explain to me

  • 109 Replies
  • 19893 Views
Re: explain to me
« Reply #60 on: December 11, 2007, 02:09:20 PM »
You telling us that he told you is still word of mouth isn't it?

?

eric bloedow

Re: explain to me
« Reply #61 on: December 11, 2007, 02:17:50 PM »
adobe has NO relationship to NASA, it's just a convenient system for pictures. the instructions for some of my computer programs are in adobe format, as are ALL of YOUR pictures, smarty-pants!

oh yes, YOUR precious picture is not proof EITHER!

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #62 on: December 11, 2007, 02:46:53 PM »
The series of Ice Shelves which surround the Antarctic coast is what we call the Ice Wall. Haven't you figured that out by now?

for starters, there is not an unbroken series of ice shelves around antarctica.  second is your disingenuous way of presenting a pedestrian photo, e.g.:

  • "This is the 150 foot Ice Wall which borders the edge of the known world"

  • multiple references to "Edge of the known world"

  • multiple references to "Edge of the world"

    and i love this one:

    If you flew a plane over the 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarctica (Also known as the Ice Shelves) you would fly over a perpetual tundra of ice and snow. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

    so then, what is this, from the very same series of pictures as your beloved "ice wall at the edge of the known world"?




    Quote
    1) how do you know the image was leaked by "an employee at the johnson space center"?  give us something more to go on than your word.
    Quote
    2) where did you get the specs for the image, notably "lens of 50mm focal length"?

    We know that he is from the Johnson Space Center because that's what he told us.

    who is "he"?  or if you are protecting his identity, who is "us"?  are are we supposed to take your word for it?  if the latter, just retract that whole story now and save us the bother.  you should know better by now, your word is not worth the electrons it takes to transmit them.


    Quote
    3) and one more time, explain the exif says "Software/Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows"?

    That's because NASA licenses Adobe Photoshop to manage its image files and convert from RAW to JPEG format. For example;

    point taken.


    Why doesn't your "if the image was saved with Photoshop it is therefore fake" argument apply here?

    you should know by now better than to try to attribute words to someone who said or implied no such thing, because you get called on it every time, thus weakening your position in a debate.  intelligent people confident in their case do not resort to such lowbrow tactics. 

    when combined with an impossible concave horizon, the fact that it was also photoshopped becomes a noteworthy fact.  nothing more, nothing less.


    In fact, all of NASA's images have Adobe Photoshop headers.

    wrong.


    Quote
    4) and one more time, why is the horizon concave rather than flat or convex?

    You tell me. Isn't the earth supposed to be a globe?

    you tell me.  isn't the earth supposed to be flat?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17522
Re: explain to me
« Reply #63 on: December 11, 2007, 02:58:16 PM »
Quote
for starters, there is not an unbroken series of ice shelves around antarctica.


When did I ever say that the Ice Shelves were unbroken? I've always maintained that there are a series of Ice Shelves which are divided by transantarctic mountain ranges up to 11,000 feet in height.

Quote
so then, what is this, from the very same series of pictures as your beloved "ice wall at the edge of the known world"?



Uh, that would be a mountain.

Quote
In fact, all of NASA's images have Adobe Photoshop headers.

wrong.

Every image I opened on that page has a Photoshop header. For example; here's the last one I clicked on:

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=GEM04&roll=6&frame=34781&QueryResultsFile=119741356257641.tsv

When we open it in Wordpad we see on the second line "Adobe Photoshop 7.0" indicating that the image was saved with Adobe Photoshop.

Quote
you tell me.  isn't the earth supposed to be flat?

It looks pretty flat to me.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2007, 03:04:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

eric bloedow

Re: explain to me
« Reply #64 on: December 11, 2007, 03:03:00 PM »
oh yeah, that again. it looks flat to YOU because you WANT it to see it that way!

"there are none so blind as those who will not see" suits you perfectly.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #65 on: December 11, 2007, 03:34:57 PM »
Quote
for starters, there is not an unbroken series of ice shelves around antarctica.


When did I ever say that the Ice Shelves were unbroken? I've always maintained that there are a series of Ice Shelves which are divided by transantarctic mountain ranges up to 11,000 feet in height.

see this response.


Quote
so then, what is this, from the very same series of pictures as your beloved "ice wall at the edge of the known world"?


Uh, that would be a mountain.


really?  because i could have sworn that you once said:

If you flew a plane over the 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarctica (Also known as the Ice Shelves) you would fly over a perpetual tundra of ice and snow. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

maybe that was a different tom bishop.


Quote
In fact, all of NASA's images have Adobe Photoshop headers.

wrong.

Every image I opened on that page has a Photoshop header. For example; here's the last one I clicked on:

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=GEM04&roll=6&frame=34781&QueryResultsFile=119741356257641.tsv

When we open it in Wordpad we see on the second line "Adobe Photoshop 7.0" indicating that the image was saved with Adobe Photoshop.

for starters, you don't know much about viewing structured exif data do you.  but...whatever keeps you busy.

you still don't get the mistake you made.  i'm going to be gracious and not make you look like a complete idiot for making it.  you said "all of NASA's images have Adobe Photoshop headers".  all i have to do to conclusively prove your statement wrong, is to cough up one.  and here it is.  of course, there are many, many others.  you really didn't look very hard did you.



Quote
you tell me.  isn't the earth supposed to be flat?

It looks pretty flat to me.

more word games now to avoid answering the embarrassing question.  cute.

if it looks flat to you, then why is the horizon concave in the photo you provided?  you are obligated to answer this, bishop.  you are offering up a photo of completely unverified provenance, that has a concave horizon, and claiming it is proof of a flat earth.  right now, most of us are assuming it's just another one of your lies.  if you keep dodging the hard question, the obvious implication is that it is another one of your lies.

there is an easy and honorable escape hatch, bishop.  just say you don't know why the horizon is concave, admit that it is indeed odd, conclude the photo must have been distorted somehow, and withdraw it as "evidence".

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: explain to me
« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2007, 03:07:54 PM »
They could have stripped most their headers but forgot that one
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: explain to me
« Reply #67 on: December 12, 2007, 08:29:22 PM »
Just a FYI roundearthistrue.......this site is not "for real". No one here REALLY believes the Earth is flat. Maybe at one time there were a few "loonies" who did, who knows, but now its a group of, some, not all, very intelligent individuals who use "flat earth" to challenge others beliefs. Don't get sucked in.
 You will never win. Just sit back and enjoy the show. Watch others go crazy trying to debunk the debunkers. And Mr. Bishop, I gotta hand it to you...you're the best!!
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 08:33:19 PM by rollexx »

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2007, 08:59:10 PM »
Just a FYI roundearthistrue.......this site is not "for real". No one here REALLY believes the Earth is flat. Maybe at one time there were a few "loonies" who did, who knows, but now its a group of, some, not all, very intelligent individuals who use "flat earth" to challenge others beliefs. Don't get sucked in.
 You will never win. Just sit back and enjoy the show. Watch others go crazy trying to debunk the debunkers. And Mr. Bishop, I gotta hand it to you...you're the best!!

i know.  but i do think bishop *tries* - very hard in fact - to put forth sensical (to him) arguments, just whatever sick personal reasons.  i just like p0wning him again and again, and watching him run away from the inevitable uncomfortable questions he can't answer.  it's a sick thrill i know.  i also like stealing lollipops from little kids and stepping on them (the lollipops that is).  either one is about the same challenge.

i do believe there is at least one person (at least) who legitimately believes in an fe though, and he's no dummy.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2007, 09:13:21 PM »
Quote
you tell me.  isn't the earth supposed to be flat?

It looks pretty flat to me.

more word games now to avoid answering the embarrassing question.  cute.

if it looks flat to you, then why is the horizon concave in the photo you provided?  you are obligated to answer this, bishop.  you are offering up a photo of completely unverified provenance, that has a concave horizon, and claiming it is proof of a flat earth.  right now, most of us are assuming it's just another one of your lies.  if you keep dodging the hard question, the obvious implication is that it is another one of your lies.

there is an easy and honorable escape hatch, bishop.  just say you don't know why the horizon is concave, admit that it is indeed odd, conclude the photo must have been distorted somehow, and withdraw it as "evidence".

bishop runs away from another one.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: explain to me
« Reply #70 on: December 12, 2007, 09:15:22 PM »
Just a FYI roundearthistrue.......this site is not "for real". No one here REALLY believes the Earth is flat. Maybe at one time there were a few "loonies" who did, who knows, but now its a group of, some, not all, very intelligent individuals who use "flat earth" to challenge others beliefs. Don't get sucked in.
 You will never win. Just sit back and enjoy the show. Watch others go crazy trying to debunk the debunkers. And Mr. Bishop, I gotta hand it to you...you're the best!!

i know.  but i do think bishop *tries* - very hard in fact - to put forth sensical (to him) arguments, just whatever sick personal reasons.  i just like p0wning him again and again, and watching him run away from the inevitable uncomfortable questions he can't answer.  it's a sick thrill i know.  i also like stealing lollipops from little kids and stepping on them (the lollipops that is).  either one is about the same challenge.

i do believe there is at least one person (at least) who legitimately believes in an fe though, and he's no dummy.

I count 4. Including myself.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #71 on: December 12, 2007, 09:19:39 PM »
Just a FYI roundearthistrue.......this site is not "for real". No one here REALLY believes the Earth is flat. Maybe at one time there were a few "loonies" who did, who knows, but now its a group of, some, not all, very intelligent individuals who use "flat earth" to challenge others beliefs. Don't get sucked in.
 You will never win. Just sit back and enjoy the show. Watch others go crazy trying to debunk the debunkers. And Mr. Bishop, I gotta hand it to you...you're the best!!

i know.  but i do think bishop *tries* - very hard in fact - to put forth sensical (to him) arguments, just whatever sick personal reasons.  i just like p0wning him again and again, and watching him run away from the inevitable uncomfortable questions he can't answer.  it's a sick thrill i know.  i also like stealing lollipops from little kids and stepping on them (the lollipops that is).  either one is about the same challenge.

i do believe there is at least one person (at least) who legitimately believes in an fe though, and he's no dummy.

I count 4. Including myself.

i thought you were an re'er who changed his name.  if you are a legitimate fe'er, then what's with the avatar pic?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: explain to me
« Reply #72 on: December 12, 2007, 09:25:16 PM »
It's a picture of a sunrise I witnessed at my home.

Beautiful, isn't it?

The horizon appears curved because it's actually a hill.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #73 on: December 12, 2007, 09:39:34 PM »
It's a picture of a sunrise I witnessed at my home.

Beautiful, isn't it?

The horizon appears curved because it's actually a hill.

the question i meant to imply was, how is the sun shining on the bottom of the clouds, in a flat earth?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: explain to me
« Reply #74 on: December 12, 2007, 09:40:39 PM »
perspective.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17522
Re: explain to me
« Reply #75 on: December 12, 2007, 09:42:34 PM »
Quote
bishop runs away from another one.

It still looks perfectly flat to me. Perhaps you can point out the concavity you believe you see.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #76 on: December 12, 2007, 09:48:56 PM »
perspective.

at the risk of falling into a chump-trap (and why not), i'm going to assume you're being serious.

so...how does perspective get the sun to illuminate the bottom of a cloud layer which sits below it [the sun]?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: explain to me
« Reply #77 on: December 12, 2007, 09:54:23 PM »
To be honest, I don't know. I suppose you'd have to ask Tom.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17522
Re: explain to me
« Reply #78 on: December 12, 2007, 09:57:34 PM »
Quote
so...how does perspective get the sun to illuminate the bottom of a cloud layer which sits below it [the sun]?

Overhead bodies appear to descend in altitude as they recede due to perspective. Therefore the rays of light will come in at a shallow angle.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 09:59:49 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: explain to me
« Reply #79 on: December 12, 2007, 10:01:19 PM »
Quote
so...how does perspective get the sun to illuminate the bottom of a cloud layer which sits below it [the sun]?

Overhead bodies appear to descend in altitude as they recede due to perspective. Therefore the rays of light will come in at a shallow angle.
if it appears to descend then how do the rays of light actually descend
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: explain to me
« Reply #80 on: December 12, 2007, 10:06:42 PM »
refraction.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #81 on: December 13, 2007, 09:52:49 AM »
Quote
so...how does perspective get the sun to illuminate the bottom of a cloud layer which sits below it [the sun]?

Overhead bodies appear to descend in altitude as they recede due to perspective. Therefore the rays of light will come in at a shallow angle.

your response defies even your own logic.

it may appear to "descend" in altitude to us, as it recedes from us.  but presumably in the fe model, the sun doesn't *actually* drop in altitude, and in absolute terms regardless of our viewing perspective, the sun is still higher than the clouds.

so i ask yet again: how do the sun's rays wind up striking the bottom of the clouds?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17522
Re: explain to me
« Reply #82 on: December 13, 2007, 12:35:54 PM »
Quote
your response defies even your own logic.

it may appear to "descend" in altitude to us, as it recedes from us.  but presumably in the fe model, the sun doesn't *actually* drop in altitude, and in absolute terms regardless of our viewing perspective, the sun is still higher than the clouds.

so i ask yet again: how do the sun's rays wind up striking the bottom of the clouds?

Perspective is physical. That's why. When the sun appears to descend it is actually descending for all intents and purposes, despite being at all times the same altitude above the surface of the earth.

Lets do a little thought experiment:

Imagine that we are standing upon an infinite plane.

We have a long plastic tube six feet in length. The tube is on a table pointed horizontally, exactly level with the horizon line. If we look through the level tube we will see that the scene at the end of the tube is divided in half horizontally, half land and half sky.

Now, lets have a plane flying overhead recede away from the observer into that horizon. As the plane recedes it will appear to descend due to the natural laws of perspective. After a time the plane will approach the horizon. When we look through the tube we see the plane near the horizon line.

Now, how is it possible that the rays of light from the plane are traveling horizontally through the tube and hitting the observer's eye if the plane is at an altitude high above the observer?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 12:47:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: explain to me
« Reply #83 on: December 13, 2007, 12:51:04 PM »
Maybe partly because the Earth is round, so although birds stay the same hight off the ground, they are also slowly following the curve of the Earth and therefore coming view.  Because they are very high off the ground, the horizon is further away for them, so from your perspective looking through the tube, they appear to have dropped in altitude. 

Re: explain to me
« Reply #84 on: December 13, 2007, 12:52:57 PM »
ah right, it's a plane not birds.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #85 on: December 13, 2007, 01:09:16 PM »
Quote
your response defies even your own logic.

it may appear to "descend" in altitude to us, as it recedes from us.  but presumably in the fe model, the sun doesn't *actually* drop in altitude, and in absolute terms regardless of our viewing perspective, the sun is still higher than the clouds.

so i ask yet again: how do the sun's rays wind up striking the bottom of the clouds?

Perspective is physical. That's why. When the sun appears to descend it is actually descending for all intents and purposes, despite being at all times the same altitude above the surface of the earth.

Lets do a little thought experiment:

Imagine that we are standing upon an infinite plane.

We have a long plastic tube six feet in length. The tube is on a table pointed horizontally, exactly level with the horizon line. If we look through the level tube we will see that the scene at the end of the tube is divided in half horizontally, half land and half sky.

Now, lets have a plane flying overhead recede away from the observer into that horizon. As the plane recedes it will appear to descend due to the natural laws of perspective. After a time the plane will approach the horizon. When we look through the tube we see the plane near the horizon line.

Now, how is it possible that the rays of light from the plane are traveling horizontally through the tube and hitting the observer's eye if the plane is at an altitude high above the observer?

bishop, even i am dumfounded at your absolute, complete ignorance.  i am biting my tongue preventing a string of profanities exclaiming your ignorance, but fear the long arm of theengineer.

whenever you are backed into a corner, you come up with a "thought experiment" that a 6 year old would think of, having no connection whatsoever to the debate, and say "so there".  you have the mental capacity of a chimp, at best, i'm shaking my head at why i even bother engaging you.

take your straw and shove it in your ass.  (you know, the donkey you keep outside because he likes straw.)

instead, explain to me, as best as your chimp brain can manage, how the sun gets below the clouds in order to illuminate the clouds from underneath.  i don't care if you assume we can see to infinity, and the sun is infinitely far away (and apparently then infinitely bright) - the sun, being higher than the clouds (on your flat earth) no matter how far away the two are from each other, cannot illuminate it from below.  the angle of illumination to the top may be infinitely small, but no matter what you do, the sun is not going to get below the clouds.

at least now i fully understand how you think "perspective" works, and your sinking ship theory suddenly makes complete (non)sense.  so, thank you for that.

your only "out" is to claim "refraction" (the magical reverse kind bending upward into less dense atmo), or maybe reflection off water.  or who knows what bullshit you'll come up with.  not that i care any more.  arguing with you is like winning the special olympics.  i might win, but i'm still retarded for even engaging in the effort.  so is everyone else who pays attention to you.

you know what, just produce the pics of the beach 33 miles away, and post the video you promised, then i might take your "ideas" seriously.  until then, buzz off.  engaging with you is like jogging through a little swarm of gnats - harmless but momentarily annoying.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: explain to me
« Reply #86 on: December 13, 2007, 01:20:53 PM »
i am biting my tongue preventing a string of profanities exclaiming your ignorance, but fear the long arm of theengineer.
...
take your straw and shove it in your ass.  (you know, the donkey you keep outside because he likes straw.)
...
instead, explain to me, as best as your chimp brain can manage
You are sure not doing a very good job.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: explain to me
« Reply #87 on: December 13, 2007, 01:32:04 PM »
i am biting my tongue preventing a string of profanities exclaiming your ignorance, but fear the long arm of theengineer.
...
take your straw and shove it in your ass.  (you know, the donkey you keep outside because he likes straw.)
...
instead, explain to me, as best as your chimp brain can manage
You are sure not doing a very good job.

i'm still not sure of the rules.  by saying bishop has a chimp brain, that is clearly satire, no?  no reasonable person would believe it's true.  i thought i was safe with that.  or is it just any personal insult, sideways or otherwise?  i mean, there are lots of ad hominem attacks that go unpunished or noted.

you gotta admit though, the donkey thing was pretty clever.

at any rate, i will redouble my efforts to avoid attacks on a person.  i know your eyes are on me.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: explain to me
« Reply #88 on: December 13, 2007, 01:37:21 PM »
Quote from: Forum Rules
* Excessive flaming.
 heated discussion can be cool, personal attacks are not.
Please do not degrade or discourage others, by posting things such as "You are an 'idiot' or 'moron'", etc.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17522
Re: explain to me
« Reply #89 on: December 13, 2007, 01:49:42 PM »
Quote
instead, explain to me, as best as your chimp brain can manage, how the sun gets below the clouds in order to illuminate the clouds from underneath.

The sun is not below the clouds. The rays of light from the sun are simply illuminating the clouds horizontally. The red color in the sky and clouds at sunset is due to an effect called Rayleigh scattering.

Particles in our atmosphere that are approximately the same size as the wavelength of visible light cause the white light from the sun to scatter and split into individual components. Oxygen and Nitrogen scatter violet and blue light due to their small size. This is why the sky appears to be blue in the day time, especially at midday when the Sun's rays are vertical.

During sunrise and sunset the distance that the light has to travel from the Sun to an observer is at its greatest. This means the a large amount of blue and violet light has been scattered so the light that is recieved by an observer is mostly of a longer wavelength and therefore appears to be red.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 01:55:37 PM by Tom Bishop »