Does it look flat?

It looks shopped.

Why is North America so huge? 

Why is North America so huge?

Because it is?

Does it look fake ,,,,

It looks shopped.

Can you shop that?

It looks shopped.

The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw it was, "It doesn't look real."

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 14, 2014, 12:23:54 AM

It looks shopped.

The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw it was, "It doesn't look real."

So what?

Andromeda, did you take that photo?

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 14, 2014, 12:23:54 AM

It looks shopped.

Can you shop that?

Easily.

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 14, 2014, 12:23:54 AM

It looks shopped.

The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw it was, "It doesn't look real."

Please provide your version.

This is a photo that NASA astronauts took in the 1970's:



Explain that away...

This is a photo that NASA astronauts took in the 1970's:



Explain that away...

LSD. Next!

This is a photo that NASA astronauts took in the 1970's:



Explain that away...

A painting by Barbara Rohrer maybe?

http://www.elfwood.com/~freyrstrong/Great-ATuin.2753694.html

Explain that away...

Explain that away...

Please look up the definition of sarcasm.  Thanks. 

Quote from: BJ1234 on June 14, 2014, 06:09:36 PM

Explain that away...

Please look up the definition of sarcasm.  Thanks.

Yes, my post was sarcastic.  Thanks for noticing.

Quote from: sandmanMike on June 14, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 14, 2014, 12:23:54 AM

It looks shopped.

Can you shop that?

Easily.

Great, you mind doing a tutorial then?

Nice pic of Spain seen from the ISS. Doesn't look flat to me.

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 14, 2014, 02:28:50 PM

Quote from: sandmanMike on June 14, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 14, 2014, 12:23:54 AM

It looks shopped.

Can you shop that?

Easily.

Great, you mind doing a tutorial then?

Do you have Photoshop? I can make a tutorial if you really need it. Otherwise, that would be a huge waste of my time

Nice pic of Spain seen from the ISS. Doesn't look flat to me.

Doesn't look like an actual thing, either.
Funny how that works.

Quote from: sandmanMike on June 14, 2014, 07:20:33 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 14, 2014, 02:28:50 PM

Quote from: sandmanMike on June 14, 2014, 05:53:13 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 14, 2014, 12:23:54 AM

It looks shopped.

Can you shop that?

Easily.

Great, you mind doing a tutorial then?

Do you have Photoshop? I can make a tutorial if you really need it. Otherwise, that would be a huge waste of my time

I do have Photoshop.

:l that's not a photograph- I am of the Round Earth kind and even I can tell you that.
Seems to me like you went to Wikipedia and searched "Earth", taking the first picture to appear. Below that picture you will see it defined as a photomosaic.

Quote from: Andromeda on June 13, 2014, 09:12:21 PM

:l that's not a photograph- I am of the Round Earth kind and even I can tell you that.
Seems to me like you went to Wikipedia and searched "Earth", taking the first picture to appear. Below that picture you will see it defined as a photomosaic.

Sadly, there are millions of people like Andromeda who are satisfied with these types of photos as proof of... well, anything.

Quote from: Madeleine Alec on July 02, 2014, 07:31:14 AM

http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg

that's not a photograph - I am of the Round Earth kind and even I can tell you that.
Seems to me like you went to Wikipedia and searched "Earth", taking the first picture to appear. Below that picture you will see it defined as a photomosaic.

Sadly, there are millions of people like Andromeda who are satisfied with these types of photos as proof of... well, anything.

As you seem to be claiming that this photo-mosaic is bogus, can you tell us precisely what leads you to this conclusion?  Or are you just guessing?

I await your empirical evidence.

Quote from: legion on July 02, 2014, 12:13:00 PM

Quote from: Madeleine Alec on July 02, 2014, 07:31:14 AM

http://www.thecatholicimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/earth-huge_1588522a.jpg

that's not a photograph - I am of the Round Earth kind and even I can tell you that.
Seems to me like you went to Wikipedia and searched "Earth", taking the first picture to appear. Below that picture you will see it defined as a photomosaic.

Quote

Sadly, there are millions of people like Andromeda who are satisfied with these types of photos as proof of... well, anything.

As you seem to be claiming that this photo-mosaic is bogus, can you tell us precisely what leads you to this conclusion?  Or are you just guessing?

I await your empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence??? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere:



You believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.

Talk to John Stears. Easy.

Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.

This is a fallacy of logic.  One cannot "prove" a negative.  One can only disprove an alleged positive.  For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.

You believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.

Nope.  The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers".  Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers".  We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.

Belief can be defined as  faith,  hope,  supposition, or even just personal opinion.  But no sign of any empirical evidence.

One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless.  Like your belief that the earth is flat.

Sorry.

You can prove a negative, just not directly.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative

Quote from: legion on July 03, 2014, 02:24:18 PM

Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.

This is a fallacy of logic.  One cannot "prove" a negative.  One can only disprove an alleged positive.  For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.

Quote

You believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.

Nope.  The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers".  Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers".  We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.

Belief can be defined as  faith,  hope,  supposition, or even just personal opinion.  But no sign of any empirical evidence.

One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless.  Like your belief that the earth is flat.

Sorry.

Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):

The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 04, 2014, 05:00:10 AM

Quote from: legion on July 03, 2014, 02:24:18 PM

Empirical evidence? I own a spaceship? How does one prove this does not exist somewhere.

This is a fallacy of logic.  One cannot "prove" a negative.  One can only disprove an alleged positive.  For example, there's no way that you can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.

Quote

You believers pick and choose what requires empirical evidence.

Nope.  The 7 million people who accept the round earth model are not termed "believers".  Rather, the tiny, tiny minority of the world's population who disagree with this are termed "disbelievers".  We round earthers don't "believe" that the earth is spherical; we know it absolutely—there's no "belief" involved in the equation.

Belief can be defined as  faith,  hope,  supposition, or even just personal opinion.  But no sign of any empirical evidence.

One may believe that unicorns exist, but with a total lack of viable evidence to prove the contrary, that belief is valueless.  Like your belief that the earth is flat.

Sorry.

Please present your empirical evidence for the round earth using the following definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence):

The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

Surveyors encounter the curvature of the Earth frequently: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/survey/Chapter3.shtm See section 3.7

The phases of venus.

Stellar Parallax.

The setting sun.

Eyewitness testimony.