Could someone demonstrate a photoshop magic?

If the FT'ers claim the total censorship and manipulation of all photos and videos seen to date, can someone demonstrate a technique of doing it?

Obviously the technique has to be 2D only, no 3D renderings are allowed. You already have the advantage of photoshop which is vastly more powerful than what They would have had decades ago.

You have to produce a view of the round earth from space with just the 2d map of the flat earth, which has to look just as realistic as the round earth photographs. And preferably you have to produce a movie of the same kind.

And if you really want to prove your view,you would also have to demonstrate the fabrication of all the photos taken by telescopes and across different wavelengths.

Logically, I don't think the flat earth theory could be proven even if I cannot prove the round earth one. Which I will be thinking about more.

some of the people who follow disc theory believe pictures  from space show a "lit" part of the giant disc.
the is a much more plausible, and even more Zetetic explanation.

Photo manipulation does not require photoshop. On behalf of everyone old enough to remember film, please talk to your parents about this.

Photo manipulation does not require photoshop. On behalf of everyone old enough to remember film, please talk to your parents about this.

I know and is exactly why I let you use photoshop. Because you will say you dint have the equipments for photographic film manipulation. Now that you have the superior tools, show me how it is done?

Quote from: Ski on September 16, 2011, 10:51:12 AM

Photo manipulation does not require photoshop. On behalf of everyone old enough to remember film, please talk to your parents about this.

I know and is exactly why I let you use photoshop. Because you will say you dint have the equipments for photographic film manipulation. Now that you have the superior tools, show me how it is done?

That would require for FEs to invest in photoshop, and according to their posts and theoretical/fairy-tale arguments, they are broke... Which is actually the main reason they started the FE project - to try to cheat someone to give them money as this is exactly what they are accusing NASA and the whole scientific world.

its not Photoshop its BS like all the people who actually are dumb enough to believe the earth is flat or better yet start a cult

Quote from: Ski on September 16, 2011, 10:51:12 AM

Photo manipulation does not require photoshop. On behalf of everyone old enough to remember film, please talk to your parents about this.

I know and is exactly why I let you use photoshop. Because you will say you dint have the equipments for photographic film manipulation. Now that you have the superior tools, show me how it is done?

I don't know that Photoshop is technically-superior to darkroom manipulation in anyway other than it would not make my fingers smell like chemicals. At anyrate, both methods require skills that I have never used.
This is wholly akin to my saying, now that you have access to tube paints by manufacturers and don't have to mix your own paint, you should easily be able to reproduce the work of Paolo Veronese and his Wedding at Cana.

Quote from: Chengong on September 16, 2011, 04:08:32 PM

Quote from: Ski on September 16, 2011, 10:51:12 AM

Photo manipulation does not require photoshop. On behalf of everyone old enough to remember film, please talk to your parents about this.

I know and is exactly why I let you use photoshop. Because you will say you dint have the equipments for photographic film manipulation. Now that you have the superior tools, show me how it is done?

I don't know that Photoshop is technically-superior to darkroom manipulation in anyway other than it would not make my fingers smell like chemicals. At anyrate, both methods require skills that I have never used.
This is wholly akin to my saying, now that you have access to tube paints by manufacturers and don't have to mix your own paint, you should easily be able to reproduce the work of Paolo Veronese and his Wedding at Cana.

Or you can show anyone else do it, it is equally valid. But I'm serious it is a crucial part of proving your theory, if it cannot be done then your theory cannot be true.

And yea photoshop is functionally superior to photographic film, and a lot more forgiving as well. Anything you can do with films you can do on photoshop and more. With added advantage of undos.

If you give me a few billion dollars, I'll hire the best people in the business and produce a film for you. Deal?

If you give me a few billion dollars, I'll hire the best people in the business and produce a film for you. Deal?

It would not cost that much

Profit!

If you give me a few billion dollars, I'll hire the best people in the business and produce a film for you. Deal?

The most expensive sci-fi films today cost in range of about 100.000 million, however huge portions of that funding goes to famous actors and all those other people in credits, and those films last at least an hour and a half. If you wanted to produce a short film showing 2 guys jumping on the Moon you would not need no famous actors, you would not need to produce 1.5h long film and you would only need to pay special effect guys.

I'm thinking a couple of thousands of dollars would do.
If that would be too expensive you could hire photoshop pros to do a 3-4 days work to produce fake pictures, I'm thinking these guys would cost a lot less than special effect film guys.


All of that is very very VERY far from BILLIONS of dollars.

Oh, I completely agree. This is exactly what NASA is doing with your billions of dollars every year. Hopefully, this will put to rest for you the endless questions of "How would a conspiracy make money?"  The Apollo project alone cost nearly 85 Billion dollars.

Quote from: Ski on September 16, 2011, 06:33:22 PM

If you give me a few billion dollars, I'll hire the best people in the business and produce a film for you. Deal?

The most expensive sci-fi films today cost in range of about 100.000 million, however huge portions of that funding goes to famous actors and all those other people in credits, and those films last at least an hour and a half. If you wanted to produce a short film showing 2 guys jumping on the Moon you would not need no famous actors, you would not need to produce 1.5h long film and you would only need to pay special effect guys.

I'm thinking a couple of thousands of dollars would do.
If that would be too expensive you could hire photoshop pros to do a 3-4 days work to produce fake pictures, I'm thinking these guys would cost a lot less than special effect film guys.


All of that is very very VERY far from BILLIONS of dollars.

I don't know about that.  I'm guessing that those Saturn V props weren't cheap.

Oh, I completely agree. This is exactly what NASA is doing with your billions of dollars every year. Hopefully, this will put to rest for you the endless questions of "How would a conspiracy make money?"  The Apollo project alone cost nearly 85 Billion dollars.

Don't avoid the subject.
You just said you needed billions of dollars to fake Nasa stuff, and I proved otherwise. Now, go on and fake the pics and videos. A couple of thousands of dollars is next to nothing if you so strongly support the bigger picture of the FE theory and your beliefs.

I never said I would need billions of dollars to fake NASA stuff. I said, if you give me the billions given to NASA, I could replicate the results. You agreed saying it was far less expensive than billions of dollars. We're in complete agreement; billions of dollars is more than enough money to fake space footage.

Oh, I completely agree. This is exactly what NASA is doing with your billions of dollars every year. Hopefully, this will put to rest for you the endless questions of "How would a conspiracy make money?"  The Apollo project alone cost nearly 85 Billion dollars.

So NASA gets all this money to fake pictures/films and push conspiracies on the world while not actually doing science?

What an awesome job.

I don't understand this thread. The OP wants examples of photoshop? Does the OP not believe in photoshop?


A hollow earth from space.


A ringed earth from space


Earth with its very own death star.


A round earth.

All of the above are shopped. Photo editing is easy.

I don't understand this thread. The OP wants examples of photoshop? Does the OP not believe in photoshop?

Unless you can demonstrate that the picture of a round earth is fake, than stop spamming shoops.

Look at the title of the thread --> Could someone demonstrate a photoshop magic?

If the OP is not asking for shoops, what does he want?

Look at the title of the thread --> Could someone demonstrate a photoshop magic?

If the OP is not asking for shoops, what does he want?

I assume he means evidence of the fabrication of round earth photos.

Then he needs to lurk moar.

Then he needs to lurk moar.

I agree mostly, he is being unreasonable and asking for flattists to make their own round earth photo/movie.

Why would we want to make round earth photos/movies? There are millions of them already.

Its not like I would be the first person to shoop a flat earth either.


This thread is silly.

The OP is asking for people to do things they are not experts in or asking for someone to digitally create a picture of the Earth that exactly matches a photo of Earth taken with a late 60s early 79s camera.

Your request is possible but unreasonable.

Why would we want to make round earth photos/movies? There are millions of them already.

Its not like I would be the first person to shoop a flat earth either.


This thread is silly.

And you're quite silly if you can't tell the difference between the flat earth and Discworld.

Please point out where I said that was the flat earth. Then explain why that is not a flat earth.

There is no way for any of us to prove that nasa pictures are not faked.  Even without photoshop, detailed models can be built and paintings can be made.  Nowadays CG and post production effects and simulators can replicate almost anything perfectly.  An artist with the promise of  $1,000,000  per year can produce some very realistic-looking art.  With direction from science advisors, they can also make that art completely accurate, avoiding anything that can be spotted by conspiracy theorists.

Please point out where I said that was the flat earth. Then explain why that is not a flat earth.

Are you suggesting that there is more than one earth (flat or otherwise)? 

no. however above is a depiction of a flat earth. This is an incredibly boring and poorly conceived attack of semantics. If you have nothing to add about photoshopping we'll leave it there, before I fall asleep.