Earth to be Proven Round Soon

Yes, actually. We have all the proof we need. You have no proof at all.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 06:55:55 AM

I reference NASA because I can personally show their spacecraft to be in orbit right where they're supposed to be. 

So because the location is where they say it is, means that the actual device is what they say it is? Right.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Meanwhile you've failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that my evidence is wrong.  Until you can produce said evidence, you and your unfounded opinion are worthless.

\
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

..it could not be a duck. Thanks.

Meanwhile you've failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that my evidence is wrong.  Until you can produce said evidence, you and your unfounded opinion are worthless.

You've provided evidence?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 10:30:48 AM

\
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

..it could not be a duck. Thanks.

So ducks don't look like ducks or quack like ducks?  Wow, quite the interesting logic there.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 10:30:48 AM

Meanwhile you've failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that my evidence is wrong.  Until you can produce said evidence, you and your unfounded opinion are worthless.

You've provided evidence?

Prove this was faked or shut up.  It was obtained based on predictions generated using the orbit of the ISS and my location.  There's no other logical explanation than that the ISS really is in orbit.

Whats funny is now NASA has cameras attached to its shuttles with live, uninterrupted, video of the shuttle on Earth..blasting off...leaving the atmoSHPERE...and reaching space. Anyone can watch it...LIVE!

But as far as space vacations are concerned, yes theyre expensive. Everything new and cutting edge like that is at first. I would bet within 10-15 years, after the trip has been made several hundred times by several hundred or thousand people you will see the price of one drop by 60-80% as other space vacation companies emerge and open. Granted it will still be too expensive for the majority of the public but more affordable none the less.

Prove this was faked or shut up. 

I think Divito's point was that your photograph could easily have been faked.

Take some time off, please, and try and regain your dignity.  Throwing little temper tantrums on the Flat Earth Society Forums is gauche. 

Take some time off, please, and try and regain your dignity.  Throwing little temper tantrums on the Flat Earth Society Forums is gauche. 

But par for the course, unfortunately (not speaking specifically or only of Monsieur Messier).


What part of "live feed" implies that the footage is live, uninterrupted footage from a space craft other than the name? Nothing.

So ducks don't look like ducks or quack like ducks?  Wow, quite the interesting logic there.

Nice straw man.

Prove this was faked or shut up.  It was obtained based on predictions generated using the orbit of the ISS and my location.  There's no other logical explanation than that the ISS really is in orbit.

All I need to do is showcase that it could be faked. That line of thought for photographs, especially ones with the characteristics that you've shown, has already been proven. If you want to stick to your easily dismissible evidence then you have that right, by all means. But if you want to "knock some sense into us idiots," then I suggest you try a little harder.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 10:58:10 AM

Prove this was faked or shut up. 

I think Divito's point was that your photograph could easily have been faked.

I think my point is that if you're going to claim fraud the burden of proof is on YOU to show it to be fraudulent.

You've made a large leap there, haven't you?  From "could have been" to a claim of fraud? 

Quote from: divito the truthist on June 26, 2008, 10:39:37 AM

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 10:30:48 AM

\
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

..it could not be a duck. Thanks.

So ducks don't look like ducks or quack like ducks?  Wow, quite the interesting logic there.

Quote

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 10:30:48 AM

Meanwhile you've failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that my evidence is wrong.  Until you can produce said evidence, you and your unfounded opinion are worthless.

You've provided evidence?

Prove this was faked or shut up.  It was obtained based on predictions generated using the orbit of the ISS and my location.  There's no other logical explanation than that the ISS really is in orbit.

The picture probably is fake. It is extremly blurry and could be anything. I think it's the top of an electrical pole with a large city in the background.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 10:58:10 AM

So ducks don't look like ducks or quack like ducks?  Wow, quite the interesting logic there.

Nice straw man.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

..it could not be a duck. Thanks.

You made the statement, it's not a strawman dumbass.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 10:58:10 AM

Prove this was faked or shut up.  It was obtained based on predictions generated using the orbit of the ISS and my location.  There's no other logical explanation than that the ISS really is in orbit.

All I need to do is showcase that it could be faked.

No, you need to prove it WAS faked.  If you accused me of faking it the burden of proof is on you to show it.  Making the claim is not good enough.

You've made a large leap there, haven't you?  From "could have been" to a claim of fraud? 

You insuated it, now support it.  I give you my word I didn't fake it.

The picture probably is fake. It is extremly blurry and could be anything.

Thanks for the insult.  I'd like to see you take a better picture of the space station.  The atmosphere's a real bitch to deal with.  But does this look familiar?  Same space station, taken from the other side after undocking:

Oh look, mine matches NASA's.

I think it's the top of an electrical pole with a large city in the background.

Nice accusation, now support it.  Come back to me with a picture of an electrical pole with a large city in the background that looks like this.

You made the statement, it's not a strawman dumbass.

I did not say that ducks don't quack like ducks, or that they don't look like ducks. You misrepresented my statement to make it easier to refute; thus, straw man.

No, you need to prove it WAS faked.  If you accused me of faking it the burden of proof is on you to show it.  Making the claim is not good enough.

I didn't accuse you of faking it. Do you like imagining things?

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on June 26, 2008, 11:50:00 AM

You've made a large leap there, haven't you?  From "could have been" to a claim of fraud? 

You insuated it, now support it.  I give you my word I didn't fake it.

Support what?

We all understand you are proud of your photograph.  You have perhaps chosen the wrong venue to showcase your skills?

I did not say that ducks don't quack like ducks, or that they don't look like ducks. You misrepresented my statement to make it easier to refute; thus, straw man.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

..it could not be a duck. Thanks.

Strawman huh?  Nope.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 12:02:17 PM

No, you need to prove it WAS faked.  If you accused me of faking it the burden of proof is on you to show it.  Making the claim is not good enough.

I didn't accuse you of faking it. Do you like imagining things?

I didn't say you did.  Do you like imagining things?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 26, 2008, 12:03:36 PM

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on June 26, 2008, 11:50:00 AM

You've made a large leap there, haven't you?  From "could have been" to a claim of fraud? 

You insuated it, now support it.  I give you my word I didn't fake it.

Support what?

Your insinuation that I faked it. The only reason I keep posting it is because FE'ers keep pretending there's "no evidence" and I quote, that spaceflight is real.  Fuck the photograph, I have tons more from amateur photographers far more skilled and with better equipment than me.  Prove they were all faked or shut the hell up.

For fuck's sake, I can measure the orbit of the ISS and find it to be where it's supposed to be.  Here's a nice little program I plan to try out following my next ISS observation:
http://www.coastalbend.edu/acdem/math/sats/elfind.htm
What's your excuse going to be when I have the results from that test too?

I've rarely been called upon to support my own opinion, but I'll give it a try.

"You've made a large leap there, haven't you?  From "could have been" to a claim of fraud? "

How's that?

I find it troubling that your picture you supposedly took doesn't look like this one from NASA.



Is the NASA one fake?

I find it troubling that your picture you supposedly took doesn't look like this one from NASA.



Is the NASA one fake?

Why do you find it troubling?  I don't find it troubling at all.  You can find ground pictures of ISS at all stages of construction from a variety of angles determined by how high over head the pass occured. But I'm guessing this was a space-born shot?  In that case it could have easily been taken at an angle not accessible to a ground observer.  The question is not whether a random space based picture looks like a ground-based picture, it's whether a ground based picture looks like any of the space based pictures.  I have other pictures I took at earlier phases that look totally different than the ones I take now.  It actually is a confirmation that the station is growing as the shuttle adds new parts and you can see those parts as they are added.
Here's a more "L shaped" video I took of ISS, with a piss poor camera years ago.
http://speur.tripod.com/main/iss_tracking.mov

Better yet, here's a shot taken by Mike Tyrrell of the station during what looks like roughly that phase of construction:

Same station, different angle.

I think it's supposed to depict the Soyuz module docked with the ISS. I know this because I took that picture in my backyard.

I think it's supposed to depict the Soyuz module docked with the ISS. I know this because I took that picture in my backyard.

You just said a minute ago:

like this one from NASA.

Was it from NASA or your backyard liar?

I don't know. Are you willing to believe either?

I don't know. Are you willing to believe either?

So you lied then?  You made conflicting statements so why should I believe a pathological liar?

It's obviously a back yard photo of a NASA photo. 

Actually all I showed was the ability to take a photo of a model and make it appear like a believable picture of an object in space. Just like NASA (and you?).

Took me three and a half minutes to alter this image here:


But hey, if NASA labeled it ISS with Soyuz, no one would doubt it's authentic nature, I'm sure. You didn't.

Ski's Space Agency:

Actually all I showed was the ability to take a photo of a model and make it appear like a believable picture of an object in space. Just like NASA (and you?).

Actually I accused you of lying and asked you which was true.  Apparently neither was true.  I should have guessed since you're a patholigical manipulative liar lacking any intellectual honesty whatsoever.  I don't suppose you could provide an exif jpg or raw of your image showing that you used a telescope, not a lens, could you?  I can.

Incidently, you've helped prove an earlier point I made that if there's going to be a massive conspiracy, amateurs like me would have to be in on it too.  According to your line of thinking, showing someone the space station with their own eye through the telescope and without using any camera or digital image manipulation whatsoever is incontrovertable proof of spaceflight.  Good to know that all this time, all those people at public viewings who have seen the space station through my scope and others have seen irrefutable proof of spaceflight, and by extension, RE.

I have a remedy for overblown ego, crow with nit sauce.

I have a remedy for overblown ego, crow with nit sauce.

I have a remedy for FE.  Sidewalk astronomy.