If the earth is round.

Then why does a known fraudulent conspiracy entity like NASA exist? Why do we see so many fake pictures of the world being round? Surely, if the earth was round then the pictures would look real instead of like the blatant fabrications that they are.

Then why does a known fraudulent conspiracy entity like NASA exist? Why do we see so many fake pictures of the world being round? Surely, if the earth was round then the pictures would look real instead of like the blatant fabrications that they are.

God f*cking dammit... If the Earth was round, NASA would not be a "fraudulent conspiracy entity", but a legit research agency. Why should it not exist? There are various research teams around the Earth involved in various fields of science. There are not so many space agencies as it requires a much higher $ input and a high degree of organization within it. And for the pics? I think they are a good way to convince some people that funding space research is a good idea in the long way and not a waste of money. Kind of "look how awesome what we do is".

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 05:58:29 AM

Then why does a known fraudulent conspiracy entity like NASA exist? Why do we see so many fake pictures of the world being round? Surely, if the earth was round then the pictures would look real instead of like the blatant fabrications that they are.

God f*cking dammit... If the Earth was round, NASA would not be a "fraudulent conspiracy entity", but a legit research agency. Why should it not exist? There are various research teams around the Earth involved in various fields of science. There are not so many space agencies as it requires a much higher $ input and a high degree of organization within it. And for the pics? I think they are a good way to convince some people that funding space research is a good idea in the long way and not a waste of money. Kind of "look how awesome what we do is".

Were you gonna bother with attempting to explain why they look so fake?

Take this picture for instance:



What sorcery.

Quote from: Macpie on August 02, 2014, 06:08:49 AM

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 05:58:29 AM

Then why does a known fraudulent conspiracy entity like NASA exist? Why do we see so many fake pictures of the world being round? Surely, if the earth was round then the pictures would look real instead of like the blatant fabrications that they are.

God f*cking dammit... If the Earth was round, NASA would not be a "fraudulent conspiracy entity", but a legit research agency. Why should it not exist? There are various research teams around the Earth involved in various fields of science. There are not so many space agencies as it requires a much higher $ input and a high degree of organization within it. And for the pics? I think they are a good way to convince some people that funding space research is a good idea in the long way and not a waste of money. Kind of "look how awesome what we do is".

Were you gonna bother with attempting to explain why they look so fake?

Take this picture for instance:



What sorcery.

Well, for one thing, that isn't a picture of the earth looking round.  Secondly, what exactly is fake about that picture?

Then why does a known fraudulent conspiracy entity like NASA exist? Why do we see so many fake pictures of the world being round? Surely, if the earth was round then the pictures would look real instead of like the blatant fabrications that they are.

Just because one person claims that NASA is an agent of fraud doesn't make it so.  Sorry.

You'll have to provide empirical evidence to support this claim if you want to be taken seriously.

No evidence = no fraud.  End of story.

Well, for one thing, that isn't a picture of the earth looking round.

If it can be shown that pictures that come directly from NASA are fraudulent then that makes them untrustworthy resource altogether. I just picked a random one and there are plenty of pictures of earth that are just as laughable.

Secondly, what exactly is fake about that picture?

So this photo is supposed to be of the horse head nebula which 1500 light years away. Are you sure you want to make the claim that we can fly 1500 light years through space to get this fantastical shot?

Quote from: markjo on August 02, 2014, 08:07:15 AM

Well, for one thing, that isn't a picture of the earth looking round.

If it can be shown that pictures that come directly from NASA are fraudulent then that makes them untrustworthy resource altogether. I just picked a random one and there are plenty of pictures of earth that are just as laughable.

Then perhaps you should have chosen one of those instead.

Quote from: markjo on August 02, 2014, 08:07:15 AM

Secondly, what exactly is fake about that picture?

So this photo is supposed to be of the horse head nebula which 1500 light years away. Are you sure you want to make the claim that we can fly 1500 light years through space to get this fantastical shot?

Who made that claim? 

Just because one person claims that NASA is an agent of fraud doesn't make it so.  Sorry.

Many people make this claim. Sorry.

You'll have to provide empirical evidence to support this claim if you want to be taken seriously.

You'll first have to provide empirical evidence that the pictures are legitimate. Otherwise I could just say something like this is real--



Are you convinced that unicorns are real now.

No evidence = no fraud.  End of story.

Same for you pal. End of story.

Then perhaps you should have chosen one of those instead.

Perhaps you can provide one that you think is real?

Who made that claim? 

It sounds implied when you say:

Secondly, what exactly is fake about that picture?

Quote from: markjo

Then perhaps you should have chosen one of those instead.

Perhaps you can provide one that you think is real?

Why?  You're the one that said that "there are plenty of pictures of earth that are just as laughable."

Quote from: markjo

Who made that claim? 

It sounds implied when you say:

Quote from: markjo

Secondly, what exactly is fake about that picture?

I'm not implying anything, I'm just asking you to explain why you think that the picture is fake.

Quote from: markjo on August 02, 2014, 08:24:31 AM

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 08:17:34 AM

Quote from: markjo

Then perhaps you should have chosen one of those instead.

Perhaps you can provide one that you think is real?

Why?  You're the one that said that "there are plenty of pictures of earth that are just as laughable."

Well yes I did. I happen to think they all are. So you could literally pick any of them.

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 08:17:34 AM

Quote from: markjo

Who made that claim? 

It sounds implied when you say:

Quote from: markjo

Secondly, what exactly is fake about that picture?

I'm not implying anything, I'm just asking you to explain why you think that the picture is fake.

I already answered this. It is a photo of a nebula 1500 light years away and the photo is represented as if we are right upon it. That is impossible unless you can justify a claim such as saying that "we can travel 1000's of light years".

Well yes I did. I happen to think they all are. So you could literally pick any of them.

Then why don't you?

I already answered this. It is a photo of a nebula 1500 light years away and the photo is represented as if we are right upon it. That is impossible unless you can justify a claim such as saying that "we can travel 1000's of light years".

Have you ever heard of a cool invention called the telescope? 

Quote from: markjo on August 02, 2014, 08:43:08 AM

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 08:33:02 AM

Well yes I did. I happen to think they all are. So you could literally pick any of them.

Then why don't you?

If you are not interested in presenting a photo to validate then I don't know what to do. I'm already busy dealing with you on this one:

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 08:33:02 AM

I already answered this. It is a photo of a nebula 1500 light years away and the photo is represented as if we are right upon it. That is impossible unless you can justify a claim such as saying that "we can travel 1000's of light years".

Have you ever heard of a cool invention called the telescope? 

Yeah, here's what I would call a believable image from hubble if one could be called that:

IF it can be shown that pictures that come directly from NASA are fraudulent then that makes them untrustworthy resource altogether.

Thus far you haven't presented one single piece of evidence that proves any NASA image(s) to be bogus.  Until you do that, your claim is nothing more than your personal opinion.

And personal opinions hold no weight in any scientific debate.

Sorry.

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 08:12:22 AM

IF it can be shown that pictures that come directly from NASA are fraudulent then that makes them untrustworthy resource altogether.

Thus far you haven't presented one single piece of evidence that proves any NASA image(s) to be bogus.  Until you do that, your claim is nothing more than your personal opinion.

And personal opinions hold no weight in any scientific debate.

Sorry.

I'm sorry but have you presented anything either? I've presented evidence of unicorns. Would you care to debunk that? Or is that ridiculous?

I'm afraid that it was your initial claim that NASA was a bogus enterprise.

Therefore the burden of proof lies with you.  And remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

So... where's your proof?

I'm afraid that it was your initial claim that NASA was a bogus enterprise.

Therefore the burden of proof lies with you.  And remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

So... where's your proof?

Actually, it is a response to the claims NASA makes, which you apparently agree with so with that I agree--

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I don't understand why NASA is always posting "composite" photos. Shouldn't they clearly present the "evidence" they acquire?  It seems fishy...

I don't understand why NASA is always posting "composite" photos. Shouldn't they clearly present the "evidence" they acquire?  It seems fishy...

What would be fishy is if NASA posted composite photos without labeling them as such.  If you take a series of photos and use an app to create a panorama of them, is that fishy just because it's a composite?  No.  As long as you tell the viewer what you have done, there is nothing suspicious about it at all.

Quote from: Apollo 0 on August 02, 2014, 09:43:17 AM

I don't understand why NASA is always posting "composite" photos. Shouldn't they clearly present the "evidence" they acquire?  It seems fishy...

What would be fishy is if NASA posted composite photos without labeling them as such.  If you take a series of photos and use an app to create a panorama of them, is that fishy just because it's a composite?  No.  As long as you tell the viewer what you have done, there is nothing suspicious about it at all.

What's fishy about composites is that you can make them look like anything. Here is one that comes directly from NASA:

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on August 02, 2014, 09:54:03 AM

Quote from: Apollo 0 on August 02, 2014, 09:43:17 AM

I don't understand why NASA is always posting "composite" photos. Shouldn't they clearly present the "evidence" they acquire?  It seems fishy...

What would be fishy is if NASA posted composite photos without labeling them as such.  If you take a series of photos and use an app to create a panorama of them, is that fishy just because it's a composite?  No.  As long as you tell the viewer what you have done, there is nothing suspicious about it at all.

What's fishy about composites is that you can make them look like anything. Here is one that comes directly from NASA:

Where does nasa say that this is a real photo of the earth taken from so ace?

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 10:05:20 AM

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on August 02, 2014, 09:54:03 AM

Quote from: Apollo 0 on August 02, 2014, 09:43:17 AM

I don't understand why NASA is always posting "composite" photos. Shouldn't they clearly present the "evidence" they acquire?  It seems fishy...

What would be fishy is if NASA posted composite photos without labeling them as such.  If you take a series of photos and use an app to create a panorama of them, is that fishy just because it's a composite?  No.  As long as you tell the viewer what you have done, there is nothing suspicious about it at all.

What's fishy about composites is that you can make them look like anything. Here is one that comes directly from NASA:

Where does nasa say that this is a real photo of the earth taken from so ace?

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that composites can look like anything. The photos that this composite was made of are not even of objects that the whole image represents. It just goes to show that composites can easily deceive the brain. As for this mosaic coming from NASA? My guess is that it is a diversion.

General speaking all photos released by space agency's contain embedded information on how they were taken and with what using which processing software to produce the published piece. Also they almost always release the original unprocesed version as well. No deception at all.

General speaking all photos released by space agency's contain embedded information on how they were taken and with what using which processing software to produce the published piece. Also they almost always release the original unprocesed version as well. No deception at all.

I disagree about the validity of their claims on how they were produced but what does that have to do with composites? Are you saying they take whole picture, splice it then stitch it back together? Ridiculous.

Could you just explain your understanding of composite photo just so we are both singing from the same hymen sheet.

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that composites can look like anything. The photos that this composite was made of are not even of objects that the whole image represents. It just goes to show that composites can easily deceive the brain. As for this mosaic coming from NASA? My guess is that it is a diversion.

  Looks like a composite to me.  A bunch of images arranged to resemble something else.  I don't see anything deceptive about it. 

Are you saying you have difficultly telling the difference between composite, and actual, photographs? 

If so, NASA puts a description of the images stating they are composite, false color, etc, images.  Or do you even bother to read the information?

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 10:23:12 AM

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that composites can look like anything. The photos that this composite was made of are not even of objects that the whole image represents. It just goes to show that composites can easily deceive the brain. As for this mosaic coming from NASA? My guess is that it is a diversion.

  Looks like a composite to me.  A bunch of images arranged to resemble something else.  I don't see anything deceptive about it. 

Are you saying you have difficultly telling the difference between composite, and actual, photographs? 

If so, NASA puts a description of the images stating they are composite, false color, etc, images.  Or do you even bother to read the information?

If you are suggesting that images of earth from outerspace are not composites then it would be you that is having difficulty telling the difference between a composite/non-composite image. I am saying that they all are.

As far as reading information, my claim is that that information is fraudulent. I have already said as much, or do you not bother with reading the post you are responding to?

Could you just explain your understanding of composite photo just so we are both singing from the same hymen sheet.

You take images and stitch them together. With images such as panorama's this is extremely easy because the individual images fit together. With images that are not necessarily from the same source it is not as easy, but as I've shown with the earth mosaic it is not impossible. As a matter of fact, I think we would all agree that that mosaic looks like earth and that was made with random images of people and landscapes. One can only wonder just how much more realistic it would look with some effort put into making the source images look like a planetary surface. If you'd like to see just how realistic they can look then open google image search and type "Earth".

So what is your problem with composite pictures being used adsactly?

So what is your problem with composite pictures being used adsactly?

Did you mean exactly?

My problem is not with composites. It is merely what I think is the method that NASA utilizes to make fake images.

General speaking all photos released by space agency's contain embedded information on how they were taken and with what using which processing software to produce the published piece. Also they almost always release the original unprocesed version as well. No deception at all.

"Almost always".  So you agree that NASA releases composites that we have no source for?  We don't know if the subject is in fact real?