Constellations?

More "the fairies are too small to see" mumblings?

Once you have some evidence for the existence of fairies, come back and we can continue this discussion.

8. Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2009, 05:49:32 AM

More "the fairies are too small to see" mumblings?

Once you have some evidence for the existence of fairies, come back and we can continue this discussion.

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/2429/globe_west_2048.jpg

Try discounting this evidence without evoking fantasies of elaborate conspiracies. We have no reason to believe in fairies or conspiracies until you can provide evidence.

Tom you accuse RE of being pseudo. You used ONE point which is not enough. Valid evidence is presented, FE ignores it. Another trait of pseudo
Also pseudoscience is contradicting common knowledge. RE is common knowledge so dont be dumb

Quote from: cdenley on June 15, 2009, 06:12:13 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2009, 05:49:32 AM

More "the fairies are too small to see" mumblings?

Once you have some evidence for the existence of fairies, come back and we can continue this discussion.

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/2429/globe_west_2048.jpg

Try discounting this evidence without evoking fantasies of elaborate conspiracies. We have no reason to believe in fairies or conspiracies until you can provide evidence.

What evidence? That's a 3D model.

See: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2429

"Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Image by Reto Stockli (land surface, shallow water, clouds). Enhancements by Robert Simmon (ocean color, compositing, 3D globes, animation)."

Quote

Tom you accuse RE of being pseudo. You used ONE point which is not enough. Valid evidence is presented, FE ignores it. Another trait of pseudo
Also pseudoscience is contradicting common knowledge. RE is common knowledge so dont be dumb

You guys can't even recognize a 3D model when you see one. Great "valid evidence" there.

And you expect us to believe anything you guys say?

Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet. These images are freely available to educators, scientists, museums, and the public. This record includes preview images and links to full resolution versions up to 21,600 pixels across.

Tom, are you really this dense?  I'm asking you a simple question.  From an eye level of six feet, standing on top a of a 7900 mile diameter sphere, how much curvature should be visible to the naked eye.  Notice that I am not claiming that that the earth is a sphere, I'm only asking how much curvature should be visible if you were standing on a very large sphere.  It's called a hypothetical scenario.  Now, would you please answer the question?  

Then would you please provide links to them?  I've looked and I can't seem to find any proper documentation.

Quote from: frostee on June 15, 2009, 06:14:41 AM

Also pseudoscience is contradicting common knowledge. RE is common knowledge so dont be dumb

So anything that ever contradicts common knowedge is pseudoscience? Do you understand the implications of what you're saying? That is a massive logical fallacy, the very thing you accuse FE'ers of in your pseudoscience rants. That's nothing more than 'Argumentum ad Populum', i.e. an appeal to numbers.

Your "hypothetical scenario" is founded on pure fantasy and therefore cannot be considered for debate, just as the paranormal is not considered for debate. Your "hypothetical scenario" needs actual evidence to back it up before we can consider its merits. "An illusion did it" is not proper evidence. Once you have proper evidence we can discuss the matter further.

Lack of a coherence argument?  You've totally lost me.

--->  Evidence. That. Human. Eyesight. Is. Accurate. Enough. To. Determine. The. Shape. Of. The. Earth. From. Ground. Level.

This is not a question of "illusion", "fairies", or mystery, its the simple issue of accuracy and sensistivty

The horizon can exist on a Flat Earth. The horizon defines the Vanishing Point.

I haven't seen any evidence that astronauts have gone to "outer space".

Seasons happen in FET. Please read the FAQ.

The earth is not a planet.

Circumnavigation is possible on a Flat Earth. East and West are always at a right angle to North. Traveling Eastwards takes you in a circle around the Northern Hub.

You've seen this before Tom. Unfortunately you seem to keep forgetting.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29384.msg706808#msg706808

Quote from: KillaBee on June 15, 2009, 07:49:48 AM

You've seen this before Tom. Unfortunately you seem to keep forgetting.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29384.msg706808#msg706808

- Gravity has not been proven or demonstrated.

However, notice the difference between the round earth and flat earth model: the round earth model instantly fits into the
5 facts explained above. The flat earth model requires additional theories and hypotheses in order to fit into the 5 facts (i.e. the vanishing point, earth is not a planet, etc.)
Flat earth theory requires additional theories and hypotheses in order to fit into reality, therefore the burden of evidence lies with YOU.

You have NO evidence for satellites not existing other than claiming they just don't. Where is your evidence showing that, say, AVHRR imagery is falsified, when you can directly alter the imagery minutes before it is taken?

Flat Earth Theory does provide evidence for its articles. For example, the supposed "sinking ship" effect has been reversed by viewing it through a telescope, proving that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship. A plethora of independent accounts and corroborating evidence are available. It has all been peer reviewed over and over again.

When you guys can show us a peer review of NASA's Apollo missions let us know.

Quote

You have NO evidence for satellites not existing other than claiming they just don't. Where is your evidence showing that, say, AVHRR imagery is falsified, when you can directly alter the imagery minutes before it is taken?

I've provided plenty of evidence that NASA and its ilk are fraudulent organization which modifies material before distribution, or fakes events entirely.

NASA fakes Mars Images

The Apollo Sun is Not Real

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rooster Tails from the Lunar Rover

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fake Chinese Spacewalk

Fake Chinese Spacewalk II

Before I so much as Google this book, who is this guy, and why should I take his claims seriously? (I'm not asking that in a cynical, condescending way, btw. I just want to know.)

AVHRR IMAGERY. EXPLAIN.
And while you are at it, explain all the ENVISAT data, MODIS data, LANDSAT data (the entire series), SPOT data, and DMC data.
Go.
By the way:

I don't give a crap about your NASA data. NASA has been demonstrated to be fundamentally untrustworthy. The burden is on you to prove that anything they show us is accurate or real.

Quote

Lack of a coherence argument?  You've totally lost me.

--->  Evidence. That. Human. Eyesight. Is. Accurate. Enough. To. Determine. The. Shape. Of. The. Earth. From. Ground. Level.

First of all, you're assuming that the earth is a large ball. You need to provide evidence for that....blah blah...burden of proof...blah blah...

I don't give a crap about your NASA data. NASA has been demonstrated to be fundamentally untrustworthy. The burden is on you to prove that anything they show us is accurate or real.

No they haven't you imbecile.
There imagery is 100% correct, which you would know if you've ever used it for RS purposes, such as surveying.
All RS imagery is pre-processed for radiometric and geometric corrections. Than post-processing can be done to imagery to give false-colour composites etc.
These images are not 'fake', just slightly altered to allow different analysis of the AOI.
Learn something about what you are commenting about.
Want evidence the imagery is real?
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=MODIS+RS+data&btnG=Search
ANYONE OF THOSE PAPERS PROVES THE IMAGERY IS 100% REAL  

Now, please prove how AVHRR is false, as well as each individual RS system.
The scientific community has deemed satellite data to be valid and trustworthy.
The burden is on YOU to prove it as false.

First of all, I'm obviously not.   Am asking you to show be that you are reliably able to tell the shape of the earth from ground level.

I take each piece of evidence at face value.  We don't know how reliable it is so it's worthless.

...Well "prove" your eyesight is accurate enough to determine the shape of the earth!!!!

Quote from: mazty88 on June 15, 2009, 08:32:25 AM

No they haven't you imbecile.
There imagery is 100% correct, which you would know if you've ever used it for RS purposes, such as surveying.
All RS imagery is pre-processed for radiometric and geometric corrections. Than post-processing can be done to imagery to give false-colour composites etc.
These images are not 'fake', just slightly altered to allow different analysis of the AOI.
Learn something about what you are commenting about.
Want evidence the imagery is real?
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=MODIS+RS+data&btnG=Search
ANYONE OF THOSE PAPERS PROVES THE IMAGERY IS 100% REAL  

Now, please prove how AVHRR is false, as well as each individual RS system.
The scientific community has deemed satellite data to be valid and trustworthy.
The burden is on YOU to prove it as false.

NASA is an untrustworthy resource. They're constantly trying to silence scientists, impugning data, and faking events entirely. Any piece of evidence you present from NASA needs to be demonstrated to be accurate and true.

You really are a special kind of stupid.
MERIS  & AVHRR data are not linked to NASA.

Plus all the journals I presented showed that NASA data is relaible.
You have presented no evidence that NASA is untrustworthy, just an utter lack of understanding the data process procedures of satellite imagery.
And what about GEOEYE imagery?
They are all proven to be real as they are accurate to their specified resolutions (radiometric, spatial etc).
Science says NASA is trust worthy.
Where is your evidence showing NASA AND EVERY OTHER SATELLITE PROGRAM to be untrustworthy?
Where is your evidence disproving all the scientific journals I presented to you?
Blind scepticism is not evidence. Just idiocy.

I still haven't seen any evidence proving that NASA is untrustworthy.

Quote from: lexotan on June 15, 2009, 10:07:45 AM

I still haven't seen any evidence proving that NASA is untrustworthy.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29703.msg720717#msg720717

Direct observation and experience is a fundamental tenet of science. It is what all of science is based upon, and exists as the ground work on which all other ideas follow.

It's your responsibility to demonstrate that human experience is "all an illusion". It's not my responsibility to demonstrate that it's not. Observation and experience is already the pretense upon which all arguments must follow.

"Illusion" and "fairies" are things that YOU need to prove. I don't need to "prove that it's not an illusion". YOU must prove that it's an illusion and that we're all seeing things. The burden of proof is on YOU.

To be taken seriously, it's your responsibility to provide a strong evidential basis for your super-human claims.

Until you can show us that Tom Bishop has the ability to reliably determine the shape of the earth from his window, this personal <cough cough> "evidence" will not by taken seriously by anyone in their right mind (let alone a scientist).

Strong science needs good method strong evidence.   All is lacking here.

Tom, you have a hypothesis, and you're trying to find evidence that it is correct. As long as you search for evidence that your hypothesis is correct, then what you're doing is pseudo-science. The round-earth model has not yet failed, so there's no reason to reject it.

Quote

Tom, are you really this dense?  I'm asking you a simple question.  From an eye level of six feet, standing on top a of a 7900 mile diameter sphere, how much curvature should be visible to the naked eye.  Notice that I am not claiming that that the earth is a sphere, I'm only asking how much curvature should be visible if you were standing on a very large sphere.  It's called a hypothetical scenario.  Now, would you please answer the question? 

Your "hypothetical scenario" is founded on pure fantasy and therefore cannot be considered for debate, just as the paranormal is not considered for debate. Your "hypothetical scenario" needs actual evidence to back it up before we can consider its merits. "An illusion did it" is not proper evidence. Once you have proper evidence we can discuss the matter further.

Quote

Then would you please provide links to them?  I've looked and I can't seem to find any proper documentation.

I've described the experiments numerous times. Please do a search for "Monterey".

Quote

To be taken seriously, it's your responsibility to provide a strong evidential basis for your super-human claims.

Until you can show us that Tom Bishop has the ability to reliably determine the shape of the earth from his window, this personal <cough cough> "evidence" will not by taken seriously by anyone in their right mind (let alone a scientist).

Strong science needs good method strong evidence.   All is lacking here.

Human experience is a basis for our claims. And we've backed it up with a wealth of experimental evidence claims.

Quote from: lexotan on June 15, 2009, 10:07:45 AM

I still haven't seen any evidence proving that NASA is untrustworthy.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29703.msg720717#msg720717

Quote

You really are a special kind of stupid.
MERIS  & AVHRR data are not linked to NASA.

The ESA works in direct partnership with NASA and receives its "technology" from them. NASA and the ESA work in partnership and profit from their governments through their "space programs". In fact, NASA is the chief proponent who originally helped start the ESA in the first place.

Quote

Plus all the journals I presented showed that NASA data is relaible.
You have presented no evidence that NASA is untrustworthy, just an utter lack of understanding the data process procedures of satellite imagery.
And what about GEOEYE imagery?
They are all proven to be real as they are accurate to their specified resolutions (radiometric, spatial etc).
Science says NASA is trust worthy.
Where is your evidence showing NASA AND EVERY OTHER SATELLITE PROGRAM to be untrustworthy?
Where is your evidence disproving all the scientific journals I presented to you?
Blind scepticism is not evidence. Just idiocy.

No, they are not proven real through their "resolution" of land data. That data could easily come from planes or stratellites (high altitude dirigibles).

If you're implying that the low orbit images which show a slight curve to the earth prove that it is a globe, that's easily simulated by fish eye effects. Even if there were no effects, the Flat Earth would still look curved from the edge of the atmosphere. At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at the sun's circular area of light.

You have done nothing to demonstrate the trustworthiness of NASA or demonstrate that anything it produces is accurate or true. Your belief in NASA is a faith issue. No unconnected third party peer reviews their work to confirm the truthfulness of their productions.