored in the first place?

How would you like that done?

That's why I'm asking.

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

That's just stupid, amirite?

That's just stupid, amirite?

Yes, which is why REers should really just leave pictures out of it.

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

That's just stupid, amirite?

Right, that's why people shouldn't get all worked up on the Internets.

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

Why are we talking about photography?  His question was why aren't doctored photos filled with inconsistencies.

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

1) 97% of all people here believe the Earth is round.
2) You're not very likely to meet one of the "losers" as you call them since about 3 people here genuinely believe the Earth is flat.
3) World of Warcraft?  Get a life.

The photos of a Round Earth ARE inconsistent. This has been shown on this forum many times.

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

The photos of a Round Earth ARE inconsistent. This has been shown on this forum many times.

oh, well as long as it's been proven on THIS FORUM.  why not submit some of your breakthroughs to an established journal?  that's what real scientists do...

Tom, you idiot, you are comparing pictures of DIFFERENT parts of the earth!

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

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

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

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

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/photos/touristguy.html

Actually I'm pretty sure he's talking about different shots of the same views of earth.  What led you to think otherwise? 

or maybe he's comparing summer shots to winter shots of the same place, and saying one is fake because there's different amounts of white!

give us some EXAMPLES, Tom! SHOW us some photos and POINT out the differences that you CLAIM are "doctored"!!!!!

or maybe he's comparing summer shots to winter shots of the same place, and saying one is fake because there's different amounts of white!

give us some EXAMPLES, Tom! SHOW us some photos and POINT out the differences that you CLAIM are "doctored"!!!!!

The funniest thing about your posts is that you keep making them, while claiming people on this forum are idiots and are wasting our time. A tall glass of irony anyone?

Waste of time? Is the challenge to provide evidence or the comment on what entertains you more of a waste? 

Tom Bishop is the biggest idiot on these forums!

Tom Bishop is the biggest idiot on these forums!

So? Ignore him you dipshit.

Tom Bishop is the biggest idiot on these forums!

I think there's a pretty good chance that at this moment you're actually the biggest idiot on these forums.

I think there's a pretty good chance that at this moment you're actually the biggest idiot on these forums.

Hah, well said.