Doctored Photos

  • 83 Replies
  • 24695 Views
?

eric bloedow

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2007, 12:35:23 PM »
i'm still waiting for Tom to show some pictures and show WHY he thinks they are doctored...

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2007, 01:50:28 PM »
He thinks they're doctored because he believes the earth is flat.  Arguments that go in circles like this are exactly the reason why REers should just accept that photographs aren't considered valid evidence here and move to arguments in favor of RE that actually make a POINT.

It's impossible to know whether a photograph has been faked or not and they're not considered valid evidence on these forums.  Deal with it.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

eric bloedow

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2007, 03:24:16 PM »
so i should just ACCEPT Tom B's claim that ALL photos by NASA are fakes?

how should i put this?

picture a giant balance-style scale; the kind with the 2 arms.

on one side: every single member of NASA, every single person who has ever taken photos from an airplane, anyone who has ever taken photos from a mountain or tall building.

on the other side: Tom Bishop, all alone, who doesn't even OWN a camera!

do you really think Tom's side would carry more weight?

WHY are photos not considered evidence? JUST because TOM arbitrarily decided that they are not?

so, either millions of people are lying, or Tom, and only Tom, is.

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2007, 04:18:49 PM »
They decided photos can't be used because they disprove FE. If any more evidence arises, it will be discredited through the excuse of being faked by the conspiracy, inaccurate, or fictitious.  :'(

But yeah, Tom seems to run away from everything he can't explain.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2007, 07:16:10 PM »
Hey guys,

Sorry for being off-topic, but I just had to put my two cents in...



If I had to pick a "biggest idiot" award winner for this forum, it would be TomB.

No matter how stupid other people's arguments are, his are stupid consistently.  And that wouldn't be so bad.  Some RE'ers have the same dilemma.  But then, he exchanges one stupidity for another.  One unbelievable postulation for another, contradictory idea which turns out to be just as hard to believe.

No matter who you are, FE or RE proponent, I think you have to agree:  Tom Bishop is the epitome of idiocy on the FES forums.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17694
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2007, 07:52:02 PM »
Hey guys,

Sorry for being off-topic, but I just had to put my two cents in...



If I had to pick a "biggest idiot" award winner for this forum, it would be TomB.

No matter how stupid other people's arguments are, his are stupid consistently.  And that wouldn't be so bad.  Some RE'ers have the same dilemma.  But then, he exchanges one stupidity for another.  One unbelievable postulation for another, contradictory idea which turns out to be just as hard to believe.

No matter who you are, FE or RE proponent, I think you have to agree:  Tom Bishop is the epitome of idiocy on the FES forums.
He's more disingenuous than stupid.  Sometimes some of the things he says are pretty clever if they weren't rediculous. 

Other members, and I won't name names, clearly don't *understand* anything.  At all.   Ever.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 07:59:00 PM by Username »
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2007, 08:05:58 PM »
Hey guys,

Sorry for being off-topic, but I just had to put my two cents in...



If I had to pick a "biggest idiot" award winner for this forum, it would be TomB.

No matter how stupid other people's arguments are, his are stupid consistently.  And that wouldn't be so bad.  Some RE'ers have the same dilemma.  But then, he exchanges one stupidity for another.  One unbelievable postulation for another, contradictory idea which turns out to be just as hard to believe.

No matter who you are, FE or RE proponent, I think you have to agree:  Tom Bishop is the epitome of idiocy on the FES forums.
He's more disingenuous than stupid.  Sometimes some of the things he says are pretty clever if they weren't rediculous. 

Other members, and I won't name names, clearly don't *understand* anything.  At all.   Ever.

Actually, username, I'm not convinced TomB even understands why his ideas are stupid.  They can't be clever and ridiculous at the same time. 

It's like explaining a rainbow to an 8 year old by scientific means.  The child will never fully comprehend what you said, and even if he gets a little of it correct, the rest is so completely off-the-wall that it is no longer the explanation you gave.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2007, 12:28:53 PM »
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.

i stumbled on this old post.  and noticed that bishop never submitted for inspection, these allegedly inconsistent re photos.  it's as if he thinks that just by making wild unfounded assertions, somehow makes them so.  let's see 'em, tom.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2007, 12:31:49 PM »
Quote
i stumbled on this old post.  and noticed that bishop never submitted for inspection, these allegedly inconsistent re photos.  it's as if he thinks that just by making wild unfounded assertions, somehow makes them so.  let's see 'em, tom.

The problems with the photos are numerous. Post any one picture of the Round Earth and I'll give you a detailed list of the problems with it.

Go ahead, I dare you.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2007, 12:37:52 PM »
Quote
i stumbled on this old post.  and noticed that bishop never submitted for inspection, these allegedly inconsistent re photos.  it's as if he thinks that just by making wild unfounded assertions, somehow makes them so.  let's see 'em, tom.

The problems with the photos are numerous. Post any one picture of the Round Earth and I'll give you a detailed list of the problems with it.

Go ahead, I dare you.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2007, 12:48:09 PM »
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 12:50:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2007, 12:49:05 PM »
Then prove this photo!

Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2007, 12:58:21 PM »
Quote
i stumbled on this old post.  and noticed that bishop never submitted for inspection, these allegedly inconsistent re photos.  it's as if he thinks that just by making wild unfounded assertions, somehow makes them so.  let's see 'em, tom.

The problems with the photos are numerous. Post any one picture of the Round Earth and I'll give you a detailed list of the problems with it.

Go ahead, I dare you.

nice try, lazy liar.  you made assertions about a very specific list of problems with earth photos.  it is incumbent upon you to back up your own words, with your own submissions supporting your claims.  that's how it works.  or are your own words so much mental vomit as they are to us, that you don't even take yourself seriously?  to refresh your memory, here is what you said:

...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.

or was that just the wild-ass hit-and-run, unfounded assertion it seems to be?

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2007, 01:08:23 PM »
Tom would you seriously have us take U Tube  as a repository for fact over libraries of text books?

Edit: grammar

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17694
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2007, 01:11:55 PM »
Well the footage is supposedly from NASA.  Can anyone track down the documentary?
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2007, 01:16:02 PM »
Whist the footage is a NASA in origin the conclusions certainly are not.
"Conclusions" being a generous term read unsubstantiated assumptions....

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2007, 01:18:18 PM »
The problem with that image is that image was taken from Apollo 17. The Apollo missions did not occur.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

wow.  just...wow.  i love a good conspiracy video, and i've seen practically all of the "better" ones...except this one.  that is so bad.  (i thought i've seen "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"...must have missed this segment.)  if i were a moon hoax believer, i would conclude that it proved nothing, and disproved nothing.  it's as if the narrator were talking about some other video entirely.  the assumptions the writers made and things they "saw" were fantastically preposterous.  it is also well debunked.

there are far more compelling videos out there arguing for a moon hoax.  i'm guessing the reason you didn't post one is that they use the same old tired arguments that have been debunked over...and over...and over...

here are some debunking sites.  happy reading.  i dare you.


*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17694
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2007, 01:21:44 PM »
mm I actually didn't watch the movie yet with sound, I just assumed there was an audio clip that supported the text claim.


Opps.  I'll check it out at home later.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2007, 01:21:46 PM »
but let's get back to bishop providing the photos proving doctored re photos.  there are other websites dedicated to the apollo hoax.  i'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it.

bishop, nice diversion.  but let's get back to you presenting photos that you have so precisely critiqued, to support your (so far) unfounded, bold assertions.

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2007, 01:30:50 PM »
I'm not sure Tom sees it as a diversion rather a point he is confident of regardless of other queries.
The whole point of the thread was to point out that the "Doctored" photos are too consistent to allow for human error ,changing technology and different equipment by different people to be played with.
Now if FE was to say that the photos require an alternative interpretation of what we are seeing ...that would be more appropriate,you could even still fit in a conspiracy angle in there somehow .But not doctoring.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2007, 01:36:25 PM »
I'm not sure Tom sees it as a diversion rather a point he is confident of regardless of other queries.
The whole point of the thread was to point out that the "Doctored" photos are too consistent to allow for human error ,changing technology and different equipment by different people to be played with.
Now if FE was to say that the photos require an alternative interpretation of what we are seeing ...that would be more appropriate,you could even still fit in a conspiracy angle in there somehow .But not doctoring.

well, this thread was dead.  i resurrected it only to challenge bishop's claims of a specific list of anomalies in re photos.  so in that sense, the original subject of the thread doesn't matter.  i suppose i should have started a new thread for it, and maybe i will depending on how this unfolds.

so to be clear to all (namely bishop), this thread was resurrected from the dead, not to continue the original purpose, but as a call for bishop to provide the specific re photos that he found a list of very specific problems with, in a post within this thread. 


if people prefer to continue on with the original purpose of this thread that's fine, i can start another one, state you preference if so.

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #51 on: December 07, 2007, 01:53:23 PM »


well, this thread was dead.  i resurrected it only to challenge bishop's claims of a specific list of anomalies in re photos.  so in that sense, the original subject of the thread doesn't matter.  i suppose i should have started a new thread for it, and maybe i will depending on how this unfolds.

so to be clear to all (namely bishop), this thread was resurrected from the dead, not to continue the original purpose, but as a call for bishop to provide the specific re photos that he found a list of very specific problems with, in a post within this thread. 


if people prefer to continue on with the original purpose of this thread that's fine, i can start another one, state you preference if so.

I see post 48 and 49 having the same end motive ...... cant see you problem, oh well.

Why cant a thread have two courses running through it? Ive got no dramas at all with you asking or posting what ever you want to in it as no one owns a thread least of all me.

But thats me , you seem to think otherwise, I'll be sure to ask your permission in the future before posting on this forum.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #52 on: December 07, 2007, 02:01:13 PM »


well, this thread was dead.  i resurrected it only to challenge bishop's claims of a specific list of anomalies in re photos.  so in that sense, the original subject of the thread doesn't matter.  i suppose i should have started a new thread for it, and maybe i will depending on how this unfolds.

so to be clear to all (namely bishop), this thread was resurrected from the dead, not to continue the original purpose, but as a call for bishop to provide the specific re photos that he found a list of very specific problems with, in a post within this thread. 


if people prefer to continue on with the original purpose of this thread that's fine, i can start another one, state you preference if so.

I see post 48 and 49 having the same end motive ...... cant see you problem, oh well.

Why cant a thread have two courses running through it? Ive got no dramas at all with you asking or posting what ever you want to in it as no one owns a thread least of all me.

But thats me , you seem to think otherwise, I'll be sure to ask your permission in the future before posting on this forum.

i think you mistook my respect for and deference to the op, for a demand for respect and deference to me.  or something.  not sure how you misread it.  i was responding to the post above mine that pointed out that i was the one off-topic. 

i don't care who owns what as long as bishop coughs up the photos.  the hoaxed hoax video he posted in response to my direct challenge for his photos was a (purposeful?) diversion.

oh, and you can ask my permission before posting on this forum, if that strikes your fancy.  i'm up for anything.

edit: i think i see how you misread it.  trust me, that wasn't my intention.  i don't care if there are multiple threads.  i only want to make sure bishop coughs up the photos to support his wild assertions, and to point out that bishop purposely split the discussion (likely on purpose), as a diversion.  it's what he does.  he evades having to do real work, and answer real questions.  that's the only thing he's good at.  but i am not going to let him slide on this one.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 02:06:23 PM by cpt_bthimes »

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #53 on: December 07, 2007, 02:04:34 PM »
Oh, OK....Sorry
 :-[


Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #54 on: December 08, 2007, 05:43:57 AM »
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.


You might want to change your signature then asshole.



Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2007, 05:51:20 AM »
The problem with that image is that image was taken from Apollo 17. The Apollo missions did not occur.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4210517535942492873&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&total=51&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

tom i gotta say that video was actually interesting

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #56 on: December 08, 2007, 06:23:27 AM »
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.


You might want to change your signature then asshole.



His signature is saying active users asshole.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #57 on: December 08, 2007, 01:21:56 PM »

Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #58 on: December 08, 2007, 03:32:51 PM »
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.


You might want to change your signature then asshole.



His signature is saying active users asshole.

Aye aye, flat head.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Doctored Photos
« Reply #59 on: December 08, 2007, 05:07:06 PM »
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.


You might want to change your signature then asshole.



His signature is saying active users asshole.

Aye aye, flat head.
lol, you're not one to talk, in fact you can't talk!
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"