"Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.

  • 144 Replies
  • 24756 Views
?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #60 on: April 22, 2013, 03:28:57 PM »
No-one here has claimed fortune telling to be accurate. Prediction of sun's setting and rising has already been proven accurate.

Who proved the world clock accurate?  ???

Accurate for me too. Coming from the West Coast of USA. It is also confirmed to be accurate in Japan. As well as China. Anyone want to confirm it in Europe?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #61 on: April 22, 2013, 03:43:13 PM »
I can confirm that the time in England, United Kingdom, is (as of now) correct to the second.

Regards,

Pilgrim.
You're only as good as your last simile.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #62 on: April 22, 2013, 03:49:39 PM »
I can't readily find any accounts what-so-ever, whether right or wrong, and apparently neither can anyone else in this thread.

So why should we blindly believe that the World Clock results are 100% accurate without verification of that fact?

So being wrong about everything else you've ever said wasn't enough, now you've found something that is so obvious no one's able to find documentation for it.

Congratulations Tom, you can sleep well at night knowing that you'll have just enough reason not to feel guilty about being a complete embarrassment to reasonable human beings everywhere. But then, you don't have to take that seriously either because I'm just one of the naive masses who's responding with anger to a threat to my world view, right?

Tell me, if I provided you with a list of thousands of photos with sunsets and sunrises at recorded times of the day, would you honestly admit you were wrong? Or would your request conveniently become rhetorical and you'd forever just avoid the topic like you do with everything else that you're inevitably wrong about?
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #63 on: April 22, 2013, 03:53:46 PM »
I can confirm that the time in England, United Kingdom, is (as of now) correct to the second.

Regards,

Pilgrim.

The time may be correct, but I think we were asking for the time of the sunset/sunrise. Unless, of course, that is what you meant. Did you mean the time of sunset was accurate? Just now?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #64 on: April 22, 2013, 04:35:39 PM »
My apologies, I did indeed mean the time of the sunset this (now yesterday) evening was correct to the second - it was rather beautiful actually. I couldn't post at the actually time of sunset, as I was enjoying it with my wife.

I shall observe the sunrise and post pictures with a time / date stamp in the morning, incase my miscommunication earlier leads any to dismiss my evidence.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 04:37:56 PM by Pilgrim »
You're only as good as your last simile.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #65 on: April 22, 2013, 04:38:52 PM »
My apologies, I did indeed mean the time of the sunset this (now yesterday) evening was correct to the second - it was rather beautiful actually. I couldn't post at the actually time of sunset, as I was enjoying it with my wife.

I shall observe the sunrise and post pictures with a time / date stamp in the morning, incase my miscommunication earlier leads any to dismiss my evidence.

Don't worry Tom will likely avoid this thread like the plague now that real consequences have developed from it.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #66 on: April 22, 2013, 08:29:39 PM »
No-one here has claimed fortune telling to be accurate. Prediction of sun's setting and rising has already been proven accurate.

Who proved the world clock accurate?  ???

Darknavyseal proved it, his friends in asia proved it, pythagoras proved it, and I myself have f*cking observed it and proved it. Now stop dancing around and making yourself look like a complete embarrassment, and show us SOMETHING, ANYTHING that shows that we MIGHT be wrong, because this is getting old.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #67 on: April 22, 2013, 10:37:48 PM »
Who proved the world clock accurate?  ???

Anyone who has ever used it, anywhere, ever. That's a lot of people!
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."

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2013, 03:39:45 AM »



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.

Hi.

First, let me present myself. I'm working in VFX shop, as lead technical director for lighting & shading.
I guess I'm part of the conspiracy, as I did some "round globe" shots for advertising in the past.

It seems that you are taking that photo as real.
You are probably right. Unlike most of FE are thinking,  it's very hard to fake, even with today technology.

Assuming this photo is real, you are saying it's show a flat earth.

That might be true if you ignore two simple optics rules I'm dealing on a daily basis :

1. The law of reflection (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/optics/lr.cfm).

Notice that water is acting is doing a rather sharp reflection of the sun in the photo, resulting in a bright spot in the middle.
According to the position of that spot, and the assumed position of the camera, you can easily determined a vector where the sun must be to produce at glare at that exact position.
Then, assuming that rule 2. is incorrect because some crazy theory, it's impossible that the sun is in a position to make a circular area like this. Actually, the specular area

2. Inverse-square law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#Light_and_other_electromagnetic_radiation)

Notice the terminator of the light in that photo. To have a short drop-off like this with a point light source, the light has to be :
- Very close.
But according to rule 1. that would mean that the sun would be visible in that picture, and comically small and very close to earth.
You can do the experiment very easily with a light bulb and a piece of paper.
- A spot light. But then you have to explain me how it works.


Also, why the terminator area should be so blue ?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #69 on: April 26, 2013, 03:57:42 AM »
It's nice hear from a expert the subject. Apart from all FE photographic and graphical experts that inhabit this site of course lol.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #70 on: April 26, 2013, 03:59:26 AM »
Hi Ze_PilOt! Welcome to this wonderful and thought provoking society!

You present interesting queries. However, while I am sure your position as a 'lead technical director for lighting and shading' makes you very knowledgeable about how light works within the confines of small scale, Earth based studies, I am fairly sure that supporters of the Flat Earth Theory (FET) will likely argue that light behaves differently to what you expect through atmospheric circumstance such as this, or on this scale, or in this particular environment. The points you raise may be true on a round Earth model, but if the Earth is flat, you will have to demonstrate that it works on both infallibly. Also, photographic evidence is not a particularly reliable source of evidence for proponents of either FET or RET, so your argument may simply be dismissed on those grounds.

Again, welcome to the Flat Earth Society.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 04:09:07 AM by Pilgrim »
You're only as good as your last simile.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #71 on: April 26, 2013, 04:47:09 AM »
you will have to demonstrate that it works on both infallibly. Also, photographic evidence is not a particularly reliable source of evidence for proponents of either FET or RET, so your argument may simply be dismissed on those grounds.

Again, welcome to the Flat Earth Society.

That is true, but then they will have to prove me how to fake these sort of things (in real-time for some, like the red bull challenge or the ISS interviews), because I don't know any technology on earth that can do that now.

ie. the thread about fluids in zero-G being faked because Abyss exists.. That guy seriously need some glasses if the abyss fluids look real :)

By the way, still about "faking" things, a video about why faking the moon landing was pretty much impossible from a pure technical point of view :

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">moon hoax not

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11223
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #72 on: April 26, 2013, 05:22:30 AM »
I can confirm that the time in England, United Kingdom, is (as of now) correct to the second.

Regards,

Pilgrim.
I confirm that the time is not accurate Maryland, it is off by 2 hours and 10 minutes.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #73 on: April 26, 2013, 05:29:54 AM »
I can confirm that the time in England, United Kingdom, is (as of now) correct to the second.

Regards,

Pilgrim.
I confirm that the time is not accurate Maryland, it is off by 2 hours and 10 minutes.

Ah! Compelling. Interesting that it is correct for some, but not others. It does mean that it can't be used as irrefutable proof though. (EDIT: Assuming you were using it to check on sunrise / sunset time)

Quote from: Ze_PilOt
By the way, still about "faking" things, a video about why faking the moon landing was pretty much impossible from a pure technical point of view :

I really enjoy this video, and not just because of his witty demeanor. However, for Flat Earth proponents, he does somewhat provide ammunition by stating that (while unlikely) there is a process by which it would be possible to create the film. He does then suggests it is probably easier to just go to the moon, and this is the crux of the argument. It might be easier to go to the moon in the RET, but as it is an impossibility to go to the moon in the FET, then the only conclusion for the FE theorist to conclude is that it must be faked - however difficult that faking process would have been to achieve. The only other conclusion is that the FE model is incorrect, which is for the FE proponent to decide. 



« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 05:31:58 AM by Pilgrim »
You're only as good as your last simile.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #74 on: April 26, 2013, 05:30:19 AM »
Hoppy your sun just rose? The Sun in Ohio has been up since at least 7:00 AM when I got up. Explain that.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #75 on: April 26, 2013, 06:41:35 AM »
Quote from: Ze_PilOt
By the way, still about "faking" things, a video about why faking the moon landing was pretty much impossible from a pure technical point of view :

I really enjoy this video, and not just because of his witty demeanor. However, for Flat Earth proponents, he does somewhat provide ammunition by stating that (while unlikely) there is a process by which it would be possible to create the film. He does then suggests it is probably easier to just go to the moon, and this is the crux of the argument. It might be easier to go to the moon in the RET, but as it is an impossibility to go to the moon in the FET, then the only conclusion for the FE theorist to conclude is that it must be faked - however difficult that faking process would have been to achieve. The only other conclusion is that the FE model is incorrect, which is for the FE proponent to decide.

Just a brief comment on that video: he points out the technical difficulty of doing that amount of slow motion film, but does not mention that even slo-mo doesn't look right. I'm not picking on the video, it is excellent! I'm just saying that, even if that amount of slow motion footage could have been created, it still would not look the same as what we saw. Mythbusters did a special on the moon landing, I recommend seeking it out and watching 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."

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #76 on: April 26, 2013, 06:49:20 AM »
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 06:50:53 AM by Ze_PilOt »

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #77 on: April 26, 2013, 07:03:54 AM »
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #78 on: April 26, 2013, 08:01:14 AM »
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?
well considering you can see them its a good guess.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #79 on: April 26, 2013, 08:10:48 AM »
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?

Where do you think it went?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #80 on: April 26, 2013, 08:18:29 AM »
you see things like this.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #81 on: April 26, 2013, 08:26:33 AM »
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?

Where do you think it went?
Into the ocean where they all go.

By what route?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #82 on: April 26, 2013, 08:27:33 AM »
Into the ocean where they all go.

Any proof of that ?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #83 on: April 26, 2013, 08:31:03 AM »
stumped by evidence so you resort to sarcasm? iv seen a similar image with my own eyes. if you could be bothered to look yourself you could see the same thing. but considering your an arm chair idiot we wont expect anything from you any time soon.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #84 on: April 26, 2013, 08:37:56 AM »
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?

Where do you think it went?
Into the ocean where they all go.

By what route?
The bloody ocean route, what do you mean. what route.

They very clearly go into the air. What route do they take to go into the ocean?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2013, 08:41:44 AM »
Only pictures.
Do you have any proof they go into space?

Only (tons) of  pictures and videos from the same sources than you.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #86 on: April 26, 2013, 08:44:44 AM »
So we are both stumped for real evidence then aren't we.

As the take off and moon landing are nearly impossible to fake, not really.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #87 on: April 26, 2013, 08:46:48 AM »
Yes, the video is only talking about the technical aspect.

The take off alone would have been a nightmare to fake in 1969.
And the take off only dismisses the entire flat earth theory.
How does a take off dismiss the flat earth theory?

Because leaving earth is theoretically impossible in FE theory ?
Leaving the earths crust isn't...but leaving the earths atmosphere is. Are you trying to tell me you believe they sent a rocket into space?

Where do you think it went?
Into the ocean where they all go.

By what route?
The bloody ocean route, what do you mean. what route.

They very clearly go into the air. What route do they take to go into the ocean?
Yes they go into the air and they go into the ocean, where the ocean is.

Air is up. Ocean is down. How high do they go that they go out of sight of everyone before they turn around?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #88 on: April 26, 2013, 08:57:12 AM »
How can you say they are nearly impossible to fake. From what I've seen, I'd say they could have been faked just as good in Charlie Chaplin film days, they're that bloody stupid, seriously.

Look at the youtube video I've posted.

I'm working in VFX, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how image faking works.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #89 on: April 26, 2013, 09:04:53 AM »
You can't be that good if you believe all these rocket launches and moon and space stuff.

http://www.nozon.com/work/showreel/Showreel.html

As you can see, they are some (faked) earth / mars shots I did.