Does it look flat?

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:32:01 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:30:03 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:25:49 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:18:42 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 02:27:16 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 11, 2014, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on July 10, 2014, 02:14:51 PM

A photo is a representation of someone else's sensory experience.

I can't agree with that definition.  A deep sea robot might take a billion photos of a trench - even if nobody looks at them they will still be photographs.  If, say, 10 years later I look at those photos they will still not a representation of someone else's sensory experience.  They will be a representation of data captured via an electronic sensor.  Just like temperature readings from a remote sensor.  There is nothing special about the visible part of the EM spectrum.

However, when I do look at them, they will certainly be empirical evidence - I will be experiencing them with my own senses.

I think we have ended up debating how many angels can dance naked in a Robin Thicke video.  Evidence is evidence, including photos, and each piece of evidence should be judged on it's own merit, including photos.

Photographs are used daily by law courts, scientists and engineers - taking the position that they are not valid as they don't fit some philosophical position is just silly.

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

You seem to be confusing the terms "proof" and "evidence".

proof
pruːf/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs

    1.
    evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
    "you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
    synonyms:   evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament;

To annoy the idiots who don't like definitions.

OK by that definition then yes. Proof can also mean an unequivocal demonstration of something, which is what I thought you were going for.

Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.

Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.

argument
ˈɑːgjʊm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments

2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms:   reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case;

I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"!

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:28:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:27:06 PM

Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.

Nice one! You are out of the closet as a gullible fool. I feel embarrased for you.

He is using the term properly. Evidence is the available body of facts or information that whether or not something is true. Proof is what it is promoted when it is established to be true. It is not, however, empirical evidence. It is a representation of empirical evidence but I believe that without any logical discourse to even suggest it is fake, it is more likely to be a genuine photograph.

That is not how science or logic work. You should know that.

Edit: "It is true because no one has proven it isn't"? Get real.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:33:22 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:32:01 PM

Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.

Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.

argument
ˈɑːgjʊm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments

2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms:   reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case;

I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"!

"Fucking hell buddy, you're indoctrinated" - If this is your theory, where is your reason or set of reasons? If this is your reason, what is it a reason for? The fact that I disagree with you? You post definitions, but it appears you don't even understand the definition.

"I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"! "

What belief? That the Earth is a round ball? I wasn't actually making that claim just now. I'm trying to explain to you what evidence and empiricism mean. Try to keep up.

And yes, a photo can be evidence. What don't you understand about that?

Quote from: rottingroom on July 11, 2014, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:28:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:27:06 PM

Yes. Although to be credible the OP should include the source for the photo. You're free to criticize and evaluate its merit, but that doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.

Nice one! You are out of the closet as a gullible fool. I feel embarrased for you.

He is using the term properly. Evidence is the available body of facts or information that whether or not something is true. Proof is what it is promoted when it is established to be true. It is not, however, empirical evidence. It is a representation of empirical evidence but I believe that without any logical discourse to even suggest it is fake, it is more likely to be a genuine photograph.

That is not how science or logic work. You should know that.

Edit: "It is true because no one has proven it isn't"? Get real.

Yikes, so I guess people should not waste their money and time on security cameras in the future, since by your "logic", they are not admissible as evidence of a crime anyway.

I'm not saying that it is true because nobody hasproven that it isn't. I'm saying that I have no reason to consider the possibility of it not being true. Do you have a reason?

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:37:48 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:33:22 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:32:01 PM

Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.

Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.

argument
ˈɑːgjʊm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments

2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms:   reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case;

I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"!

"Fucking hell buddy, you're indoctrinated" - If this is your theory, where is your reason or set of reasons? If this is your reason, what is it a reason for? The fact that I disagree with you? You post definitions, but it appears you don't even understand the definition.

"I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"! "

What belief? That the Earth is a round ball? I wasn't actually making that claim just now. I'm trying to explain to you what evidence and empiricism mean. Try to keep up.

And yes, a photo can be evidence. What don't you understand about that?

Correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to be suggesting that that photo (which comes from who-knows-where), proves, or, is evidence, that the earth is a sphere. On it's own. Case closed. Is that your position?

If not, what other proof or evidence do you have?

I'm not saying that it is true because nobody hasproven that it isn't. I'm saying that I have no reason to consider the possibility of it not being true. Do you have a reason?

Well then, you are hopelessly unscientific, despite your claims to the contrary. I hope I don't have to tell you why.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:46:19 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:37:48 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:33:22 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:32:01 PM

Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.

Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.

argument
ˈɑːgjʊm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments

2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms:   reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case;

I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"!

"Fucking hell buddy, you're indoctrinated" - If this is your theory, where is your reason or set of reasons? If this is your reason, what is it a reason for? The fact that I disagree with you? You post definitions, but it appears you don't even understand the definition.

"I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"! "

What belief? That the Earth is a round ball? I wasn't actually making that claim just now. I'm trying to explain to you what evidence and empiricism mean. Try to keep up.

And yes, a photo can be evidence. What don't you understand about that?

Correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to be suggesting that that photo (which comes from who-knows-where), proves, or, is evidence, that the earth is a sphere. On it's own. Case closed. Is that your position?

If not, what other proof or evidence do you have?

Do you really think that there isn't anymore evidence? Do we really need to make another exhaustive list. I'd like to see if you could make a list of RE proofs for me. I bet you can. Stop pretending like you are clueless.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:46:19 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:37:48 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 11, 2014, 03:33:22 PM

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:32:01 PM

Like the OP's photo? Fucking hell buddy. You are so indoctrinated you should get a certificate.

Is this your strongest possible argument? Because it's not really an argument.

argument
ˈɑːgjʊm(ə)nt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments

2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"
synonyms:   reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case;

I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"!

"Fucking hell buddy, you're indoctrinated" - If this is your theory, where is your reason or set of reasons? If this is your reason, what is it a reason for? The fact that I disagree with you? You post definitions, but it appears you don't even understand the definition.

"I don't think you presented anything to support your belief other than "a photo is evidence"! "

What belief? That the Earth is a round ball? I wasn't actually making that claim just now. I'm trying to explain to you what evidence and empiricism mean. Try to keep up.

And yes, a photo can be evidence. What don't you understand about that?

Correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to be suggesting that that photo (which comes from who-knows-where), proves, or, is evidence, that the earth is a sphere. On it's own. Case closed. Is that your position?

If not, what other proof or evidence do you have?

What is there about anything I've said that leads you to believe I'm suggesting that this single image unequivocally shows that the Earth is a sphere? Of course that's not my position, that's a pathetic attempt at a straw man.

Instead of derailing the topic by asking for other evidence, why don't we get back to discussing the merits of the image in the OP?

Quote from: rottingroom on July 11, 2014, 03:50:25 PM

I'm not saying that it is true because nobody hasproven that it isn't. I'm saying that I have no reason to consider the possibility of it not being true. Do you have a reason?

Well then, you are hopelessly unscientific, despite your claims to the contrary. I hope I don't have to tell you why.

How so? I don't have a reason to think it isn't true. It doesn't eliminate the possibility that it is false and I'm willing to consider and even explore other possibilities if I happen to find reasons to. So, what are your reasons to prefer denying its authenticity?

To be honest since there's no source or even any background info in the OP, I can't say that it's even strong evidence that the Earth is round. It's at best one piece of evidence on the pile. However, it's consistent with other, better sourced pictures I've seen, and it does seem consistent with what I'd expect the Earth to look like.

Here's a little background info I found on the image:

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecatholicimage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2Fearth-huge_1588522a.jpg

The Clearest Image Of Planet Earth Ever Seen...SPACE: Picture of earth showing the entire North American continent, Central America, the northern half of South America, Greenland and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
Researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre have released the clearest and most complete image of Planet Earth ever seen. Compiled by imagery from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imagining Spectroradiometer (MODIS), which is onboard the satellite Terra, the crystal clear view of our home planet was taken from 700 km above the Earth's surface. Pieced together using thousands of images observed from the Terra satellite, this representation of our home planet is the most detailed image ever produced. Showing the entire North American continent, Central America, the northern half of South America, Greenland and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, the NASA image captures the fragility of the Earth in one perfect shot.
PHOTOGRAPHY BY BARCROFT USA
UK Office, London.
T +44 845 370 2233
W www.barcroftmedia.com
Australasian & Pacific Rim Office, Melbourne.
E [email protected]
T +613 9510 3188 or +613 9510 0688
W www.barcroftpacific.com
Indian Office, Delhi.
T +91 997 1133 889
W www.barcroftindia.com

Obviously this doesn't make the entire case of the Earth being round, but at least it's a bit more to work with. More to the OP's actual question though: Does it look round?

I'd say yes it definitely looks like a picture of a round planet in space should - judging by the reflections of light on the water, and the what looks like foreshortening of the cloud formations around the edge, I get the sense that I'm looking at a sphere as opposed to a flat disk. That being said, if you can believe the comment extracted from the picture, it is a composite with the intended effect of showing the Earth from space. The fact that this is clearly stated in the comment seems to suggest that it's not intended to deceive anyone.

String theory is not science.

What an unmitigated misrepresentation of the truth!

I quote:

"M-theory is not complete, but the underlying structure of the mathematics has been established and is in agreement with all the string theories. Furthermore, it has passed many tests of internal mathematical consistency.

Some cosmologists are drawn to M-theory because of its mathematical elegance and relative simplicity. Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku Ph.D has remarked that M-theory may present us with a "Theory of Everything" which is so concise that its underlying formula would fit on a T-shirt.

Stephen Hawking originally believed that M-theory may be the ultimate theory but later suggested that the search for understanding of mathematics and physics will never be complete. However, Hawking later changed his mind and stated, "M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe".



—But at the same time, legion would undoubtedly claim that the flat earth hypothesis IS science.  Thanks for the laugh mate!

“Trustworthy is earned not bought.”

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:00:10 PM

String theory is not science.

What an unmitigated misrepresentation of the truth!

I quote:

"M-theory is not complete, but the underlying structure of the mathematics has been established and is in agreement with all the string theories. Furthermore, it has passed many tests of internal mathematical consistency.

Some cosmologists are drawn to M-theory because of its mathematical elegance and relative simplicity. Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku Ph.D has remarked that M-theory may present us with a "Theory of Everything" which is so concise that its underlying formula would fit on a T-shirt.

Stephen Hawking originally believed that M-theory may be the ultimate theory but later suggested that the search for understanding of mathematics and physics will never be complete. However, Hawking later changed his mind and stated, "M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe".



—But at the same time, legion would undoubtedly claim that the flat earth hypothesis IS science.  Thanks for the laugh mate!

String Theory is barely science since it has not yet yielded a single testable prediction. I am inclined to say it is not science at all either but more of a mathematical idea. Remember science has to with the real world and as of yet string theory does not.

“Trustworthy is earned not bought.”

I thank you for posting a photo of possibly the most scientifically literate man on the planet today, and one who also has no doubts whatsoever that the earth is an oblate spheroid.  Hawking has advance our understanding of the universe a trillion times more than the flat earthers' hero Samuel Rowbotham ever did—despite being confined to a wheelchair for most of his adult life.  Hawking is a true hero of science, whereas Rowbotham was nothing more than a charlatan, making his fraudulent monetary gains from the ignorance of the public of the day.

—Or would any flat earther care to dispute that?

Quote from: legion on July 11, 2014, 03:00:10 PM

String theory is not science.

What an unmitigated misrepresentation of the truth!

I quote:

"M-theory is not complete, but the underlying structure of the mathematics has been established and is in agreement with all the string theories. Furthermore, it has passed many tests of internal mathematical consistency.

Some cosmologists are drawn to M-theory because of its mathematical elegance and relative simplicity. Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku Ph.D has remarked that M-theory may present us with a "Theory of Everything" which is so concise that its underlying formula would fit on a T-shirt.

Stephen Hawking originally believed that M-theory may be the ultimate theory but later suggested that the search for understanding of mathematics and physics will never be complete. However, Hawking later changed his mind and stated, "M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe".



—But at the same time, legion would undoubtedly claim that the flat earth hypothesis IS science.  Thanks for the laugh mate!

None of this is a laughing matter.

Edit: When did I suggest I was a 'flat earther'?

Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.

Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.

*sigh*

Scientific Literacy

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.

When did I suggest I was a 'flat earther'?

In the context of every one of the 200+ posts you've made here.

The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate.

Why is it that so many flat earthers expect us round earthers to do their homework for them on this forum?  Google is your friend legion.

Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.

Well, this is certainly a well-reasoned, logically-sound, persuasive rebuttal if ever I've seen one LOL. Such convincing science and indisputable rationale.  Well done legion.

And I have to say, you're unfailingly impressive counsel must go down a treat with the other mums at your local child-minding centre.   

Got a few fake pics here.

http://planetary.org/explore/space-topics/earth/pics-of-earth-by-planetary-spacecraft.html

When did you take those pictures?  Please give the specifics, such as camera type, lens, etc.  Thanks. 

When did you take those pictures?  Please give the specifics, such as camera type, lens, etc.  Thanks.

If you'd taken the time to at least read the image captions jroa, you wouldn't be asking this question.  Guv didn't make any claim that he captured these images himself.  They were all credited to NASA and various other subsidiary space agencies using satellite-mounted cameras manufactured/modified specifically for their intended purpose, by both Nikon and Kodak.  Did you rally think that NASA just wandered into their local camera store, and bought a couple of $100 dollar point and shoot cameras off the shelf LOL?

The fact that you can't even figure out their source also makes you an unlikely person to be considering the veracity of what's shown in the images.  And once again, your lens question is surprising if you believe that you—or anyone else here—can extract the image EXIF data which NASA has stripped out.  It would seem that most flat earthers have a very poor understanding of even basic photographic procedures, whilst unequivocally claiming that every single image posted here by round earthers is bogus.

—Quite funny actually.  But very telling.

Quote from: legion on July 12, 2014, 02:32:25 PM

Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.

*sigh*

Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.html

Scientific Literacy

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.

As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.

Quote from: markjo on July 12, 2014, 09:59:28 PM

Quote from: legion on July 12, 2014, 02:32:25 PM

Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.

*sigh*

Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.html

Scientific Literacy

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.

As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.

It appears it is only useless because it does not suit your needs.  Surely there is a common enough understanding of the english language on this site that we can all understand the definition provided?  If not, perhaps you should provide one?

Quote from: legion on July 14, 2014, 01:27:20 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 12, 2014, 09:59:28 PM

Quote from: legion on July 12, 2014, 02:32:25 PM

Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.

*sigh*

Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.html

Scientific Literacy

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.

As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.

It appears it is only useless because it does not suit your needs.  Surely there is a common enough understanding of the english language on this site that we can all understand the definition provided?  If not, perhaps you should provide one?

Rama, please explain to me how I can ensure my children are 'scientifically literate' using the above definition. Thank you.

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.

[/quote]

It appears to me that there are 2 parts to the definition:

1. Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts

and

2. processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity.

I'm pretty sure you were looking for #1. This isn't complicated legion. It's just a sentence with a conjunction in it.

Quote from: markjo on July 12, 2014, 09:59:28 PM

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.

It appears to me that there are 2 parts to the definition:

1. Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts

and

2. processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity.

I'm pretty sure you were looking for #1. This isn't complicated legion. It's just a sentence with a conjunction in it.
[/quote]

Yes it is complicated.

Which scientific concepts? All of them? How much knowledge? How much understanding?

Most personal decision making is ultimately emotional. People rarely use the scientific method when deciding what to have for dinner.

"...participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity." - WTF is this all about? Reads like brainwashing to me.

Quote from: rottingroom on July 14, 2014, 02:21:06 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 12, 2014, 09:59:28 PM

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.

It appears to me that there are 2 parts to the definition:

1. Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts

and

2. processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity.

I'm pretty sure you were looking for #1. This isn't complicated legion. It's just a sentence with a conjunction in it.

Yes it is complicated.

Which scientific concepts? All of them? How much knowledge? How much understanding?

Most personal decision making is ultimately emotional. People rarely use the scientific method when deciding what to have for dinner.

"...participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity." - WTF is this all about? Reads like brainwashing to me.
[/quote]

    lit·er·a·cy
    ˈlitərəsē,ˈlitrə-/
    noun
    noun: literacy
            competence or knowledge in a specified area.

This could not be simpler.

No one can say that Hawking could not become an FEer and that includes Hawking himself, until he is exposed to FET. 

There are Mensa FEers and some would test out as Prometheus or Triple Nine like that, we can assume, would be the case with Hawking.

He will be a fine addition to TFES, like that of all those who realize proper Earth shape regardless of education or IQ.

 

 

Quote from: markjo on July 12, 2014, 09:59:28 PM

Quote from: legion on July 12, 2014, 02:32:25 PM

Edit2: The most scientifically literate man on the planet? Define scientifically literate. Otherwise you are just writing bullshit. Again.

*sigh*

Quote from: http://www.literacynet.org/science/scientificliteracy.html

Scientific Literacy

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.

As I thought. A vague, meaningless and useless definition of a useless term. If you had read and thought about the above paragraph, you may not have made yourself look like an idiot for posting such drivel with a *sigh*.

And if you had followed the link to the originating page, you would have found further clarification of the definition, and you may not have made yourself look too computer illiterate to be able to follow a hyperlink.  Or do you need to be burped and put down for a nap after being spoon fed?

So therefore the OP's photo is empirical proof of the shape of the earth? Is that your position?

Proof is only available to mathematicians, for everyone else it is evidence.  And yes, it is empirical evidence.  You like playing definition games, so how does the photo not meet the definition:

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

You might not think it is very good evidence, but it is certainly evidence.  You could falsify it by showing how it is a fake, something you haven't done yet - you have just flapped your arms about.