"Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.

  • 144 Replies
  • 24763 Views
"Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« on: April 19, 2013, 04:05:13 PM »
Some of you I'm sure will be familiar with Chris Hadfield, the Canadian currently residing in the International Space Station, orbiting Earth.

Maybe it's futile even mentioning this because all I'm going to get is a series of "Clearly fake" comments, but I just thought I would leave these here;
https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/325378775980326913/photo/1
https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/323214403740778496/photo/1

Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space

?

Thork

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2013, 04:15:28 PM »



Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.


*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2013, 05:34:22 PM »



Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.



So then you accept there is an ISS?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2013, 10:43:10 PM »



Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.



That clearly looks like a flat disc.

?

Thork

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2013, 05:13:48 AM »
So then you accept there is an ISS?
Nope. But high altitude balloons, sure.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2013, 06:42:39 AM »
looks like a planar Earth should, with the spherical sun shining down on it. 
The ISS is legit, so is this photograph of a planar Earth.

Thank you for sharing.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2013, 07:33:40 AM »
Nope. But high altitude balloons, sure.

Completely impossible and easily disprovable tripe. Any rudimentary analysis of air resistance and observed velocity of the ISS leads to the obvious conclusion that it must be operating at altitudes well above any region of palpable bouyancy. The ISS cannot both be floating on the atmosphere and travelling at orbital velocity. Since the speed is readily observable the only logical explanation is that it is well within or above the rarefied domain of the atmosphere.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

Thork

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2013, 07:39:22 AM »
Thanks for the baseless assumptions, but I am actually saying this photo was taken from a balloon, not an imaginary spacestation. Now if you think you can prove that this photo was taken at an altitude too high for a balloon, carry on. I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2013, 07:55:26 AM »
Thanks for the baseless assumptions, but I am actually saying this photo was taken from a balloon, not an imaginary spacestation. Now if you think you can prove that this photo was taken at an altitude too high for a balloon, carry on. I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.

All of these photographs were taken from separate balloons of cities thousands of miles apart on the same night? For what purpose?

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2013, 08:51:16 AM »

Nobody can work for some time making this animation and still believe in a flat Earth. It is so blatantly inconsistent with the everyday experiences of just about every human being that the only thing you can do is laugh at the author.

Here you are showing the pattern of day and night during an Equinox but in no place on Earth there is 12 hours of daylight and 12 of nighttime. There is not even a coarse approximation to reality.

And the apparent position of the Sun on the sky is wrong for just about every possible observer on Earth, at every time of the day.

We know that you do not have an FE model (that is, a means to predict things based on current knowledge) but this is ridiculous. You are not even trying.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2013, 10:03:38 AM »
Meanwhile, comparing to what one would expect from a globe Earth when viewing the same place from roughly the same height and direction...




?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2013, 11:06:24 AM »
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.



Please stop posting misleading animations of the sun, Thork. It was proven multiple times that the suns "circle of light" is more like this...



This is proven using World Clock, a very accurate tool to measure sunrise and sunset times. Also, the north pole in center with south pole around edge map was proven false in this thread.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57872.0.html#.UXLYoKI4vEY

This was proven with the fact that at any given time at night, anyone in the Southern Hemisphere can look south and see the south celestial pole. At any time of the year. This means that according to that map you posted, people looking in completely opposite directions are seeing the same stars. Sorry, thork. Any way I can help with closure?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17333
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2013, 12:29:59 PM »
This is proven using World Clock, a very accurate tool to measure sunrise and sunset times.

World Clock is a calculator based on a certain model of the earth, it is not a compilation of observations. It does not "prove" anything.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2013, 12:36:20 PM »
iv never seen anyone complain its wrong. have you tom?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2013, 12:39:18 PM »
This is proven using World Clock, a very accurate tool to measure sunrise and sunset times.

World Clock is a calculator based on a certain model of the earth, it is not a compilation of observations. It does not "prove" anything.

So then do observations support these predictions or refute them? It's largely accurate where I am in Ohio.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17333
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2013, 12:47:48 PM »
Not every longitude is necessarily accurate. The World Clock can only be considered accurate if it has been tested for every longitude on earth, on every day of the year, which has not been done.


Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2013, 01:34:11 PM »
Not every longitude is necessarily accurate. The World Clock can only be considered accurate if it has been tested for every longitude on earth, on every day of the year, which has not been done.

...Seriously? This is your comeback? What time of day it is, at what hour sun sets and rises, is not bloody well known? Please. Even for this website that's just too much.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17333
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2013, 02:00:29 PM »
How can it be well known if we only have calculators and not tables of observations?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2013, 02:23:33 PM »
Because the calculators are accurate and thus we have no use for cumbersome tables of data from such observations.

You know at least a few people around the world, these days everyone does. Look up the sunset and sunrise times, give them a call and ask if it's off by hours.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2013, 02:29:02 PM »
As an afterthought, you can do that experiment right here. I'll give you the first confirmation that the reported times for today are correct for northern europe. A few more confirmations from different continents and we're all set, no?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17333
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2013, 02:35:30 PM »
No. The observations must be third-party, unconnected to this website and the discussion at hand.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2013, 02:43:05 PM »
so get on the phone.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2013, 02:46:13 PM »
How far off would you expect these calculations to be if they are based off of a wholly inaccurate model of the Earth? You pay attention tonight wherever you are and see what time the sun sets.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2013, 07:06:50 PM »
Thanks for the baseless assumptions, but I am actually saying this photo was taken from a balloon, not an imaginary spacestation. Now if you think you can prove that this photo was taken at an altitude too high for a balloon, carry on. I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.

That's exactly what I'm saying. My assumptions weren't baseless they were based on the rather obvious conclusion that you cannot fake the ISS and that you cannot imitate those photos without blatantly faking them. Balloons climb to 50km (usually less, theoretically up to 55 or so), the ISS is at almost 400km. The difference is easily discernible from both the curvature and, if you don't believe that, the height of the apparent atmosphere.

Here is a photo from 370km altitude:



And here is one from a balloon (no higher than 20-30km):



These do not look the same, and the difference in the apparent height of the atmosphere is palpable.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2013, 07:14:40 PM »
I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.

I can't believe there are fully grown, educated adults walking around who believe the world is flat.

There is no evidence to support the position that the earth is flat, but mountains of evidence available to refute it, much of which can be gathered with very basic tools. If you actually do have something that proves that the earth is flat, it might be an idea to pop over to this thread and post it.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #25 on: April 21, 2013, 12:52:18 AM »
No. The observations must be third-party, unconnected to this website and the discussion at hand.

Oh. Thank you for kindly making up your own rules on evidence, and basically bossing us around. We don't have to bend to your stupid whims and utterly meaningless guidelines for evidence.

We (My family) have two exchange students in Japan. Another one is from China. I took the liberty a while back to ask them when exactly the sun set on that day (Since it is easier to see the sun set, because who likes to wake up early...). The times they gave me were spot on with world clock. I checked the sunrise time myself in my state, and in Utah (friend), and they both prove World Clock to be accurate.

Not every longitude is necessarily accurate. The World Clock can only be considered accurate if it has been tested for every longitude on earth, on every day of the year, which has not been done.

Lol. Um, how bout no. You are wrong.

Here, let me try.

"You cannot prove all atoms have protons and electrons, you must test every single one, including all their isotopes, ions, everything. Only then can we prove that atoms are made of at least protons and electrons. I know that the number of atoms is vast, but that is the peril with real science."

???

I am seriously not sure if you are trolling, or completely off your rocker. Please, get back on your rocker, Tom. K? Thanks.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17333
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #26 on: April 21, 2013, 08:57:40 AM »
Oh. Thank you for kindly making up your own rules on evidence, and basically bossing us around. We don't have to bend to your stupid whims and utterly meaningless guidelines for evidence.

We (My family) have two exchange students in Japan. Another one is from China. I took the liberty a while back to ask them when exactly the sun set on that day (Since it is easier to see the sun set, because who likes to wake up early...). The times they gave me were spot on with world clock. I checked the sunrise time myself in my state, and in Utah (friend), and they both prove World Clock to be accurate.

Sure you did.

Quote from: darknavyseal
Lol. Um, how bout no. You are wrong.

Here, let me try.

"You cannot prove all atoms have protons and electrons, you must test every single one, including all their isotopes, ions, everything. Only then can we prove that atoms are made of at least protons and electrons. I know that the number of atoms is vast, but that is the peril with real science."

???

I am seriously not sure if you are trolling, or completely off your rocker. Please, get back on your rocker, Tom. K? Thanks.

If we knew nothing of rocks, water, dirt, plants, etc, it does not follow that because rocks are made out of atoms with protons and electrons, that other things are as well.

Only when we have a comprehensive body of observations, can deductions be made.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 09:01:06 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #27 on: April 21, 2013, 09:04:42 AM »
Tom if you aren't going to believe anything anyone says, then just pay attention to when the sun sets tonight. If it corresponds to what the clock says how does that not help confirm it's accuracy? Better yet, if you can find any example where it ISN'T accurate, please do. You can't just say "there's no proof that it works" and shut your eyes and plug your ears and yell LA-LA-LA-LA you can't prove me wrong.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2013, 10:12:52 AM »
You can't just say "there's no proof that it works" and shut your eyes and plug your ears and yell LA-LA-LA-LA you can't prove me wrong.

Wanna bet that's exactly what he can and will do, Ben?

Made those calls yet, Tom?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2013, 11:16:29 AM »
Only when we have a comprehensive body of observations, can deductions be made.

Just to clarify - you're saying that we don't have a "comprehensive body of observations" regarding at what time sun sets and rises? Are you? Do you believe there are people who live in any part of the world experiencing uncertainty of at what time the sun will set and rise? Do you have data from observations, or anything at all for that matter, to support your idea that the sun's rising and setting times as reported (or rather, predicted) for an instance at worldclock are in some way inaccurate?

Because this is actually significant.