you people can't be serious...

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 08:58:47 PM

I'm sorry, but unless you present evidence that the images discussed were actually provided by satellites as RE defines them you haven't proven anything.

Done already. Follow the link. Do I need to repeat myself, again? Okay. Follow the link.

You make so many claims. Yet no evidence. Quite sad.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:02:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 08:58:47 PM

I'm sorry, but unless you present evidence that the images discussed were actually provided by satellites as RE defines them you haven't proven anything.

Done already. Follow the link. Do I need to repeat myself, again? Okay. Follow the link.

You make so many claims. Yet no evidence. Quite sad.

Literacy is fun!

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:02:15 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 08:58:47 PM

I'm sorry, but unless you present evidence that the images discussed were actually provided by satellites as RE defines them you haven't proven anything.

Done already. Follow the link. Do I need to repeat myself, again? Okay. Follow the link.

You make so many claims. Yet no evidence. Quite sad.

Again, follow the link.

I did. It claims to be taken by a satellite. There is not proof. Just claims.

Again, there is no proof these photos were taken by the satelites, just the word of NASA. and considering we don't believe they have satellites, they are lying.

I did. It claims to be taken by a satellite. There is not proof. Just claims.

Again, there is no proof these photos were taken by the satelites, just the word of NASA. and considering we don't believe they have satellites, they are lying.

The Wack-A-Mole game continues!

Us: Here's the evidence.
Raist: You haven't provided any evidence.
Us: Again, here's the evidence.
Raist: You have provided any evidence.
Us: Again, here's the evidence.
Raist: Oh, the evidence isn't proof.
Us: Again, they can't be lying as you, without support, claim. They are consistent, stable, real-time, attributed to real people with real qualifications and accurately PREDICTIVE, while you ask us to believe Robotham when he can't even measure the apparent size of the Sun at sunset accurately in one of his published, "peer-reviewed" experiments.

Apparently the best RE can do is to keep repeating the same thing over and over again until hopefully everybody forgets that it's false. 

Quote from: Raist on March 15, 2009, 09:21:10 PM

I did. It claims to be taken by a satellite. There is not proof. Just claims.

Again, there is no proof these photos were taken by the satelites, just the word of NASA. and considering we don't believe they have satellites, they are lying.

The Wack-A-Mole game continues!

Us: Here's the evidence.
Raist: You haven't provided any evidence.
Us: Again, here's the evidence.
Raist: You have provided any evidence.
Us: Again, here's the evidence.
Raist: Oh, the evidence isn't proof.
Us: Again, they can't be lying as you, without support, claim. They are consistent, stable, real-time, attributed to real people with real qualifications and accurately PREDICTIVE, while you ask us to believe Robotham when he can't even measure the apparent size of the Sun at sunset accurately in one of his published, "peer-reviewed" experiments.

You guys: they say they've been to space
Us: well do you have any proof?
You guys: they say they have, duh.
Us: That isn't proof.
You guys: uh huh, they say it is
Us: that still isn't proof
You guys: well they say they did
Us: So?
You guys: It is proof.


If I tell you that I know how to turn copper into gold, and have pictures of gold, would you believe me?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:28:41 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 15, 2009, 09:21:10 PM

I did. It claims to be taken by a satellite. There is not proof. Just claims.

Again, there is no proof these photos were taken by the satelites, just the word of NASA. and considering we don't believe they have satellites, they are lying.

The Wack-A-Mole game continues!

Us: Here's the evidence.
Raist: You haven't provided any evidence.
Us: Again, here's the evidence.
Raist: You have provided any evidence.
Us: Again, here's the evidence.
Raist: Oh, the evidence isn't proof.
Us: Again, they can't be lying as you, without support, claim. They are consistent, stable, real-time, attributed to real people with real qualifications and accurately PREDICTIVE, while you ask us to believe Robotham when he can't even measure the apparent size of the Sun at sunset accurately in one of his published, "peer-reviewed" experiments.

You guys: they say they've been to space
Us: well do you have any proof?
You guys: they say they have, duh.
Us: That isn't proof.
You guys: uh huh, they say it is
Us: that still isn't proof
You guys: well they say they did
Us: So?
You guys: It is proof.


If I tell you that I know how to turn copper into gold, and have pictures of gold, would you believe me?

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

At no point has any REer claimed that the link I provided is proof. We have correctly identified the data in the link as evidence.

You attack, without support, the evidence. We've pointed out clearly, concisely, and accurately that the evidence is well beyond reproach. NASA or whoever can't fabricate real-time, PREDICTIVE evidence. You need to address this issue or yield. If you cannot find a means to even impeach the evidence then you must conclude logically that FET has been successfully falsified.

If a theory produces a useful prediction, then we value the theory.

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

If we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE, how are you right exactly?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

those pictures could have been taken from a plane. We are only claiming that the website lies. This thread isn't going anywhere, you either lack any form of logic or are trolling. Either way this thread need not continue.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:26:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

If we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE, how are you right exactly?

You argue from a faulty premise.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:26:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

those pictures could have been taken from a plane. We are only claiming that the website lies. This thread isn't going anywhere, you either lack any form of logic or are trolling. Either way this thread need not continue.

Wow! that's an amazing claim. Do you have any evidence that those pictures, real-time, over a large area, over a monstrous storm, presented an a integrated whole, in motion, and in various wavelengths were taken from a plane. Really just one plane?

You're welcome to impugn any source, but understand please that the burden shifts to you. Once we present an acclaimed and accredited source, then you need to find a reason for a reasonable person to doubt it. For example, we impugn EnaG by simply pointing out that despite the claimed peer-review, Robotham's inaccurate measurement of the apparent size of the setting Sun is both incorrect and unassailed in its review.

Again I must fault you for another ad hominem attack: "...you either lack logic or are trolling." Please recognize that your poor technique produces no advance in this debate.

I didn't state they were. I said could. Meaning that the photos are not proof that large objects are circling a giant sphere in constant free fall so as to retain the same distance from the surface of the sphere at all times.

You made the claim the photos are evidence of this.

I didn't state they were. I said could. Meaning that the photos are not proof that large objects are circling a giant sphere in constant free fall so as to retain the same distance from the surface of the sphere at all times.

You made the claim the photos are evidence of this.

Yes. I did. I also provided an attributed reference supporting such. The burden shifts to you now.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:38:19 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:26:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

If we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE, how are you right exactly?

You argue from a faulty premise.

No, I'm merely elucidating the fact that you're arguing from a faulty premise.  Do pay attention!

Arguing with the FAQ behind you is arguing from a faulty premise. Hypocrite anyone?

Excellent contribution. 

Quote from: BanthaPoodoo on March 16, 2009, 12:30:13 PM

Arguing with the FAQ behind you is arguing from a faulty premise. Hypocrite anyone?

Excellent contribution. 

Why do you think I made it?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 11:22:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:38:19 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:26:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

If we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE, how are you right exactly?

You argue from a faulty premise.

No, I'm merely elucidating the fact that you're arguing from a faulty premise.  Do pay attention!

Let me be explicit:

Your premise: "we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE"
Your error: We have not so agreed.

I would appreciate it greatly if you'd pay more attention.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 16, 2009, 12:05:40 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 11:22:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:38:19 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:26:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

If we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE, how are you right exactly?

You argue from a faulty premise.

No, I'm merely elucidating the fact that you're arguing from a faulty premise.  Do pay attention!

Let me be explicit:

Your premise: "we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE"
Your error: We have not so agreed.

I would appreciate it greatly if you'd pay more attention.

But as has been pointed out you've done nothing to support your position on this issue.  Pay attention.

Quote from: Raist on March 16, 2009, 12:05:21 AM

I didn't state they were. I said could. Meaning that the photos are not proof that large objects are circling a giant sphere in constant free fall so as to retain the same distance from the surface of the sphere at all times.

You made the claim the photos are evidence of this.

Yes. I did. I also provided an attributed reference supporting such. The burden shifts to you now.

No you did not. You gave a link where they simply mentioned the photos helped with hurricanes and then mention the word "satellite."

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 16, 2009, 12:05:40 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 11:22:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:38:19 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:26:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

If we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE, how are you right exactly?

You argue from a faulty premise.

No, I'm merely elucidating the fact that you're arguing from a faulty premise.  Do pay attention!

Let me be explicit:

Your premise: "we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE"
Your error: We have not so agreed.

I would appreciate it greatly if you'd pay more attention.

Fine then, if satellite pictures are so different than pictures from a plane, go to google Earth and try to guess which was taken by which.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 16, 2009, 04:55:18 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 16, 2009, 12:05:21 AM

I didn't state they were. I said could. Meaning that the photos are not proof that large objects are circling a giant sphere in constant free fall so as to retain the same distance from the surface of the sphere at all times.

You made the claim the photos are evidence of this.

Yes. I did. I also provided an attributed reference supporting such. The burden shifts to you now.

No you did not. You gave a link where they simply mentioned the photos helped with hurricanes and then mention the word "satellite."

Gee... There's a new weak attack, trying to discount evidence by wordsmithing. They simply say that satellite photos PREDICTED observations.

Quote from: Raist on March 16, 2009, 02:00:01 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 16, 2009, 04:55:18 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 16, 2009, 12:05:21 AM

I didn't state they were. I said could. Meaning that the photos are not proof that large objects are circling a giant sphere in constant free fall so as to retain the same distance from the surface of the sphere at all times.

You made the claim the photos are evidence of this.

Yes. I did. I also provided an attributed reference supporting such. The burden shifts to you now.

No you did not. You gave a link where they simply mentioned the photos helped with hurricanes and then mention the word "satellite."

Gee... There's a new weak attack, trying to discount evidence by wordsmithing. They simply say that satellite photos PREDICTED observations.

You yourself have admitted they could photograph the hurricane from a high flying plane. This would lead to the same results. So no, I am not wordsmithing. A predictive photo is not evidence that there are giant metal objects in constant freefall around the earth in such a way that they maintain a constant distance from its surface.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 16, 2009, 01:32:48 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 16, 2009, 12:05:40 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 11:22:19 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:38:19 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:26:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:16:28 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 10:02:25 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 09:57:24 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 15, 2009, 09:53:41 PM

First and foremost, the better theory provides the better evidence, the better predictions. Clearly RET is doing the better job, saving lives and property.

That link had nothing to do with RET.

Let's test that hypothesis...
You: Link had nothing to do with RET.
Us: The link says image from satellites predicted events. Satellites exist only in RET, not in FET. The evidence shows that a RET construct made an accurate, real-time prediction. FET holds that satellites cannot exist. Link provides very-difficult-to-impeach evidence that satellites exist. FET is thereby falsified.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Any questions?

We don't deny that objects exist that take those pictures.  You fail.  Do pay attention.

I sure glad that you don't deny that objects exist that took those pictures. Of course, I never said that you did. Let's see now that would make your post yet another attack on a strawman. Don't you get tired of trying the same broken technique over and over again?

If we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE, how are you right exactly?

You argue from a faulty premise.

No, I'm merely elucidating the fact that you're arguing from a faulty premise.  Do pay attention!

Let me be explicit:

Your premise: "we're agreed that those pictures might have been taken in either FE or RE"
Your error: We have not so agreed.

I would appreciate it greatly if you'd pay more attention.

Fine then, if satellite pictures are so different than pictures from a plane, go to google Earth and try to guess which was taken by which.

I don't need to. I have an attributed article that says that satellites provided the pictures.

[quote author=Raist link=topic=27624.msg651743#msg651743 date=1237238312]

Quote from: Raist on March 16, 2009, 02:00:01 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 16, 2009, 04:55:18 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 16, 2009, 12:05:21 AM

I didn't state they were. I said could. Meaning that the photos are not proof that large objects are circling a giant sphere in constant free fall so as to retain the same distance from the surface of the sphere at all times.

You made the claim the photos are evidence of this.

Yes. I did. I also provided an attributed reference supporting such. The burden shifts to you now.

No you did not. You gave a link where they simply mentioned the photos helped with hurricanes and then mention the word "satellite."

Gee... There's a new weak attack, trying to discount evidence by wordsmithing. They simply say that satellite photos PREDICTED observations.

You yourself have admitted they could photograph the hurricane from a high flying plane. This would lead to the same results. So no, I am not wordsmithing. A predictive photo is not evidence that there are giant metal objects in constant freefall around the earth in such a way that they maintain a constant distance from its surface.
[/quote]You attack another strawman. I have not so admitted. Furthermore, the article is clear that satellites took the pictures. Furthermore, I've been clear that it is implausible that, as you claim, a plane took the real-time, predictive, integrated, over a large area, in multiple wavelengths, and consistent motion pictures of the weather. Now, if you want to tell me that you know of planes that fly at an altitude of 22,500 miles and maintain a constant location over the Equator, I suggest that you call it a satellite and yield.

Gulliver always did have trouble admitting when he was wrong.