What Conspiracy?

I've heard many FEs, when dealing with undeniable evidence for a round earth, blame the conspiracy. The conspiracy being that the government and NASA photoshop pictures and pretend that the earth is round. However, what type of government would waste time and money supporting a lie that the earth is round? What benefit would this belief in the round earth bring them? Come on FEs, answer this.

The combined budgets of the world's space agencies would be the benefit.

The combined budgets of the world's space agencies would be the benefit.

What proof is there being world space agencies?

What proof is there being world space agencies?

Do the space agencies exist?  Is that your question? I suppose one could go around and look to see if they exist.  NASA claims to be located in Houston, TX, USA.  The European Space Agency is located, according to their website, at:
EAC, the European Astronauts Centre in Cologne, Germany;
ESAC, the European Space Astronomy Centre, in Villanueva de la Canada, Madrid, Spain;
ESOC, the European Space Operations Centre in Darmstadt, Germany;
ESRIN, the ESA centre for Earth Observation, in Frascati, near Rome, Italy;
ESTEC, the European Space Research and Technology Centre, Noordwijk, the Netherlands.

As for the others, I suppose you can look them up for yourself and then check to see if they're real or not. Let us know what you find out.

the combined budgets = a great deal of money

You still arent answering the question. He is asking how they BENIFIT. they dont even make money even if they did put their money together. In the end, by your statement, they are making all this up just to waste billions of dollars.

You still arent answering the question. He is asking how they BENIFIT. they dont even make money even if they did put their money together. In the end, by your statement, they are making all this up just to waste billions of dollars.

If you want to believe that the combined budgets would not be a large incentive, of course that's your privilege.  I believe I have answered the question.  It's entirely up to you to accept it or not. 

the combined budgets = a great deal of money

And they don't spend that money on research, materials, contractors...

No.

You still don't seem to understand the fact that by pooling their money they would have to spend it all to create evidence of a round earth i.e. photoshopping pictures practically everyday. They aren't keeping any of the money, it's all going to be used to create evidence of a round earth. Again, they haven't gained anything, now, actualy answer the question or admit that you're wrong.

What do you suppose costs more, a space ship or a copy of photoshop?

Quote from: Janktrio on November 25, 2009, 12:56:29 PM

You still don't seem to understand the fact that by pooling their money they would have to spend it all to create evidence of a round earth i.e. photoshopping pictures practically everyday. They aren't keeping any of the money, it's all going to be used to create evidence of a round earth. Again, they haven't gained anything, now, actualy answer the question or admit that you're wrong.

What do you suppose costs more, a space ship or a copy of photoshop?

Given that photoshop wasn't around in 1969, I'd say "photoshop".

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2009, 02:13:10 PM

Quote from: Janktrio on November 25, 2009, 12:56:29 PM

You still don't seem to understand the fact that by pooling their money they would have to spend it all to create evidence of a round earth i.e. photoshopping pictures practically everyday. They aren't keeping any of the money, it's all going to be used to create evidence of a round earth. Again, they haven't gained anything, now, actualy answer the question or admit that you're wrong.

What do you suppose costs more, a space ship or a copy of photoshop?

Given that photoshop wasn't around in 1969, I'd say "photoshop".

Fish-Eye lenses and studio mosaics were around in 1969.

Photoshop is really just a way to do things which have been manually done in studios since the 1920's.

Fish-Eye lenses and studio mosaics were around in 1969.

Fish eye lenses and studio mosaics() are not photoshop.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2009, 02:24:54 PM

Fish-Eye lenses and studio mosaics were around in 1969.

Fish eye lenses and studio mosaics() are not photoshop.

All of those tools in photoshop are digital analogies for the tools in art studios.

Photoshop is the poor man's art studio.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 25, 2009, 02:29:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2009, 02:24:54 PM

Fish-Eye lenses and studio mosaics were around in 1969.

Fish eye lenses and studio mosaics() are not photoshop.

All of those tools in photoshop are digital analogies for the tools in art studios.

Like the magnetic lasso?

Like the magnetic lasso?

Manually done with a scalpel.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 25, 2009, 02:37:08 PM

Like the magnetic lasso?

Manually done with a scalpel.

A scalpel that sticks to the contours of an image?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2009, 02:37:45 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on November 25, 2009, 02:37:08 PM

Like the magnetic lasso?

Manually done with a scalpel.

A scalpel that sticks to the contours of an image?

The artist does that.

See: manually

The artist does that.

So it's not analogous at all. Thanks for taking part!

It is the same.  If I hadn't meticulously cut around so many images with an exacto knife under a magnifying glass I couldn't appreciate the photoshop lasso so much.

It is the same.  If I hadn't meticulously cut around so many images with an exacto knife under a magnifying glass I couldn't appreciate the photoshop lasso so much.

There is no art studio tool that reproduces the effect of a magnetic lasso.

Protip: "Doing it yourself" is not a tool.

The exacto knife is the tool.  Did you think I did with my fingernails?
And it takes hours and hours to do it manually, for instance a typeface.

Quote from: Janktrio on November 25, 2009, 12:56:29 PM

You still don't seem to understand the fact that by pooling their money they would have to spend it all to create evidence of a round earth i.e. photoshopping pictures practically everyday. They aren't keeping any of the money, it's all going to be used to create evidence of a round earth. Again, they haven't gained anything, now, actualy answer the question or admit that you're wrong.

What do you suppose costs more, a space ship or a copy of photoshop?

Digitally manipulated photos can almost always be detected by forensic techniques.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=5-ways-to-spot-a-fake

Digitally manipulated photos can almost always be detected by forensic techniques.

What if the forensic is the one making the photo?

The exacto knife is the tool.  Did you think I did with my fingernails?

Is your exacto knife magnetic? Does it stick to the contours of an image?

And it takes hours and hours to do it manually, for instance a typeface.

If only there were some kind of tool that could do it a lot quicker. Hmm.

What if the forensic is the one making the photo?

But anyone can apply those techniques. Are we all in the conspiracy now?

Is your exacto knife magnetic? Does it stick to the contours of an image?

If only there were some kind of tool that could do it a lot quicker. Hmm.

The exacto knife did what I made it do.  And yes, it is quicker, that's why I use a CorelDraw program now. 

The exacto knife did what I made it do.

Exactly. You had to make it do it.

AMAZING MOSQUITO KILLER! GUARANTEED TO WORK 100%

Instructions:

1.Place the mosquito between the two pieces of wood provided
2. Squash mosquito.

And yes, it is quicker, that's why I use a CorelDraw program now. 

Amazing.

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2009, 04:35:19 PM

Digitally manipulated photos can almost always be detected by forensic techniques.

What if the forensic is the one making the photo?

There's always someone smarter and better that will be able to detect the fake.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2009, 04:37:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on November 25, 2009, 04:35:19 PM

Digitally manipulated photos can almost always be detected by forensic techniques.

What if the forensic is the one making the photo?

There's always someone smarter and better that will be able to detect the fake.

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e

Do you mean like how this fake was detected?

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e

Do you mean like how this fake was detected?

Until you can provide a control photograph for comparison, your "analysis" remains inconclusive.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 25, 2009, 07:01:12 PM

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e

Do you mean like how this fake was detected?

Until you can provide a control photograph for comparison, your "analysis" remains inconclusive.

Feel free to take a look at the sun if you think that it is inconsistently bright.