you people can't be serious...

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 12:14:49 PM

Quote from: theriddler on March 13, 2009, 09:19:10 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

I'm saying photos are evidence of nothing, and posting them as part of your argument is a weak tactic. Did any of you take my post with the pictures serious? If not, then please do not add pictures to your posts to add credibility. It is one of my biggest pet peaves.

Pictures can be faked. To what degree, I do not know, but photoshop would not be how they faked it in the 60's, fake models and airbrushes are what I'd assume.

Google the "moon ball." Why would NASA need a perfect scale replica of the moon to conduct "trials?" Wouldn't any surface similar to the moon's have trained the astronaut's sufficiently? Why was this expensive moonball destroyed after filming the "test runs"? Such an art work would have been perfect for a museum, perhaps it would have raised the question of how well they could fake a space flight.

The point that you ignore is that the photos are attributed. You also ignore the predictive value they provide. Just saying that a photo may have been faked doesn't mean that it was. RET better describes the photos and uses their data to make value prediction, as such RET is the better model.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 02:43:59 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 12:14:49 PM

Quote from: theriddler on March 13, 2009, 09:19:10 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

I'm saying photos are evidence of nothing, and posting them as part of your argument is a weak tactic. Did any of you take my post with the pictures serious? If not, then please do not add pictures to your posts to add credibility. It is one of my biggest pet peaves.

Pictures can be faked. To what degree, I do not know, but photoshop would not be how they faked it in the 60's, fake models and airbrushes are what I'd assume.

Google the "moon ball." Why would NASA need a perfect scale replica of the moon to conduct "trials?" Wouldn't any surface similar to the moon's have trained the astronaut's sufficiently? Why was this expensive moonball destroyed after filming the "test runs"? Such an art work would have been perfect for a museum, perhaps it would have raised the question of how well they could fake a space flight.

The point that you ignore is that the photos are attributed. You also ignore the predictive value they provide. Just saying that a photo may have been faked doesn't mean that it was. RET better describes the photos and uses their data to make value prediction, as such RET is the better model.

They are not predictive. The photos confirm things. Showing a hurricane that we've noticed for weeks is hardly anything new. You are simply told that a photo verified that there is a hurricane, when in fact the only thing that determines if it is a hurricane is windspeed, something that would be much more difficult to predict in space.

And if you use a faked photo to "confirm" your predictions that hardly matters. Starwars predicted that there was a planet naboo and a photo confirms it, I'd say the predictive power of Star Wars photos is much higher.

Yeah, the fact that photos produced by NASA confirm predictions made by RE seems like an incredibly weak argument against a conspiracy to me.

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 03:02:39 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 02:43:59 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 12:14:49 PM

Quote from: theriddler on March 13, 2009, 09:19:10 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

I'm saying photos are evidence of nothing, and posting them as part of your argument is a weak tactic. Did any of you take my post with the pictures serious? If not, then please do not add pictures to your posts to add credibility. It is one of my biggest pet peaves.

Pictures can be faked. To what degree, I do not know, but photoshop would not be how they faked it in the 60's, fake models and airbrushes are what I'd assume.

Google the "moon ball." Why would NASA need a perfect scale replica of the moon to conduct "trials?" Wouldn't any surface similar to the moon's have trained the astronaut's sufficiently? Why was this expensive moonball destroyed after filming the "test runs"? Such an art work would have been perfect for a museum, perhaps it would have raised the question of how well they could fake a space flight.

The point that you ignore is that the photos are attributed. You also ignore the predictive value they provide. Just saying that a photo may have been faked doesn't mean that it was. RET better describes the photos and uses their data to make value prediction, as such RET is the better model.

They are not predictive. The photos confirm things. Showing a hurricane that we've noticed for weeks is hardly anything new. You are simply told that a photo verified that there is a hurricane, when in fact the only thing that determines if it is a hurricane is windspeed, something that would be much more difficult to predict in space.

And if you use a faked photo to "confirm" your predictions that hardly matters. Starwars predicted that there was a planet naboo and a photo confirms it, I'd say the predictive power of Star Wars photos is much higher.

How terribly wrong... (Just to play a little first... Wrong, Star Wars as you should know occurred long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Naboo is long gone, so Star Wars made no such prediction.)

Photos from space are predictive. They save lives and property. They find resources. They perform a vital role in our lives.

Images of hurricane are used to predict eye-wall cycles and predict changes in direction. Images of crop predict yields and potential threats. All of these photos have attributions. FET can't even predict when the Sun will rise. let alone when the next low pressure front will come of the Pacific into California. All of these results and data provide overwhelming support that RET is the better model.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 13, 2009, 02:58:50 PM

Yeah, the fact that photos produced by NASA confirm predictions made by RE seems like an incredibly weak argument against a conspiracy to me.

No the photos make predictions based on RET that are confirmed independently. That's a BIG difference. Please pay attention.

...

a) you assume we predict those things with pictures. That's nice, want a cookie?

b) high level plane surveillance would do the same thing. Google maps is mostly done by high altitude plane photography.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 05:38:14 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 13, 2009, 02:58:50 PM

Yeah, the fact that photos produced by NASA confirm predictions made by RE seems like an incredibly weak argument against a conspiracy to me.

No the photos make predictions based on RET that are confirmed independently. That's a BIG difference. Please pay attention.

Yes, I'm sure it would be impossible for NASA to fix things so their photos would make predictions based on RET that are confirmed independently.  /sarcasm

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 09:18:30 PM

...

a) you assume we predict those things with pictures. That's nice, want a cookie?

b) high level plane surveillance would do the same thing. Google maps is mostly done by high altitude plane photography.

a) No, I make no such assumption.
b) So what?

Do pay attention.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 10:06:04 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 09:18:30 PM

...

a) you assume we predict those things with pictures. That's nice, want a cookie?

b) high level plane surveillance would do the same thing. Google maps is mostly done by high altitude plane photography.

a) No, I make no such assumption.
b) So what?

Do pay attention.

a) yeah... you do

b) uhhhhhhh satellites are unnecessary for the pictures you claimed require the Earth to be round.

Here's a hint. The pictures you are showing are giant patchworks of millions of satellite images. The pictures used to follow a hurricane's formation are single pictures usually taken from a satellite. No useful data comes from these photographs. For useful data we fly modified planes into the hurricane to test windspeeds and such.

So no, the blue marble picture presented was never used to predict anything.

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 10:42:59 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 10:06:04 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 09:18:30 PM

...

a) you assume we predict those things with pictures. That's nice, want a cookie?

b) high level plane surveillance would do the same thing. Google maps is mostly done by high altitude plane photography.

a) No, I make no such assumption.
b) So what?

Do pay attention.

a) yeah... you do

b) uhhhhhhh satellites are unnecessary for the pictures you claimed require the Earth to be round.

Here's a hint. The pictures you are showing are giant patchworks of millions of satellite images. The pictures used to follow a hurricane's formation are single pictures usually taken from a satellite. No useful data comes from these photographs. For useful data we fly modified planes into the hurricane to test windspeeds and such.

So no, the blue marble picture presented was never used to predict anything.

a) Gee, I guess I'll just leave it to the readers to find your continued errors.
b) Wow! how wrong can you get? I haven't posted a single picture. I never claimed that satellites are necessary. You attack a strawman. Please do pay attention. I never claimed the pictures required the Earth to be round. You attack a strawman, again. You are correct that that we do fly modified planes into hurricanes to test various weather conditions. That does not mean that meteorologist don't use the satellite photos for prediction, especially about eye-wall cycles. Here's the first link that Googled up: http://ams.confex.com/ams/28Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_138319.htm.

Also, didn't you just admit that satellites exist? It's that heresy in the FE religion?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 11:06:06 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 10:42:59 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 10:06:04 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 09:18:30 PM

...

a) you assume we predict those things with pictures. That's nice, want a cookie?

b) high level plane surveillance would do the same thing. Google maps is mostly done by high altitude plane photography.

a) No, I make no such assumption.
b) So what?

Do pay attention.

a) yeah... you do

b) uhhhhhhh satellites are unnecessary for the pictures you claimed require the Earth to be round.

Here's a hint. The pictures you are showing are giant patchworks of millions of satellite images. The pictures used to follow a hurricane's formation are single pictures usually taken from a satellite. No useful data comes from these photographs. For useful data we fly modified planes into the hurricane to test windspeeds and such.

So no, the blue marble picture presented was never used to predict anything.

a) Gee, I guess I'll just leave it to the readers to find your continued errors.
b) Wow! how wrong can you get? I haven't posted a single picture. I never claimed that satellites are necessary. You attack a strawman. Please do pay attention. I never claimed the pictures required the Earth to be round. You attack a strawman, again. You are correct that that we do fly modified planes into hurricanes to test various weather conditions. That does not mean that meteorologist don't use the satellite photos for prediction, especially about eye-wall cycles. Here's the first link that Googled up: http://ams.confex.com/ams/28Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_138319.htm.

Also, didn't you just admit that satellites exist? It's that heresy in the FE religion?

You're "attacking a strawman" because none of that is important. You were claiming the "predictive power of these images" when in fact you admit they aren't used to predict anything.

If you were unable to make a point other than "images dur dur dur" please delete your system32 files and rid the internet of another useless poster.

Wow! Again so much wrong in such a short post. You really must try harder.

"Attacking a strawman" is not "because none of that is important". It is pretending that your opponent said something he did not. Do pay attention.

I have never admitted that "they aren't used to predict anything."

You fail to respond to the challenges. I provide a reference showing that you're wrong. I point out that you admit the existence of satellites, which FE abhors. The best you can do is an ad hominem attack.

I guess that you're just overwhelmed. Do come back when you're willing to try harder.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 06:51:11 AM

Wow! Again so much wrong in such a short post. You really must try harder.

"Attacking a strawman" is not "because none of that is important". It is pretending that your opponent said something he did not. Do pay attention.

I have never admitted that "they aren't used to predict anything."

You fail to respond to the challenges. I provide a reference showing that you're wrong. I point out that you admit the existence of satellites, which FE abhors. The best you can do is an ad hominem attack.

I guess that you're just overwhelmed. Do come back when you're willing to try harder.

Definitely Gulliver reincarnate.

Quote from: Raist on March 14, 2009, 12:20:59 AM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 11:06:06 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 10:42:59 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 10:06:04 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 09:18:30 PM

...

a) you assume we predict those things with pictures. That's nice, want a cookie?

b) high level plane surveillance would do the same thing. Google maps is mostly done by high altitude plane photography.

a) No, I make no such assumption.
b) So what?

Do pay attention.

a) yeah... you do

b) uhhhhhhh satellites are unnecessary for the pictures you claimed require the Earth to be round.

Here's a hint. The pictures you are showing are giant patchworks of millions of satellite images. The pictures used to follow a hurricane's formation are single pictures usually taken from a satellite. No useful data comes from these photographs. For useful data we fly modified planes into the hurricane to test windspeeds and such.

So no, the blue marble picture presented was never used to predict anything.

a) Gee, I guess I'll just leave it to the readers to find your continued errors.
b) Wow! how wrong can you get? I haven't posted a single picture. I never claimed that satellites are necessary. You attack a strawman. Please do pay attention. I never claimed the pictures required the Earth to be round. You attack a strawman, again. You are correct that that we do fly modified planes into hurricanes to test various weather conditions. That does not mean that meteorologist don't use the satellite photos for prediction, especially about eye-wall cycles. Here's the first link that Googled up: http://ams.confex.com/ams/28Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_138319.htm.

Also, didn't you just admit that satellites exist? It's that heresy in the FE religion?

You're "attacking a strawman" because none of that is important. You were claiming the "predictive power of these images" when in fact you admit they aren't used to predict anything.

If you were unable to make a point other than "images dur dur dur" please delete your system32 files and rid the internet of another useless poster.

Wow! Again so much wrong in such a short post. You really must try harder.

"Attacking a strawman" is not "because none of that is important". It is pretending that your opponent said something he did not. Do pay attention.

I have never admitted that "they aren't used to predict anything."

You fail to respond to the challenges. I provide a reference showing that you're wrong. I point out that you admit the existence of satellites, which FE abhors. The best you can do is an ad hominem attack.

I guess that you're just overwhelmed. Do come back when you're willing to try harder.

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 12:14:49 PM

Quote from: theriddler on March 13, 2009, 09:19:10 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

I'm saying photos are evidence of nothing, and posting them as part of your argument is a weak tactic. Did any of you take my post with the pictures serious? If not, then please do not add pictures to your posts to add credibility. It is one of my biggest pet peaves.

Pictures can be faked. To what degree, I do not know, but photoshop would not be how they faked it in the 60's, fake models and airbrushes are what I'd assume.

Google the "moon ball." Why would NASA need a perfect scale replica of the moon to conduct "trials?" Wouldn't any surface similar to the moon's have trained the astronaut's sufficiently? Why was this expensive moonball destroyed after filming the "test runs"? Such an art work would have been perfect for a museum, perhaps it would have raised the question of how well they could fake a space flight.

The point that you ignore is that the photos are attributed. You also ignore the predictive value they provide. Just saying that a photo may have been faked doesn't mean that it was. RET better describes the photos and uses their data to make value prediction, as such RET is the better model.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 06:51:11 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 14, 2009, 12:20:59 AM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 11:06:06 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 10:42:59 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 10:06:04 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 13, 2009, 09:18:30 PM

...

a) you assume we predict those things with pictures. That's nice, want a cookie?

b) high level plane surveillance would do the same thing. Google maps is mostly done by high altitude plane photography.

a) No, I make no such assumption.
b) So what?

Do pay attention.

a) yeah... you do

b) uhhhhhhh satellites are unnecessary for the pictures you claimed require the Earth to be round.

Here's a hint. The pictures you are showing are giant patchworks of millions of satellite images. The pictures used to follow a hurricane's formation are single pictures usually taken from a satellite. No useful data comes from these photographs. For useful data we fly modified planes into the hurricane to test windspeeds and such.

So no, the blue marble picture presented was never used to predict anything.

a) Gee, I guess I'll just leave it to the readers to find your continued errors.
b) Wow! how wrong can you get? I haven't posted a single picture. I never claimed that satellites are necessary. You attack a strawman. Please do pay attention. I never claimed the pictures required the Earth to be round. You attack a strawman, again. You are correct that that we do fly modified planes into hurricanes to test various weather conditions. That does not mean that meteorologist don't use the satellite photos for prediction, especially about eye-wall cycles. Here's the first link that Googled up: http://ams.confex.com/ams/28Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_138319.htm.

Also, didn't you just admit that satellites exist? It's that heresy in the FE religion?

You're "attacking a strawman" because none of that is important. You were claiming the "predictive power of these images" when in fact you admit they aren't used to predict anything.

If you were unable to make a point other than "images dur dur dur" please delete your system32 files and rid the internet of another useless poster.

Wow! Again so much wrong in such a short post. You really must try harder.

"Attacking a strawman" is not "because none of that is important". It is pretending that your opponent said something he did not. Do pay attention.

I have never admitted that "they aren't used to predict anything."

You fail to respond to the challenges. I provide a reference showing that you're wrong. I point out that you admit the existence of satellites, which FE abhors. The best you can do is an ad hominem attack.

I guess that you're just overwhelmed. Do come back when you're willing to try harder.

Wrong on all fronts. A strawman fallacy is when you misrepresent your opponent's argument then debate the new flawed argument you yourself have created.

You have done nothing to show I am wrong. Some RE'er (I assume it is you, but considering there are many noobs in this thread, I can't keep track of you all) claimed the pictures "make predictions about things such as hurricanes.

This is what I was arguing. If you do not hold such views then why in the hell are you even speaking to me?

You haven't backed up your statement that round Earth photos have predictive power.  You just said it.  I can say "No they don't either" and I will have supported my point as strongly as you have.

You claim a predicative value in Round Earth photos. Show one or gtfo.

The choice not to believe photographic evidence is not scientific. The only evidence I have that many things happened/exist is photographic.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/28Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_138319.htm.

Just remove the point from the end of the url.

Quote from: Raist on March 15, 2009, 12:05:13 AM

You claim a predicative value in Round Earth photos. Show one or gtfo.

Again and again... As I have already referenced: http://ams.confex.com/ams/28Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_138319.htm.. GOOGLE is your friend.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:43:42 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 15, 2009, 12:05:13 AM

You claim a predicative value in Round Earth photos. Show one or gtfo.

Again and again... As I have already referenced: http://ams.confex.com/ams/28Hurricanes/techprogram/paper_138319.htm. GOOGLE is your friend.

Didn't say the Earth was round, also, every reading that it spoke of could be done with the help of planes, and radio tower triangulation.

Your article proves nothing except they claim satellites watch hurricanes. That's useful.