If the earth is round.

Yes that will be my phone for you.

And what methods do space agency's use?

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 10:49:43 AM

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.

Do you realize that there are many countries that own and operate powerful telescopes, and there are also private institutions that do the same?  Are you claiming that ALL images of stars, planets and other outer space objects are ALL fakes?

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 10:27:42 AM

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?

I have never seen an example where they haven't but I wouldn't like to say for certain.

Yes that will be my phone for you.

And what methods do space agency's use?

How am I supposed to know. It is a conspiracy.

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 10:54:14 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 10:49:43 AM

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.

Do you realize that there are many countries that own and operate powerful telescopes, and there are also private institutions that do the same?  Are you claiming that ALL images of stars, planets and other outer space objects are ALL fakes?

No, I have not claimed that.

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 10:55:43 AM

Yes that will be my phone for you.

And what methods do space agency's use?

How am I supposed to know. It is a conspiracy.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on August 02, 2014, 10:58:28 AM

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 10:54:14 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 10:49:43 AM

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.

Do you realize that there are many countries that own and operate powerful telescopes, and there are also private institutions that do the same?  Are you claiming that ALL images of stars, planets and other outer space objects are ALL fakes?

No, I have not claimed that.

Ok, so if some photos of the horse head nebula are real and others are fake, how did you conclude that NASA's is fake?

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 10:55:43 AM

Yes that will be my phone for you.

And what methods do space agency's use?

How am I supposed to know. It is a conspiracy.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on August 02, 2014, 10:58:28 AM

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 10:54:14 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 10:49:43 AM

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.

Do you realize that there are many countries that own and operate powerful telescopes, and there are also private institutions that do the same?  Are you claiming that ALL images of stars, planets and other outer space objects are ALL fakes?

No, I have not claimed that.

Well you are the one claiming they are doctoring images, I would have thought you at least had a idea on how they are doing it.

So all you are saying really is that the images don't look right to you so they must be fake but you don't know how they are doing it? Am I right?

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 11:05:56 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 10:55:43 AM

Yes that will be my phone for you.

And what methods do space agency's use?

How am I supposed to know. It is a conspiracy.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on August 02, 2014, 10:58:28 AM

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 10:54:14 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 10:49:43 AM

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.

Do you realize that there are many countries that own and operate powerful telescopes, and there are also private institutions that do the same?  Are you claiming that ALL images of stars, planets and other outer space objects are ALL fakes?

No, I have not claimed that.

Well you are the one claiming they are doctoring images, I would have thought you at least had a idea on how they are doing it.

So all you are saying really is that the images don't look right to you so they must be fake but you don't know how they are doing it? Am I right?

I did tell you how they are doing it.

It's not simply about images not looking right. I agree with that and I am glad you do too, but it is already a given that the earth is flat, so an image of earth looking round is obviously a fake. This is why I posted the image of a unicorn earlier. It is obvious they are fake because I already know that unicorns don't exist. So we immediately make the conclusion that it is not a real unicorn. This is how I feel when I see these pictures.

Your only proof the pictures are fake is that we know the earth is flat so pictures of a round earth are fake? Sound like you are starting with a belief and trying to make the evidence fit it. A very unscientific method.

Your only proof the pictures are fake is that we know the earth is flat so pictures of a round earth are fake? Sound like you are starting with a belief and trying to make the evidence fit it. A very unscientific method.

I start with a belief? I wasn't born believing the earth is flat. I empirically discovered it to be so. It's been settled and it should be for you too. If anyone is trying to make "evidence fit", wouldn't that be you? You say these pictures of a round earth are real even though it flies against your most innate observations.

Oh my apologies I must have missed the Nobel prize winning discovery proving the earth to be flat. You believing the photos are fake still does not constitute evidence.  Perhaps you should try to come up with some.

Oh my apologies I must have missed the Nobel prize winning discovery proving the earth to be flat. You believing the photos are fake still does not constitute evidence.  Perhaps you should try to come up with some.

Do we need a nobel prize to discover obvious things? Did someone receive a nobel prize when it was discovered that we can't breathe water?

"Here sir, have your nobel prize for discovering that we need air to breathe. We were all drowning in lakes til you came along."

Still waiting for some evidence.  Might be a while.

Flatulence sounds like septic. ID check maybe.

Lol I was just thinking that. But then again so do most FErs do on this site to some d agree.

Still waiting for some evidence.  Might be a while.

Your criteria for what you think of the earths shape should be along the lines of "if it walks like a duck..."

Claiming it is anything other than what it most obviously is is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Wish full thinking backed up by untold amounts of evidence and observations

Wish full thinking backed up by untold amounts of evidence and observations

Evidence and observation are only as valuable as their interpretations.  Scientists themselves will tell you that they have no license to the truth, so why sit there and profess that you have all the answers?  Why not participate in the continuing investigation in to the nature of the universe?

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 11:37:39 AM

Still waiting for some evidence.  Might be a while.

Your criteria for what you think of the earths shape should be along the lines of "if it walks like a duck..."

Claiming it is anything other than what it most obviously is is nothing more than wishful thinking.

So we should assume that whatever the eyes and ears of the common man tell him are true must be true?  Can you see protons and electrons? If not, then I guess you have decided that they don't exist, right? 

Well perhaps you could describe some of your investigations in to the nature of the universe? We can all try and replicate your results and see how accurate your predictions are. Sound like a plan?

Well perhaps you could describe some of your investigations in to the nature of the universe? We can all try and replicate your results and see how accurate your predictions are. Sound like a plan?

Ok, how about this: whenever astronomers announce that there will be a solar or lunar eclipse on a certain date, starting at a certain time, and lasting a certain number of minutes, guess what happens?  The eclipse starts at the predicted date and time and lasts the predicted duration.  And all of the calculations of these dates and times are based on round-earth theory.  And anyone can look out their window to verify the prediction.

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 11:47:31 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 11:37:39 AM

Still waiting for some evidence.  Might be a while.

Your criteria for what you think of the earths shape should be along the lines of "if it walks like a duck..."

Claiming it is anything other than what it most obviously is is nothing more than wishful thinking.

So we should assume that whatever the eyes and ears of the common man tell him are true must be true?  Can you see protons and electrons? If not, then I guess you have decided that they don't exist, right?

How does the discovery of electrons and protons follow from that? Those are discoveries from empirical evidence just like the earth being flat is a discovery from empirical evidence. How does that do anything but support what I'm saying and dismantle your new age claim that the earth is round?

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 12:41:14 PM

Well perhaps you could describe some of your investigations in to the nature of the universe? We can all try and replicate your results and see how accurate your predictions are. Sound like a plan?

Ok, how about this: whenever astronomers announce that there will be a solar or lunar eclipse on a certain date, starting at a certain time, and lasting a certain number of minutes, guess what happens?  The eclipse starts at the predicted date and time and lasts the predicted duration.  And all of the calculations of these dates and times are based on round-earth theory.  And anyone can look out their window to verify the prediction.

I can't see a question in there. Just a statement

Quote from: Pythagoras on August 02, 2014, 12:41:14 PM

Well perhaps you could describe some of your investigations in to the nature of the universe? We can all try and replicate your results and see how accurate your predictions are. Sound like a plan?

Ok, how about this: whenever astronomers announce that there will be a solar or lunar eclipse on a certain date, starting at a certain time, and lasting a certain number of minutes, guess what happens?  The eclipse starts at the predicted date and time and lasts the predicted duration.  And all of the calculations of these dates and times are based on round-earth theory.  And anyone can look out their window to verify the prediction.

The bus comes by the corner of my block everyday at 8am except for Sundays. What is wrong with me continuing to assume that it will do this?

I'm really not sure what your getting at. What's your local bus timetable got to do with the sun and the moon?

I'm really not sure what your getting at. What's your local bus timetable got to do with the sun and the moon?

Is it really that hard to understand?

Well your the one having trouble trying to understand why your local bus company does not come on a Sunday.  Ring them up and ask. I'm talking about the moon and sun.

The point is that RE theory predicts eclipses perfectly every time.  FE theory cannot predict eclipses, can it?

The point is that RE theory predicts eclipses perfectly every time.  FE theory cannot predict eclipses, can it?

And who makes these predictions?

Any body who can do the math.

This one is too flat for 30 odd posts.