Image of Shuttle Atlantis against Sun (non-NASA origin)

We all acknowledge that ANY photo can be faked.  The point with this one is that it was taken by a non-NASA photographer who has nothing to gain except putting out a neat picture.  Beyond this forum, it has no special impact besides looking cool.

So on that note... does anyone have any other response besides "it's fake"? 

We all acknowledge that ANY photo can be faked.  The point with this one is that it was taken by a non-NASA photographer who has nothing to gain except putting out a neat picture.  Beyond this forum, it has no special impact besides looking cool.

So on that note... does anyone have any other response besides "it's fake"? 

He is not OFFICIALLY linked to NASA.

So before you spout anymore cyclic bullshit, go ahead and find the link.  It is totally improper to discredit seemingly valid evidence without any rationality.  Especially since your reasoning is based on the thinking of "well it goes against what I know must be true, therefore it is a lie."

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:04:29 PM

How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint

Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself.  It's called peer review.  Give it a try sometime.

OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?

I don't have the equipment or training.  Same exact reasoning that the opposing FEer posted originally.  Also, the opportunity for such a photo is passed.

I still haven't heard a motive for faking.

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 08:19:19 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:04:29 PM

How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint

Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself.  It's called peer review.  Give it a try sometime.

OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?

The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.

The FAQ is the standard on this forum. You can ask any major member or mod on this site. The FAQ states that pictures are not valid evidence or proof.

The FAQ states no such thing. The FAQ doesn't represent the "Truth", only FES's answers to frequently asked questions.

How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint

Why would the fact that it could have been faked bother you? Shouldn't you be convinced by the amount of photos and their independence of sources. Shouldn't you be wondering the reason that there are so few photos supporting the FE position. Lady Blount's famous photo is still missing, isn't it? You should be able to reproduce similar observations to confirm or deny your position. Why not get to work and make up your own mind with sound observations?

Quote from: munkirench on May 15, 2009, 08:22:44 PM

We all acknowledge that ANY photo can be faked.  The point with this one is that it was taken by a non-NASA photographer who has nothing to gain except putting out a neat picture.  Beyond this forum, it has no special impact besides looking cool.

So on that note... does anyone have any other response besides "it's fake"? 

He is not OFFICIALLY linked to NASA.

Good point. Thanks.

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 08:19:19 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:04:29 PM

How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint

Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself.  It's called peer review.  Give it a try sometime.

OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?

Because you, not he, impugned it. It's called peer review. Evidence weighs unless refuted.

Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)

I'm just stunned that you haven't realized that pictures of things in space are edited and pretty much never in "true" color, if it was not filtered it would just be a bright blob on a black background with no visible objects in front or behind it

Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)

You have never looked directly at the sun through a telescope with a sun filter in high school?  God, your education must have sucked.

That picture most likely is not edited, as sun filters produce that exact same image when looked through.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:58:02 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 08:19:19 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:04:29 PM

How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint

Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself.  It's called peer review.  Give it a try sometime.

OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?

The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.

Why should I believe it is real unless a neutral party has replicated the results?

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 09:08:02 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:58:02 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 08:19:19 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:04:29 PM

How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint

Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself.  It's called peer review.  Give it a try sometime.

OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?

The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.

Why should I believe it is real unless a neutral party has replicated the results?

When a neutral party DO replicate the results, you will just claim "its the conspiracy". You will claim that to ALL the proof/evidence you get. Which is why you should probably take a look for yourself then, since that will be the ONLY thinng AT ALL you will believe. No neutral third party will be "good" enough for you, because they will all be in on the conspiracy. Quite stupid actually, but meh.

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 09:08:02 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:58:02 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 08:19:19 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:04:29 PM

How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint

Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself.  It's called peer review.  Give it a try sometime.

OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?

The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.

Why should I believe it is real unless a neutral party has replicated the results?

I believe that the assertion was that the photograph was taken by a neutral party.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 16, 2009, 05:06:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 09:08:02 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:58:02 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2009, 08:19:19 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on May 15, 2009, 08:04:29 PM

How do you know that photo is real? That photo could have been photoshopped in mspaint

Because he posted the equipment that he used to take that photograph so that you reproduce it yourself.  It's called peer review.  Give it a try sometime.

OP never even bothered to replicate the "experiment". If he didn't why should I?

The OP didn't suggest that the photo was faked, you did.

Why should I believe it is real unless a neutral party has replicated the results?

When a neutral party DO replicate the results, you will just claim "its the conspiracy". You will claim that to ALL the proof/evidence you get. Which is why you should probably take a look for yourself then, since that will be the ONLY thinng AT ALL you will believe. No neutral third party will be "good" enough for you, because they will all be in on the conspiracy. Quite stupid actually, but meh.

I trust you to be a neutral party.

Burden of disproval, by logic, falls on you.

I have presented evidence from a neutral party.  You have discredited it with no basis for your claims except that it disagrees with what you believe.  Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to show that it is incorrect.

So go ahead.  Prove that it is wrong.  Try and use rational thinking and logic instead of sensationalistic masturbatory squeals of "It must be wrong because it goes against what I believe!"

Quote from: grogberries on May 15, 2009, 06:37:42 PM

Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)

I'm just stunned that you haven't realized that pictures of things in space are edited and pretty much never in "true" color, if it was not filtered it would just be a bright blob on a black background with no visible objects in front or behind it

I am aware of this. But I could take a picture of an egg yolk, scribble a little silhouette of a space shuttle and claim I took an image of the sun. No one should be convinced of anything based on the merits of this photograph.

Burden of disproval, by logic, falls on you.

I have presented evidence from a neutral party.  You have discredited it with no basis for your claims except that it disagrees with what you believe.  Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to show that it is incorrect.

So go ahead.  Prove that it is wrong.  Try and use rational thinking and logic instead of sensationalistic masturbatory squeals of "It must be wrong because it goes against what I believe!"

I had no chance to disprove it. The author of the image did not notify me he was conducting an open experiment that I could do simultaneously.

So you admit you have no basis for discredit.  Interesting.

Quote from: Penispoop agogo on May 15, 2009, 11:32:27 PM

Quote from: grogberries on May 15, 2009, 06:37:42 PM

Could you think of a better way to ask me to find an answer myself? (see this isn't a good way to discuss things with people)

I'm just stunned that you haven't realized that pictures of things in space are edited and pretty much never in "true" color, if it was not filtered it would just be a bright blob on a black background with no visible objects in front or behind it

I am aware of this. But I could take a picture of an egg yolk, scribble a little silhouette of a space shuttle and claim I took an image of the sun. No one should be convinced of anything based on the merits of this photograph.

ANY photo could be doctored.  But why would you believe that this one is?  The photographer has no motive whatsoever.  He's not trying to prove anything to anyone... It's just a cool picture.  So why would you reject it?  In order to prove that a crime has been committed, you must have both evidence and motive.  You have neither.  All you have is the fact that this photo goes against what you "know" must be "true".  Congratulations: you are, for all intents and purposes, a religious zealot.

Quote from: munkirench on May 16, 2009, 09:08:47 PM

Burden of disproval, by logic, falls on you.

I have presented evidence from a neutral party.  You have discredited it with no basis for your claims except that it disagrees with what you believe.  Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to show that it is incorrect.

So go ahead.  Prove that it is wrong.  Try and use rational thinking and logic instead of sensationalistic masturbatory squeals of "It must be wrong because it goes against what I believe!"

I had no chance to disprove it. The author of the image did not notify me he was conducting an open experiment that I could do simultaneously.

The shuttle is still in orbit servicing the HST.  If you hurry, you can still conduct your own experiment to falsify the photographer's.  It's not too late.  Yet.

I do not think it is possible to capture a comparable shot from my geographic location

I do not think it is possible to capture a comparable shot from my geographic location

"ANY photo could be doctored.  But why would you believe that this one is?  The photographer has no motive whatsoever.  He's not trying to prove anything to anyone... It's just a cool picture.  So why would you reject it?  In order to prove that a crime has been committed, you must have both evidence and motive.  You have neither.  All you have is the fact that this photo goes against what you "know" must be "true".  Congratulations: you are, for all intents and purposes, a religious zealot."