What pictures or videos do FE'ers consider credible.

Quote from: Jer9999 on March 30, 2014, 02:41:20 AM

I got out of bed, looked at the floor of my bedroom. It was flat. I am now convinced the entire massive Earth is flat.

I advise all of you to do this experiment: Look at the floor of your bedroom upon awaking. Notice how it is flat. You can't see a curve. Case closed!

Note: If you look very carefully you will also notice your bed is flat and does not have a curvature. More evidence.

Now go out and walk about. Look around, then you will also notice it's fairly flat as well, apart from the usual hills and what not.
Look in the sky and watch the sun move, whilst you feel nice and still.
Get on a kids roundabout and spin it and watch the sun move and you will realise you are actually moving, because your body's balance will let you know.
There's millions of little things you can do to realise you are walking about on the most common sense terrain of a flat Earth. You listen to your own body's balance.
Reliance on the balancing bean that the mainstream science gives you is at best, nonsense and at worst, pure lunacy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 09:27:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:22:45 AM

Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.

That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.

Certainly,  but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:38:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 09:27:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:22:45 AM

Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.

That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.

Certainly,  but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.

When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 10:20:30 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:38:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 09:27:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:22:45 AM

Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.

That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.

Certainly,  but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.

When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.

Where does the sun go when it sets?

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:38:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 09:27:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:22:45 AM

Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.

That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.

Certainly,  but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.

When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.

It's more than apparent—judging by sceptimatic's confused attempts at debunking the NASA photographic images, that he has very little understanding of the technicalities of digital photography (or in some cases film photography).  He also fails to comprehend the ongoing issues caused by lens flare, ghosting, and aberration.

As an example, when a lens is directed at a strong light source, a whitish flare is produced.  When non-incident light reflects off the lens surfaces (especially internal elements) and the mirror frame, ghosting often occurs. Additionally, the lens' spherical front surface causes some degree of image distortion and contains irregularities that cause problems such as chromatic aberration, or color bleeding.

Also, when a lens is directed at a strong source point of light (like the sun in space), unneeded rays of light reflected from the lens surface, the aperture blades, or the camera mirror's frame can have a "blanketing" effect on the lens, and which causes  all or part of the image to turn whitish, and sharpness is lost.  This is exactly what's happening with the apparent white haze appearing to spill over the opposite side of the shuttle's tail.

Another effect is known as coma, which is a refractive problem that occurs in off-axis point light sources causing image aberrations.  Due to the difference in refraction near the edges of a spherical lens element, or at the edge of the aperture blades, off-axis point sources of light may appear stretched and "haloed" at the focal plane. This results in improper convergence of light rather than convergence into a single focal point.  Coma is generally a combination of both spherical aberration of a point light source and chromatic aberration to produce an effect that looks like a comet.  It's also a problem that largely affects astrophotography, as isolated point light sources are most common in those scenarios.

Modern high-end technical lenses usually include an aspherical lens element which cause less refraction at the edges and more in the centre, resulting in proper convergence over a given focal length.

Possibly the most commonly caused aberration is lens flare, which is severe in the posted image of the sun.  Flare occurs when non-incident light enters the lens and reflects off of the various internal lens elements or diaphragm. The effect, when strong enough, can create bright spots and streaks, and may also have a detrimental effect on contrast where it occurs.  Flare is can also be caused by a very bright near off-scene light source, such as the sun, or a bright rearwards light illuminating the overall scene.

Without understanding the complexities of all these shortcomings in photography, it's very difficult to simply dismiss NASA images posted here as bogus or Photoshopped.  It would also seem logical that if NASA were manipulating their images, they'd be taking a lot more care to delete any all-too-obvious giveaways.

And the flat earthers still haven't posted any of their images for the round earthers to examine.  Again, why is this?  Why are they so coy about showing us even just a couple of images?  Shouldn't be all that difficult if—according to them—the earth is truly flat.

C'mon flat earthers.  Put your money (or your images) where your mouths are!


Then perhaps you can explain why the space shuttles's tail fin is CURVED also.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 10:20:30 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:38:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 09:27:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:22:45 AM

Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.

That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.

Certainly,  but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.

When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.

Let me run that back at you.

When you deny all empirical evidence, then you see no reason to believe in facts. You follow that to that to the letter so that's gonna fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. You'll never open your mind to the facts.

Quote from: inquisitive on April 21, 2014, 10:29:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 10:20:30 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:38:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 09:27:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:22:45 AM

Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.

That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.

Certainly,  but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.

When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.

Where does the sun go when it sets?

It goes to the next part of the Earth to shine on that, out of your line of sight as it moves into the distance.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 10:32:39 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on April 21, 2014, 10:29:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 10:20:30 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:38:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 09:27:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:22:45 AM

Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.

That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.

Certainly,  but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.

When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.

Where does the sun go when it sets?

It goes to the next part of the Earth to shine on that, out of your line of sight as it moves into the distance.

How do you explain it rising and setting on the horizon?

Quote from: inquisitive on April 21, 2014, 11:23:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 10:32:39 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on April 21, 2014, 10:29:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 10:20:30 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:38:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 09:27:57 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 21, 2014, 09:22:45 AM

Nice story by scepster totally disregarding the fact that FE calculation actually don't line up with reality.

That's basically what I'm getting at. What actually does line up with reality. None of us actually know.

Certainly,  but in the context of this conversation we are simply talking about the accuracy of calculation for providing correct predictions about the cosmos. RE calculations are mind-blowingly correct in this regard. So, for all intents and purposes, it's more correct than anything else. Period.

When you believe what you are told, then you see no reason for it to be lies. You follow that to the letter so it's all going to fit perfectly for you. Carry on, it's your life and way of thinking. I'll never share it until they tell the real truth. Unfortunately I'll be well gone by that time, if ever the truth gets told.

Where does the sun go when it sets?

It goes to the next part of the Earth to shine on that, out of your line of sight as it moves into the distance.

How do you explain it rising and setting on the horizon?

I've just told you. It's not rising and setting, it's simply moving away from your line of sight and then appearing into your line of sight.

How high is it and do observations and measurements around the world prove this?

Quote from: Starman on April 21, 2014, 09:07:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 21, 2014, 08:54:06 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 21, 2014, 08:45:48 AM

You are telling cute stories I am not interesting to read. People with dough about their beliefs will try very hard to convince others with long stories. What makes you think your world is real? You don't believe in anything. No news, reports, documents and deny almost everything. You have not seen anything that related to any important events. You just stick to you computer and look outside your window. I feel sorry for you.

I don't think money has anything to do with what people believe, but anyway; I used to be like you. I don't mean wearing mankini's; I mean, I used to simply accept everything for what was told. I never thought to question it.
As I got older, that's when I started to see little things that didn't add up, so I delved further. In some ways I wish I hadn't, because it batters your head when you realise just how duped we have been all our lives.

This may comfort you or not but i will never be like you. I never accepted what was told. I questioned and made sure it all made sense based on a lot of other information and facts. You are talking about accepting things at face value. If you did that you were not that smart to begin with. Gathering knowledge is a long process. Some people understand things and some don't. Everything in the RE world fits perfectly with no loos ends and nothing in the FE works. If that is your world I feel sad for you because you live in suspicion of everything. You question everything with dough. That is not a happy way to live and like you said money has nothing to do with it.

I don't offer money whilst questioning things, so stop making out I use my wealth to do so, please.
I understand what I need to understand. I leave all the junk out of it, because most of space science is absolute junk theories and calculations.
To calculate anything, you need to know what you are calculating. You are on this site arguing a 240, 000 mile away. moon, a 93 million mile away sun, against a 3000 mile away moon and sun.
On top of that, you are also calculating against the very distinct possibility that the sun and moon are mere reflections, so how do you calculate a reflection?

Of course, you can shout and scream that your calculations you were given are correct. It seems that, so can the flat Earth believers.
Someone is very wrong. Maybe both are very wrong. The point is...someone is for  absolute certain.

By flat Earth calculations, it marries up that their sun and moon are correct. Yet your calculations marry up to make yours correct.
How many more ways can it be correct?

Quote from: inquisitive on April 21, 2014, 11:49:32 AM

How high is it and do observations and measurements around the world prove this?

I don't know how high it is, it's a reflection, so it's as high as the sky, whatever that height is.

Quote from: abaaaabbbb63 on March 30, 2014, 02:05:45 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 30, 2014, 01:14:21 AM

Here's your proof of a flat Earth. Have a panoramic view of it all and even scroll the horizon to the top and see it's straight. Here's your proof, now stop saying no evidence has been given.

http://www.360cities.net/image/view-from-castello-castelsardo-sardinia#78.73,-19.03,110.0

And how do you think you'll see the 20cm/km curvature on a panorama view from very close to the ground? Of course it appears flat.

And it's a panorama view. The sides are stretched.

The only way to properly see Earth's curvature is from a very high altitude, not from sea level.

Like in this photo:


Taken from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2002. They were on the dark side of Earth. You can even see the moon in the distance.

In that case the 'Space Shuttle Endeavour' has a curved tail fin.

Quote from: tappet on April 20, 2014, 08:51:12 PM

Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

The actual truth regarding that incident:

The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon! 
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!

Quote from: Starman on April 21, 2014, 04:13:59 AM

Quote from: tappet on April 20, 2014, 08:51:12 PM

Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

The actual truth regarding that incident:

The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon! 
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!

"The actual truth regarding that incident"
 Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one  the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks.
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.

Now that you mentioned the moon is 3000 miles away. If the moon would be up 300 miles and you went 3000 miles east or west the angle to the moon would be 45 degrees right! At that angle you would see part of the back of the moon. If you went even further on the flat earth you would see even more. You can't do that it the moon is 240,000 miles away.

Quote from: tappet on April 21, 2014, 02:21:06 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 21, 2014, 04:13:59 AM

Quote from: tappet on April 20, 2014, 08:51:12 PM

Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

The actual truth regarding that incident:

The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon! 
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!

"The actual truth regarding that incident"
 Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one  the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks.
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.

The fact is the story got blown up. Fact is there it was a good will gesture. It was NEVER intended to replicate a moon rock. This is where the conspiracy people make assumption and got crazy with it. Besides why are you looking for thing like this?

Quote from: Starman on April 21, 2014, 02:26:09 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 21, 2014, 02:21:06 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 21, 2014, 04:13:59 AM

Quote from: tappet on April 20, 2014, 08:51:12 PM

Nothing is ever fake to REers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

The actual truth regarding that incident:

The Apollo 11 crew were on a goodwill tour, and on their visit to the Netherlands the AMERICAN AMBASSADOR to the country presented a gift of a piece of petrified wood to the then Prime Minister. THEY knew it was petrified wood, and the PM knew it was petrified wood. Such trinkets are common in the American Southwest, and not usually found many places elsewhere on Earth. So, it was merely a representative gift from the country of the United States, not ever presented as a piece of the Moon! 
None of the actual Lunar samples that were gifted to foreign nations and individuals were anywhere near the size of that fist-sized rock!

"The actual truth regarding that incident"
 Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one  the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks.
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.

The fact is the story got blown up. Fact is there it was a good will gesture. It was NEVER intended to replicate a moon rock. This is where the conspiracy people make assumption and got crazy with it. Besides why are you looking for thing like this?

You cannot know the truth you were not there.
 None of us were there. We can only go off the stories they are telling us and the story keeps changing.
Stop being delusional.
Blown up or not there have been lies told. That is the only truthful part of that story.

Quote from: tappet on April 21, 2014, 02:33:11 PM

You cannot know the truth you were not there.
 None of us were there. We can only go off the stories they are telling us and the story keeps changing.
Stop being delusional.
Blown up or not there have been lies told. That is the only truthful part of that story.

You were not there either. The lies are from the people that make false assumptions then spread it like you did. Everybody was happy with the tour and gesture expect people like you who spread the stories. In then end what was your point to tell us this story?

Quote from: Starman on April 21, 2014, 02:42:13 PM

Quote from: tappet on April 21, 2014, 02:33:11 PM

You cannot know the truth you were not there.
 None of us were there. We can only go off the stories they are telling us and the story keeps changing.
Stop being delusional.
Blown up or not there have been lies told. That is the only truthful part of that story.

You were not there either. The lies are from the people that make false assumptions then spread it like you did. Everybody was happy with the tour and gesture expect people like you who spread the stories. In then end what was your point to tell us this story?

"Everybody was happy with the tour" so you were there to experience this were you?
Was it common for astronauts to hand out petrified wood back then? I cannot find info on this.
How many countries received the petrified wood gesture?
Or was it only the Dutch Prime minister that got wood?

Or was it only the Dutch Prime minister that got wood?

"The actual truth regarding that incident"
 Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one  the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks?
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.

Quote from: tappet on April 21, 2014, 02:21:06 PM

"The actual truth regarding that incident"
 Starman you cannot tell the difference between a lie and truth.
As if an astronaut is going to hand out bits of bloody petrified wood. Its one  the most common things to be petrified.
Wouldn't he hand out moon rocks?
A lie eventually comes undone and when it does you have to tell another lie to cover it up.
But the thing that seems very strange to me is that you feel compelled to protect the lie.
Two lies have been told here, but you do not have the ability to even see one.

The article also reported that "Researchers at Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon".

Here's some more photographic knowledge: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">