Okay, read it, saw it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, wondering what the point was...
The challenge was answered. Do pay attention. RE photos have predictive merit.
So what does any of this have to do with the shape of the Earth?
Or better yet, how does it invalidate the iniitial premise that photos can be faked? What's with the red herring? Is your argument against the initial premise that weak that you have to fly off on a tangent?
If your team's challenge was irrelevant, then we suggest you complain to your captain. That we answered your challenge with ease and elegance just shows the skills and talents of our team.
So we now agree that supposedly faked photos made predictions, providing significant evidence that they are not faked which leads directly to the conclusion of weather satellites (as Jack admits as true) exist which leads directly to the falsification of FET. So we agree then that FET is false. I guess that would be relevant, wouldn't you agree?
But you haven't presented anything that leads to the falsification of FET. It was a nice show, but where's the payoff?
I really can't express it much simpler:
Hypothesis: The Earth is flat.
Synthesis: There is no sustained space flight or thereby evidence thereof.
Observation: Attributed satellite images accurately predicted the wind speed associated with the landfall of a hurricane.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified. The Earth is not flat.
You haven't presented any evidence that such images actually came from a "satellite".
Wrong. The attribution is quite clear. Do pay attention.
Well, we all know what they're attributed to, but of course we reject that that's actually where they came from. Do pay attention.
It's the Whack-a-Mole Game!
Roundy: There's no evidence.
Us: We already showed you.
Roundy: I don't believe your evidence.
Us: You don't believe predictive, consistent, life-saving, real-time data attributed to real people with real qualifications, and you want us to believe in the experiments of Rowbotham who can't even measure the apparent size of the Sun at sunset correctly? Do praytell let us know how FE explains the predictive, consistent, life-saving, real-time data attributed to real people with real qualifications. Don't even bother telling us that stratellites are criss-crossing over the most powerful storms in nature and producing these predictive and useful results. Remember we're seeing the images in real time BEFORE even some of the weather data is even collected. There's no way to fake a prediction. There's no way in real time to produce a facsimile. Are you really thinking this through or just cut and pasting answers like Tom?
Raist: There's no prediction from your satellites.
Us: We already showed you
Raist: You reached the wrong conclusion.
Us: Uh, no, we got it right.