What is the origin of the flat Earth?

And? That's clearly CGI. So your nonsense forum is prepared to right off the single greatest achievements mankind has ever made as a "conspiracy" and only you lot know the truth? You do have amazingly inflated egos.

And? That's clearly CGI. So your nonsense forum is prepared to right off the single greatest achievements mankind has ever made as a "conspiracy" and only you lot know the truth? You do have amazingly inflated egos.

You're right, I apologize...I will take down my nonsense forum after this month runs out.

Ali, you actually have no interest in the truth at all, just in being "right."   Zealots are tiresome, no matter their beliefs.
Your only arguments are either insults - or some videos you found on youtube.   Zzzzzzz.........

Really - you want to debate?  At least try.

You guys are the ones not trying! He asked for evidence. The best way to get rid of him is to give him the evidence.

Either you like arguing with people you don't like, or you don't have any evidence and are trying to take the fight to Ali, not Ali's argument. Either way you're kindergarteners.

And? That's clearly CGI. So your nonsense forum is prepared to right off the single greatest achievements mankind has ever made as a "conspiracy" and only you lot know the truth? You do have amazingly inflated egos.

How is that "clearly" CGI? I think that time lapse video that was posted was clearly CGI.

Quote from: Ali on May 05, 2011, 05:12:53 PM

And? That's clearly CGI. So your nonsense forum is prepared to right off the single greatest achievements mankind has ever made as a "conspiracy" and only you lot know the truth? You do have amazingly inflated egos.

How is that "clearly" CGI? I think that time lapse video that was posted was clearly CGI.

And I suppose that all of the video and photographic evidence of Earth from space before CGI was developed enough to generate realistic "fakes" was actually faked by NASA, who spent all their money pioneering CGI technology decades ahead of the rest of us, while also managing to keep every living soul involved quiet?

English Gentlemen, if you can't spot CGI, may I suggest you never go to the cinema, it will cause you to have a mental breakdown.

A.R.Wallace, what truth? That there is a libraries worth of photographic evidence to prove, conclusively, the shape of the Earth that you conveniently write off as a conspiracy? The truth, and being right, are one and same. We need no more evidence than you can find on the NASA website. You need to actually provide some.

Quote from: Ali on May 04, 2011, 04:33:55 PM

As above. How did it form, how did the solar system form around it, what caused it to fly through space accelerating as it goes? What is it's purpose? RE has a complete and plausible formation theory within the heliocentric solar system, but what caused a 9000km deep disc to randomly form, have planetary bodies orbit it despite a lack of gravity, and how can a 32 mile diameter sun maintain it's heat for 13.7 billion years?

1. Few FE believers claim the earth is accelerating.
2. Dinosaurs.
3. Moonshrimp.
4. The earth is only 9000 years old. That is not nearly enough time to form a "sun".

nor is it nearly enough time to fossilize dinosaur remains, or form oil & coal. how long ago where dinosaurs around, I thought it was billions of years ago!!

and what are moonshrimp, I thought the moon was a dead rock?

English Gentlemen, if you can't spot CGI, may I suggest you never go to the cinema, it will cause you to have a mental breakdown.

Really? Because this looks real.

Damn real.



The point is, Hollywood has been capable of making realistic looking fakes even before CGI. Just because it looks real, does not mean that it is.

Quote from: Ali on May 06, 2011, 03:41:53 AM

English Gentlemen, if you can't spot CGI, may I suggest you never go to the cinema, it will cause you to have a mental breakdown.

Really? Because this looks real.

Damn real.



The point is, Hollywood has been capable of making realistic looking fakes even before CGI. Just because it looks real, does not mean that it is.

Hollywood was not capable of faking images of the Earth when NASA came back with the first images of the Earth. There is no getting around that fact.

How do you explain video and images from space showing recent disasters, such as volcanic ash in iceland, smoke in japan, smoke from the WTC collapse, etc. that were released very nearly after the events, much faster than a CGI team can build an effect like that (at least a CGI team small enough to make a conspiracy possible).

Why is it that NASA can employ quite possibly the smartest people in the country, and perhaps the world, and manage to fool them all into thinking the Earth is round using nothing but falsified images (which, we know, those super smart analysts spend hours examining in close detail and NEVER find evidence of falsification)?

Hollywood was not capable of faking images of the Earth when NASA came back with the first images of the Earth. There is no getting around that fact.

The ability to do this has been around for centuries. Tell me, what does this look like to you?



It is a painting.

It also isn't moving.

Quote from: c47man on May 06, 2011, 12:59:48 PM

Hollywood was not capable of faking images of the Earth when NASA came back with the first images of the Earth. There is no getting around that fact.

The ability to do this has been around for centuries. Tell me, what does this look like to you?



It is a painting.

photorealistic paintings did not exist until after the invention and widespread assimilation of photography and optical effect.

And now, the ability to generate imagery of the earth that was photorealistic did not exist when NASA first brought back images of Earth. Argue all you want, but I work in the film industry and know the history of CGI.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 06, 2011, 01:45:07 PM

Quote from: c47man on May 06, 2011, 12:59:48 PM

Hollywood was not capable of faking images of the Earth when NASA came back with the first images of the Earth. There is no getting around that fact.

The ability to do this has been around for centuries. Tell me, what does this look like to you?



It is a painting.

photorealistic paintings did not exist until after the invention and widespread assimilation of photography and optical effect.

And now, the ability to generate imagery of the earth that was photorealistic did not exist when NASA first brought back images of Earth. Argue all you want, but I work in the film industry and know the history of CGI.

Had you been an art student you would know that the Ancient Greeks were among the first to introduce hyper-realism in paintings. Hyper-realism has been around for a very long time.

And personally, I can't wait for Tom to show us a photorealistic painting of earth from Ancient Greece more than 30(?) years ago! 

Had you been an art student you would know that the Ancient Greeks were among the first to introduce hyper-realism in paintings.

Citation, please.

Quote from: c47man on May 06, 2011, 02:31:56 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 06, 2011, 01:45:07 PM

Quote from: c47man on May 06, 2011, 12:59:48 PM

Hollywood was not capable of faking images of the Earth when NASA came back with the first images of the Earth. There is no getting around that fact.

The ability to do this has been around for centuries. Tell me, what does this look like to you?



It is a painting.

photorealistic paintings did not exist until after the invention and widespread assimilation of photography and optical effect.

And now, the ability to generate imagery of the earth that was photorealistic did not exist when NASA first brought back images of Earth. Argue all you want, but I work in the film industry and know the history of CGI.

Had you been an art student you would know that the Ancient Greeks were among the first to introduce hyper-realism in paintings. Hyper-realism has been around for a very long time.

Photorealism implies that it looks like a real photo. Photohraphic effect (lens abberation, chromatic abberation, abnormal focal length perspective, specular crowning, dynamic range, etc.) were not documented and certainly not the topic of painting technique. Hyper realism is a relatively new style of painting, an advanced form of photorealism, and the term was coined in the 70s by a Belgian art dealer using the french word for Photorealism (Hyperréalisme). True hyperrealist paintings have only begun to branch off from photorealism since the turn of the millenia.

I have no clue where you got the idea that ancient Greeks were the first to make hyperrealist paintings.

It is extremely likely that the Earth has always existed.  Earth historians who think they are going to discover the origin of the Earth are chasing after mere phantoms of the truth.

It is extremely likely that the Earth has always existed.  Earth historians who think they are going to discover the origin of the Earth are chasing after mere phantoms of the truth.

Radio dating of several different forms has pegged the earth's age very reliably to ~4.54 billion years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

It is extremely likely that the Earth has always existed.  Earth historians who think they are going to discover the origin of the Earth are chasing after mere phantoms of the truth.

Hmm, that's strange. James, what do you make of this:

"XIII.

THE EARTH'S TRUE POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE; COMPARATIVELY RECENT FORMATION; PRESENT CHEMICAL CONDITION, AND APPROACHING DESTRUCTION BY FIRE"

Had you been an art student you would know that the Ancient Greeks were among the first to introduce hyper-realism in paintings. Hyper-realism has been around for a very long time.

Really? I thought that Greek paintings looked like:

[img=]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NAMA_Sacrifice_aux_Charites.jpg[/img]

and



Both of those have some degree of degradation from time, but it seems pretty clear that they aren't anywhere near "hyper-realistic". And if you think they had such paintings why was the technique absolutely non-existent for 2000 years?

Edit: How does the image syntax work?

Quote from: Crustinator on May 04, 2011, 06:58:39 PM

Quote from: Ali on May 04, 2011, 04:33:55 PM

As above. How did it form, how did the solar system form around it, what caused it to fly through space accelerating as it goes? What is it's purpose? RE has a complete and plausible formation theory within the heliocentric solar system, but what caused a 9000km deep disc to randomly form, have planetary bodies orbit it despite a lack of gravity, and how can a 32 mile diameter sun maintain it's heat for 13.7 billion years?

1. Few FE believers claim the earth is accelerating.
2. Dinosaurs.
3. Moonshrimp.
4. The earth is only 9000 years old. That is not nearly enough time to form a "sun".

nor is it nearly enough time to fossilize dinosaur remains, or form oil & coal. how long ago where dinosaurs around, I thought it was billions of years ago!!

and what are moonshrimp, I thought the moon was a dead rock?

Can someone please answer this and stop avoiding fundamental questions on the theory as I am losing faith rather rapidly, this trait is predominant on the forum, and if not ignored, everything is prefixed with ‘empirical’ as nif that adds credence to the frankly hard to accept theories put forward. So, please, just answer me..

Photorealism implies that it looks like a real photo. Photohraphic effect (lens abberation, chromatic abberation, abnormal focal length perspective, specular crowning, dynamic range, etc.) were not documented and certainly not the topic of painting technique. Hyper realism is a relatively new style of painting, an advanced form of photorealism, and the term was coined in the 70s by a Belgian art dealer using the french word for Photorealism (Hyperréalisme). True hyperrealist paintings have only begun to branch off from photorealism since the turn of the millenia.

I have no clue where you got the idea that ancient Greeks were the first to make hyperrealist paintings.

Well, the terms "hyperrealism" and "photorealism" wouldn't have been in common use during the time of the Ancient Greeks because the English Language wasn't even around.

But it is true that Greek artists strove to make their art as realistic as possible. Take a course on Art History sometime. The Greeks strove for realism in all art forms. Greek artists would challenge themselves to create art indistinguishable from reality. While most paintings have not survived due to the paint fading and chipping away, it is widely agreed that the Greeks strove to reflect reality. There are remarks from the era which proclaim fascination with the realism in art.

One just has to look at the statues. They took the time to create every little hair and fine detail of the human face. The reason they look white now is because the paint has faded and chipped away from thousands of years of degradation. When they were painted they would have looked exactly like a person. That was the goal; to make everything look as realistic as possible. The concept of realism was a fascination in Ancient Greece.

The most famous of the Greek artists were all realists.

http://www.csub.edu/~mault/laocoon.jpg

Tom: http://m.io9.com/5616498/ultraviolet-light-reveals-how-ancient-greek-statues-really-looked

Realismlulz...anyway, that's all irrelevant.


Does anybody care to address this?

Rowbotham: "COMPARATIVELY RECENT FORMATION"

Tom: http://m.io9.com/5616498/ultraviolet-light-reveals-how-ancient-greek-statues-really-looked

Realismlulz...anyway, that's all irrelevant.

The only thing those ultraviolet readings tell us of the statues is that they were once brightly painted. No big surprise there. The clothing on the statues consisted of bright and vibrant reds, yellows, and blues, as was the style in those times.

What, did you think that Roman and Greek emperors would be wearing mud colored clothing?

But brightly painted != tacky. Those examples in the link are not showing us how the statues actually looked, only a novice-photoshopper's interpretation they might have looked with bright colors. All we know from the few specs of paint which remains on the statues is that they were brightly colored, not the quality of the painting. The images in that link are interpretations of what the statues might have look like with bright colors.

Obviously the artistic skill of that person photo-shopping bright example colors onto the statues pales in comparison with the skill of the Ancient Greeks. The Greeks wouldn't have just splashed on solid colors like that. The Greeks would have put thousands of man hours into the painting to get things perfect, with multiple shades, multiple skin tones, down to the tiniest detail, just as they put thousands of man hours into creating the statues to be as realistic as possible.

Again, bright != tacky or simple.

Really? I thought that Greek paintings looked like:

Really? I though that the alphabet looked like:
абвгдеёжзийклмнопрстуфхцчшщъыьэюя

Before you get confused, here's an explanation: The Cyrillic alphabet being an alphabet doesn't make it the only alphabet in the world.

photorealistic paintings did not exist until after the invention and widespread assimilation of photography and optical effect.

Sorry for the bump, but I just had to correct this, because it hurts me to see it unrefuted:

Good for you.  The camera obscura dates from about the tenth century.

Good for you.  The camera obscura dates from about the tenth century.

If by 'photorealistic' he means comparable to today's photos, then my point stands. If by 'photorealistic' he means comparable to photography at any given point in time, then my point definitely stands.


Besides, the camera obscura was not photographical in nature, as it did not capture images. It was an optical device, and even in the 18th century their use did not come close to painting in terms of realism. It was not until the 20th century that photography became more realistic/accurate than paintings.

Well, I just meant that it has been used by artists a long time as an optical projector whether onto a piece of paper or an entire wall.  As it was a aid to enhancing and boosting a talent, its use was often kept as a trade secret.  I didn't mean my 'good for you' as a contradiction, I meant it as 'good for you that you took the time to refute it.'