The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This

  • 164 Replies
  • 26482 Views
?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #30 on: December 08, 2009, 05:32:01 AM »
The Apollo sun is a stage light.
How did you come to that conclusion?

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2009, 05:39:14 AM »
The Apollo sun is a stage light.
How did you come to that conclusion?

Please describe it with real words outlining the how and why you arrived at your conclusion and not just supply a link, or "see my video".


I've already proven that a space conspiracy exists.
Well then, oh beneficent one, mind sharing. And don't link to another thread, I want the evidence here. Copy and paste if you have to.

The CSA (Chinese Space Agency) is running a fake space program.





http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html
Also, nice link from the anti-CCP paper. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_Times
Quote
Credibility:
Independent assessments:
Dr. Liu Kang, professor of Chinese Cultural Studies at Duke University, stated in 2006 that the paper did not adhere to basic journalistic standards of professionalism and objectivity, and is "not viewed as an independent objective news media".[19] Liu remarked that the newspaper is seen by the overseas Chinese community as "Falun Gong propaganda" and said the newspaper's credibility as media professionals has been damaged by Wang Wenyi,[19] who used her Epoch Times journalist pass to gain access to a White House lawn press briefing where she hurled insults at Chinese President Hu Jintao.[45] President George W. Bush apologized to the Chinese for the incident.[46] In turn, The Epoch Times apologized to the U.S. President,[47] whilst denying any direct ties to, or funding from, Falun Gong.[19]


Though funnier is your link's use of a real US space program to support a fake Chinese one.

Quote
It was shot by NASA?s space shuttle Discovery STS-121 on July 2006 during a mission at the International Space Station (ISS). When the shuttle observes the earth following the tangential direction, i.e., the spherical edge of the earth, we can see that there is a soft circle of blue around the earth, making the edge of the earth image a bit blurry.

This is the atmosphere of the earth. This blue circle becomes even more apparent when there are clouds over the earth. The appearance of this blue is due to the same reason behind why we see the sky as blue?air molecules scatter blue light more strongly. Because air molecules are mainly concentrated within 15 kilometers of the earth?s surface, and given the earth?s radius of 6,370 kilometers, at this distance it just becomes a thin layer.

Let us take a look at the photo (see photo above) in the Xinhua news report or the so-called live broadcast video. The edge of the earth near the top of the Shenzhou VII shuttle was almost smooth, and there was no blue atmosphere around it. Similar to the ISS, Shenzhou VII also maintained a close to circular orbit, with both flying at a distance of about 340 kilometers from the earth?s surface.


Thanks for confirming that your sources, that you believe in, indicate that not only is sustained space flight possible, but that it has happened and that the Earth is in fact, a sphere.  Your proof of a Chinese Conspiracy, just disproved your flat earth.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 05:58:33 AM by Its a Sphere »
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2009, 05:40:33 AM »
The Apollo sun is a stage light.
How did you come to that conclusion?

Please describe it with real words outlining the how and why you arrived at your conclusion and not just supply a link, or "see my video".
If you add "and is valid and makes sense", then it will be impossible for him to comply.

?

Tristan

  • 180
  • Bendy Earth Proponent
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2009, 06:39:02 AM »
The CSA (Chinese Space Agency) is running a fake space program.

The programme is not fake, Tom. There are some nutters on the web trying to convince people that debris=bubbles, but no one from any reputable media source or scientific agency believes it to be fake. In fact, Shenzhou VII was tracked by NASA through out the entire mission because it came uncomfortably close to the ISS.

But this is all irrelevant, because even if the video (or the entire programme) was faked, that doesn't prove anything beyond china having a fake space programme. China would have many motives to fake a spacewalk, none of which require the earth to be flat.

Furthermore, this whole argument is painting you in a corner, because the "evidence" for it being fake (such as the apparent lack of atmosphere around earth) comes from comparing the Shenzhou footage to images taken from Atlantis and the ISS.

So really, in this case, it doesn't help you - someone has to have a real space programme for either side of this argument to work.



Image used in Avatar:
"Duck Dodgers™ in the 24&1/2th Century"
© Warner Brothers Animation
All Rights Reserved

?

Tristan

  • 180
  • Bendy Earth Proponent
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2009, 06:41:13 AM »
Image used in Avatar:
"Duck Dodgers™ in the 24&1/2th Century"
© Warner Brothers Animation
All Rights Reserved

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2009, 08:20:04 AM »
The Apollo sun is a stage light.

Remind me how that video shows that the sun is stage light?

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2009, 10:03:29 AM »
The Apollo sun is a stage light.

I addressed how your argument of this proves nothing. You have said not a word to refute my explanation. Until you do, your "sun is a stage light" idea is lying in shreds on the ground. Deal with it, Bishop.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2009, 10:08:14 AM »
The Apollo sun is a stage light.

I addressed how your argument of this proves nothing. You have said not a word to refute my explanation. Until you do, your "sun is a stage light" idea is lying in shreds on the ground. Deal with it, Bishop.

My educated guess for Tom's reply:
"I already proved it was a stage light. Please watch the video again."

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2009, 10:24:34 AM »
Nah, this is a classic use of Bishop's Razor - his argument has been proved invalid so his response is to pretend that never happened.
Bishop knows nothing about photography and I know quite a bit, and was able to show how the image was indeed what you'd expect to get with the sun in the frame. I work in an imaging field, it's my job to understand these things.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2009, 10:31:18 AM »
Nah, this is a classic use of Bishop's Razor - his argument has been proved invalid so his response is to pretend that never happened.
Bishop knows nothing about photography and I know quite a bit, and was able to show how the image was indeed what you'd expect to get with the sun in the frame. I work in an imaging field, it's my job to understand these things.
So technically this is as close as we can get to Bishop accepting defeat? Sweet!

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2009, 10:42:45 AM »
Nah, this is a classic use of Bishop's Razor - his argument has been proved invalid so his response is to pretend that never happened.
Bishop knows nothing about photography and I know quite a bit, and was able to show how the image was indeed what you'd expect to get with the sun in the frame. I work in an imaging field, it's my job to understand these things.

We need another descriptive term, that isn't just exclusive to Bishop, where several posts which invalidate a FE argument are put forth, but of the 8 total statements one is incorrect and/or ambiguous and the seven statements are ignored and the odd one is singled out and focused upon followed by the claim that since one of the 8 is false all are false and the stance has been proven in the name of FE!
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2009, 10:48:33 AM »
the Argument Evasion through Nitpicking Tactic?
AEtNT
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 10:50:54 AM by Robert64 »

?

Wings_RE

  • 120
  • ...the face of time...
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2009, 12:03:37 PM »
What puzzles me the most in this RE- or FE-world is not if it truly is either flat or round, but Bishops inability to link any - ANY - proof NOT typed or halusinated either by himself or peers.
The only times "they" (small green persons from the FW aka flat world) link anything, the link is either some ole chewed-up rant about mr. Hickupbottom proving the earth was flat using a candle and a teaspoon of onion-juice (relax guys, it's only an example) or a link leading back to the lame-ass statements that has repeated themselves for quite some time now, that only proves that the only proof they have is that they say it's proof.
...the LCROSS-event;
You're pretty dense if you think that you can see something the size of a car 200,000 miles away!
(eh...hrm...3.000 miles away! Right?)

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2009, 12:32:30 PM »
What puzzles me the most in this RE- or FE-world is not if it truly is either flat or round, but Bishops inability to link any - ANY - proof NOT typed or halusinated either by himself or peers.
The only times "they" (small green persons from the FW aka flat world) link anything, the link is either some ole chewed-up rant about mr. Hickupbottom proving the earth was flat using a candle and a teaspoon of onion-juice (relax guys, it's only an example) or a link leading back to the lame-ass statements that has repeated themselves for quite some time now, that only proves that the only proof they have is that they say it's proof.
Yup, but its fun to watch them try anyway. Good way to remind you that no matter how bad you feel about yourself, there are far worse individuals.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17648
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2009, 01:22:36 PM »
Nah, this is a classic use of Bishop's Razor - his argument has been proved invalid so his response is to pretend that never happened.
Bishop knows nothing about photography and I know quite a bit, and was able to show how the image was indeed what you'd expect to get with the sun in the frame. I work in an imaging field, it's my job to understand these things.

No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40496
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2009, 01:25:40 PM »
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17648
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2009, 01:27:15 PM »
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.

No it's not. During an overexposure the entirety of the sun is pure white on the film, indicating a loss of data.

The sun is never inconsistently bright.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2009, 02:00:04 PM »
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.

No it's not. During an overexposure the entirety of the sun is pure white on the film, indicating a loss of data.

The sun is never inconsistently bright.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

I'm guessing what you can see are artefacts caused by the camera being overexposed to a very bright light, and as it is brighter the closer you are to the middle it is a rotationally symmetrical pattern.

About the sun always being "consistently bright", one word:

SUNSPOTS

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #48 on: December 08, 2009, 02:02:13 PM »
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.

No it's not. During an overexposure the entirety of the sun is pure white on the film, indicating a loss of data.

The sun is never inconsistently bright.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

This is my previous post, which you did not respond to, because I am totally right and you are totally wrong:

What makes you think it is a stage light?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33855.msg830773#msg830773

All I see in that crummy video is you tooling around with Photoshop. There is no evidence at all that it isn't the sun in the picture - most of what you're looking at in the original image is lens flare. If you think the big wide circle is supposed to be the edge of the actual sun or a stage light, you are far wrong. Film and scanned images have limits to their dynamic range, and the lens flare alone on the original negative would have easily reached d-max, meaning that the smaller spot of the sun within it could not be seen as seperate from the flare. Don't forget I work for the conspiracy in the imaging field and so I know what I'm talking about. The square blocks within the image after you've tampered with it are merely jpeg compression artefacts. What about that picture makes you think it's not the sun, exactly?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17648
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #49 on: December 08, 2009, 02:09:20 PM »
Quote
I'm guessing what you can see are artefacts caused by the camera being overexposed to a very bright light, and as it is brighter the closer you are to the middle it is a rotationally symmetrical pattern.

About the sun always being "consistently bright", one word:

SUNSPOTS

That's not a ring shaped sunspot taking up 75% of the sun.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 02:27:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17648
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2009, 02:28:28 PM »
No. The sun is never inconsistently bright like that.

But sometimes film is inconsistent in recording very bright objects like the sun.

No it's not. During an overexposure the entirety of the sun is pure white on the film, indicating a loss of data.

The sun is never inconsistently bright.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

This is my previous post, which you did not respond to, because I am totally right and you are totally wrong:

What makes you think it is a stage light?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33855.msg830773#msg830773

All I see in that crummy video is you tooling around with Photoshop. There is no evidence at all that it isn't the sun in the picture - most of what you're looking at in the original image is lens flare. If you think the big wide circle is supposed to be the edge of the actual sun or a stage light, you are far wrong. Film and scanned images have limits to their dynamic range, and the lens flare alone on the original negative would have easily reached d-max, meaning that the smaller spot of the sun within it could not be seen as seperate from the flare. Don't forget I work for the conspiracy in the imaging field and so I know what I'm talking about. The square blocks within the image after you've tampered with it are merely jpeg compression artefacts. What about that picture makes you think it's not the sun, exactly?

It's not a lens flare, either. There's already a lens flare on that sun. A lens flare is never as bright as the sun.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 02:30:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2009, 02:39:59 PM »
Bishop, by disagreeing with me I can only conclude that you don't understand any of the following terms:
(a) lens flare
(b) d-max
(c) jpeg compression artefacts

Additionally, I suspect you don't understand the concept of film halation.
Go away and read up on these things. Once you understand them all, the inevitable conclusion will be as I stated - that is why the sun appears like that.
I expect an apology when you have read up on them. There are many fields I talk about on this forum where I have only an interested amateur's knowledge. However, on the subject of photographic imaging, it is my professional field. You'd do well to remember that while cleaning the ketchup nozzle at your branch of McDonald's.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2009, 02:45:08 PM »
Quote
I'm guessing what you can see are artefacts caused by the camera being overexposed to a very bright light, and as it is brighter the closer you are to the middle it is a rotationally symmetrical pattern.

About the sun always being "consistently bright", one word:

SUNSPOTS

That's not a ring shaped sunspot taking up 75% of the sun.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

When did I say it was a sunspot?
And you admit the existence of sunspots? Then why did you say the sun was "never inconsistently bright"? That was what I was disproving.

And you made the mistake of arguing with who appears to be a pretty adept photographer (TD). GG.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40496
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2009, 02:56:15 PM »
If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

Since you are the one saying that the sun in that photo is a stage light, you are the one that needs to provide a valid example for comparison.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #54 on: December 08, 2009, 02:59:29 PM »
If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

Since you are the one saying that the sun in that photo is a stage light, you are the one that needs to provide a valid example for comparison.
Not that he can prove it with any example he gives, since he can easily photoshop the image he uses as a controlled reference.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17648
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2009, 03:40:23 PM »
Bishop, by disagreeing with me I can only conclude that you don't understand any of the following terms:
(a) lens flare
(b) d-max
(c) jpeg compression artefacts

Additionally, I suspect you don't understand the concept of film halation.
Go away and read up on these things. Once you understand them all, the inevitable conclusion will be as I stated - that is why the sun appears like that.
I expect an apology when you have read up on them. There are many fields I talk about on this forum where I have only an interested amateur's knowledge. However, on the subject of photographic imaging, it is my professional field. You'd do well to remember that while cleaning the ketchup nozzle at your branch of McDonald's.

There already is a lens flare on that sun. It is not a lens flare. A lens flare is never as intense as the sun.

It's not a jpeg artifact.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

?

Don B

Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #56 on: December 08, 2009, 04:12:16 PM »
Bishop, by disagreeing with me I can only conclude that you don't understand any of the following terms:
(a) lens flare
(b) d-max
(c) jpeg compression artefacts

Additionally, I suspect you don't understand the concept of film halation.
Go away and read up on these things. Once you understand them all, the inevitable conclusion will be as I stated - that is why the sun appears like that.
I expect an apology when you have read up on them. There are many fields I talk about on this forum where I have only an interested amateur's knowledge. However, on the subject of photographic imaging, it is my professional field. You'd do well to remember that while cleaning the ketchup nozzle at your branch of McDonald's.

There already is a lens flare on that sun. It is not a lens flare. A lens flare is never as intense as the sun.

It's not a jpeg artifact.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

You made the outlandish claims, the onus of proving it is on you Mr. Bishop, owner/chairman of private (unnamed for fear of stalkers) colleges.

?

Wings_RE

  • 120
  • ...the face of time...
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #57 on: December 08, 2009, 04:17:57 PM »
Hey moderators...where are you all now...mr. Bishop is starting to sound like a door-hinge gone dry.
I do believe he deserves a good spanki...er, sorry...a good warning.
...the LCROSS-event;
You're pretty dense if you think that you can see something the size of a car 200,000 miles away!
(eh...hrm...3.000 miles away! Right?)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17648
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #58 on: December 08, 2009, 04:21:43 PM »
Bishop, by disagreeing with me I can only conclude that you don't understand any of the following terms:
(a) lens flare
(b) d-max
(c) jpeg compression artefacts

Additionally, I suspect you don't understand the concept of film halation.
Go away and read up on these things. Once you understand them all, the inevitable conclusion will be as I stated - that is why the sun appears like that.
I expect an apology when you have read up on them. There are many fields I talk about on this forum where I have only an interested amateur's knowledge. However, on the subject of photographic imaging, it is my professional field. You'd do well to remember that while cleaning the ketchup nozzle at your branch of McDonald's.

There already is a lens flare on that sun. It is not a lens flare. A lens flare is never as intense as the sun.

It's not a jpeg artifact.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

You made the outlandish claims, the onus of proving it is on you Mr. Bishop, owner/chairman of private (unnamed for fear of stalkers) colleges.

Actually the outlandish claim is sending men to the moon.

If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40496
Re: The Conspiracy; Let's Settle This
« Reply #59 on: December 08, 2009, 06:07:02 PM »
It's not a lens flare, either. There's already a lens flare on that sun. A lens flare is never as bright as the sun.

Then it's a good thing that the lens flare isn't brighter than the rest of the sun.  As you can see clearly from your own video, the ring in question is darker than the rest of the sun.


If you're interested in rebutting the video, please provide a valid example.

You still haven't repeated your "analysis" on a control picture of a studio light and/or a control picture of the sun for comparison.  It's hard to rebut "evidence" that you haven't provided yet.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.