circumpolar stars

  • 237 Replies
  • 25969 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #210 on: February 22, 2015, 12:56:58 PM »
I still see nothing about my cat in your post. I'm skipping over all your off-topic points until you address Digit properly.
I have already given you some flaws with your photo:
You have motive (proving me wrong) and opportunity (hours to find an obscure photo and photoshop). As it took you so long to send a photo, when it should have taken minutes at most, I can only conclude it took you that long to fake.
Besides, that paper isn't as ruffled as it should be, and the lights and shadows are all wrong. Darkness at the back, while the immediate area is all bright. And I don't see a reflection in the cat's eyes of you holding the camera. Actually, you seem to have shopped out the cat's eyes. Spotted the flaw, did you?
Do us the same courtesy and provide the floors you have with the photos from the Earth. If you object to what I have said, please provide direct evidence of your claims rather than mere assertion with many other explanations.

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #211 on: February 22, 2015, 12:59:46 PM »
No. You just moved the goal post. If you don't see how then please remove yourself from this thread.

BiJane asked for evidence of my cat's existence. I provided some evidence. If you can prove that my picture of Digit is faked, like BiJane seems to think, then I will respond to your points about photos of the Earth.

Next time read the thread before jumping in with your asinine interjections.


We didn't move shit. How about you go back and read?


You're right. But it doesn't prove beyond a doubt that gravity that is responsible. That's where you're fumbling.
Hence my point on your cat. As you did:  ::)
Any proof like you ask for, for gravity, is impossible. You can always come up with an alternative. Your job is still to show the alternative's more likely.

Quote
And BiJane, the invitation to come over to my home is always open. Digit will be waiting for you. I will have ID, my IP, and evidence that Vauxhall is my username when you come over. Until then, please drop the cat point. It is a strawman argument and it is very very bad form. It just makes you look desperate, like I've said.
It's not a straw man, it is exactly the point you're making. You can't prove your cat isn't being hallucinated by you, by me, by everyone: you can't prove you don't go on this forum at a friend's house... What kind of evidence are you going to bring up that you can unequivocally show is genuine and not hallucinated? You could give your friend a password easily: you could buy a cat (or what you think is a cat) for the express purpose of making a point. There is always going to be another explanation, no matter how ludicrous it is to hold. This is the point: this is your point. I'm simply showing it's not a good one. You seem to agree.

Please drop this whole cat point as well. It's making you look desperate. You're obviously fumbling here.
Sure: when you tell me how you are assured it isn't one great big hallucination or pretension. It's an illustration you've yet to acknowledge. You're saying that everything that's been given to you as proof of gravity isn't enough because it could be explained away by numerous other proposed concepts: but that's true of everything. Do you disagree, and if so, why?


So. You're claiming that photographs can be used as evidence. Therefore, the Earth is round, and this discussion is over. Unless of course, you have evidence that the photographs and video is false.
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #212 on: February 22, 2015, 01:19:25 PM »
What I am accusing you of is saying, "I don't see any distortion so it must be true."

Fair enough.  I've seen literally hundreds of similar images taken by a couple of other space agencies working in conjunction with NASA (The Australian Space Research Institute being one of them) and they all look remarkably similar when taken from the same or similar aspect—other than the varying cloud cover of course.  Can I ask you if you personally ever accept any photographic images—that you haven't personally taken—to be legitimate and/or not digitally manipulated?  Many flat earthers have posted third-party images in order to prove some particular point or other;  did you or do you accept those images as being legitimate for the purposes of their argument?  Or do you also harbour some doubts about the flat earthers' images as well?  Finally, could you please post one photographic image that you consider to be 100% legitimate and unmanipulated for me to have a look at?

Quote
Even though you do not have a reference to tell that the picture is not distorted.
 
Are you saying that in order to prove the authenticity of a particular photographic image, one must have another similar—but previously proved to be authentic—image to compare it with prior to deciding its authenticity one way or the other?  And if that's the case, then how do you explain a "photo-finish" image possibly worth tens of millions of dollars at a race track being accepted as authentic?  It'll only ever happen the once, and it's never happened before.  So no image comparison is possible.

Quote
I know this probably goes over your head, but, please, try to keep up.

Would you mind keeping these snide little asides to yourself jroa.  They do nothing to strengthen your argument, and just make you look petty.  Thanks.

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #213 on: February 22, 2015, 02:29:13 PM »
What I am accusing you of is saying, "I don't see any distortion so it must be true."

Fair enough.  I've seen literally hundreds of similar images taken by a couple of other space agencies working in conjunction with NASA (The Australian Space Research Institute being one of them) and they all look remarkably similar when taken from the same or similar aspect—other than the varying cloud cover of course.  Can I ask you if you personally ever accept any photographic images—that you haven't personally taken—to be legitimate and/or not digitally manipulated?  Many flat earthers have posted third-party images in order to prove some particular point or other;  did you or do you accept those images as being legitimate for the purposes of their argument?  Or do you also harbour some doubts about the flat earthers' images as well?  Finally, could you please post one photographic image that you consider to be 100% legitimate and unmanipulated for me to have a look at?


Let's start just saying "Fake. Photoshopped," every time jroa posts one of his mountain ranges disappearing into haze. See how he likes it to have a taste of his own arguments.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #214 on: February 22, 2015, 02:32:35 PM »
Let's start just saying "Fake. Photoshopped," every time jroa posts one of his mountain ranges disappearing into haze. See how he likes it to have a taste of his own arguments.

This is gonna be good.  What say you jroa?

    ;D

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #215 on: February 22, 2015, 06:04:08 PM »
He didn't like it.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #216 on: February 23, 2015, 10:55:37 AM »
He didn't like it.

Of course he didn't like it. If other people do exactly what he does, then he can't take action against them without proving his hypocrisy, so he has to suck it up, or else face accusations of being drunk with mod power.
Having said that, I'm expecting to be banned any moment for goading him. I'll get my alts ready to log in.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #217 on: February 24, 2015, 10:34:55 AM »
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, but obviously I haven't missed much.  ::)

You have motive (proving me wrong) and opportunity (hours to find an obscure photo and photoshop). As it took you so long to send a photo, when it should have taken minutes at most, I can only conclude it took you that long to fake.
Besides, that paper isn't as ruffled as it should be, and the lights and shadows are all wrong. Darkness at the back, while the immediate area is all bright. And I don't see a reflection in the cat's eyes of you holding the camera. Actually, you seem to have shopped out the cat's eyes. Spotted the flaw, did you?

Good theories, now please provide your evidence of these claims.


Do us the same courtesy and provide the floors you have with the photos from the Earth. If you object to what I have said, please provide direct evidence of your claims rather than mere assertion with many other explanations.

No. You provided no evidence for your claims of falsehood. It's great that you think it's faked, and it's great that you've told me what parts you think are fake. But you've provided no evidence, just opinions and suspicions (and no, your lack of photography experience does not count as evidence, sorry). Please provide some supporting evidence to back up these claims of falsehood, and remember: I said "within reason". Your reason is just a comical satire on normal FE'er responses. I thought you held yourself to a higher standard? Please stop wasting my time. Can you prove the picture is fake or not?  Please try to hold yourself to a higher standard when answering this question.

You are failing this social experiment miserably.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 10:43:02 AM by Vauxhall »
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #218 on: February 24, 2015, 10:55:27 AM »
Good theories, now please provide your evidence of these claims.
No. I'll do as you do. I'll provide evidence when you do.


Quote
No. You provided no evidence for your claims of falsehood. It's great that you think it's faked, and it's great that you've told me what parts you think are fake. But you've provided no evidence, just opinions and suspicions (and no, your lack of photography experience does not count as evidence, sorry).
Still more than you've supplied. I won't go any further until you do.

Quote
Please provide some supporting evidence to back up these claims of falsehood, and remember: I said "within reason". Your reason is just a comical satire on normal FE'er responses.
My reason is satire of yours and your unreachable standard of direct evidence. Have some of your own words:

Direct evidence could not be explained by a conspiracy. The fact that you do not have direct evidence is the reason why it's easy to dismiss your claims.
I propose that there is a conspiracy to make everyone believe you have a cat, with photoshopping, hallucinogens, and possibly a few robots. The fact I can explain away your evidence with this means you do not have direct evidence, by your own admission.

As for your within reason:
I would believe CongaKogo King of Apes from Mars holding up the Earth with his magical extending staff before gravity.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #219 on: February 24, 2015, 11:03:53 AM »
Are you confused? This is about my cat, BiJane. My cat. Can you prove the photo is faked?


And you haven't explained anything. You've made baseless claims. Good job.


I would believe CongaKogo King of Apes from Mars holding up the Earth with his magical extending staff before gravity.


Please continue to cherry pick my comical responses to your childish posts and cite them as my legitimate line of reasoning. Once again, you are being disingenuous. As always. I shouldn't be surprised.

Until you can provide solid proof that my photo of Digit has been altered or manipulated (not fan theory, do you know the difference?), I will not answer any of your questions.

Please stop changing the topic.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #220 on: February 24, 2015, 11:06:53 AM »

Until you can provide solid proof that my photo of Digit has been altered or manipulated (not fan theory, do you know the difference?), I will not answer any of your questions.


Please stop changing the topic. We are talking about your definition of direct evidence: which, by your own admission, cannot be explained away by a conspiracy. I have explained away your supposed evidence with a conspiracy: hence, it was not direct evidence.
Try and stay on topic Vauxy.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #221 on: February 24, 2015, 11:17:33 AM »
So we're not discussing my photo of Digit? Wth is going on here? I'm not the one changing the topic.

Ill skip the BiJane loop and get to the point. I heavily edited my photo of Digit. But you couldn't find one correct example of manipulation. The purpose of this experiment was to see if you could. The fact that you could not just goes to show that: photographic "evidence" is not reliable.

Thank you for your time.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #222 on: February 24, 2015, 11:22:16 AM »
So we're not discussing my photo of Digit? Wth is going on here? I'm not the one changing the topic.
We are and always were discussing your ridiculous concept of direct evidence. Digit was one example. Try to stay on topic Vauxhall.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #223 on: February 24, 2015, 11:24:37 AM »
So we're not discussing my photo of Digit? Wth is going on here? I'm not the one changing the topic.
We are and always were discussing your ridiculous concept of direct evidence. Digit was one example. Try to stay on topic Vauxhall.

I am on topic. Why do you insist on posting things that are pretty much spam?
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #224 on: February 24, 2015, 11:25:45 AM »
I am on topic. Why do you insist on posting things that are pretty much spam?
Asking you to stay on topic and respond to what's actually been said is spam? Well then.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #225 on: February 24, 2015, 11:26:42 AM »
I am on topic. Why do you insist on posting things that are pretty much spam?
Asking you to stay on topic and respond to what's actually been said is spam? Well then.

It is when I have been on topic this whole time? ???

Is this how you make yourself feel better for looking like an idiot?
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #226 on: February 24, 2015, 11:28:07 AM »
It is when I have been on topic this whole time? ???
Really?
Then please, point me to your answer of my explicit, on-topic question of how your photo of a cat qualifies as direct evidence when it could be explained by a conspiracy, which you have said direct evidence could not be?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #227 on: February 24, 2015, 11:31:45 AM »
It is when I have been on topic this whole time? ???
Really?
Then please, point me to your answer of my explicit, on-topic question of how your photo of a cat qualifies as direct evidence when it could be explained by a conspiracy, which you have said direct evidence could not be?

My photo of Digit does not qualify as direct evidence. That was the whole point of this discussion. I explained this two posts ago. You conveniently ignored this point...  ::)
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #228 on: February 24, 2015, 11:33:18 AM »
My photo of Digit does not qualify as direct evidence. That was the whole point of this discussion. I explained this two posts ago. You conveniently ignored this point...  ::)
Because it was irrelevant: I wasn't particularly interested in examining a photo. My interest, since the start, has been in pointing out how your definition of direct evidence is meaningless. try and stay on topic.
As Digit was your only example, and you've admitted you do not actually have direct evidence of it, may I take that as your agreement?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #229 on: February 24, 2015, 11:42:29 AM »
My photo of Digit does not qualify as direct evidence. That was the whole point of this discussion. I explained this two posts ago. You conveniently ignored this point...  ::)
Because it was irrelevant: I wasn't particularly interested in examining a photo. My interest, since the start, has been in pointing out how your definition of direct evidence is meaningless. try and stay on topic.
As Digit was your only example, and you've admitted you do not actually have direct evidence of it, may I take that as your agreement?

Is it true that you deem things irrelevant when you don't want to look like a moron?

I still have direct evidence of Digit, though. You are welcome to come to my home. I know you've rejected this offer in the past, but really if that's the only way to make you shut up about your pseudo-intellectual points then I am willing to make it happen. I will even pay for your travel. The fact here is: you could not tell the difference between a shopped cat and a real picture of a cat, so you are not at all qualified to even be discussing this. You cannot determine if a photograph is faked or genuine, that much is clear, so photographic evidence is always unsatisfactory. The fact that you "didn't want to examine" the photo just goes to show that you're making strawmen for the sake of post count and/or to look smarter than you actually are, and you are being disingenuous. Please do not bring up the "hallucination" or "conspiracy" points, because they are text-book strawman arguments. I have never mentioned anything about hallucinations or conspiracies, so please try to stay on topic with your next post.


If you knew anything about the zetetic method, or did any research at all before gracing this forum with your insufferable presence, then you would know what we consider to be direct evidence. The answer has been under your nose this whole time. Which is why with each post you are looking more and more desperate. You should really know the source material before you try to debate points. That's debating 101.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #230 on: February 24, 2015, 11:45:53 AM »
I still have direct evidence of Digit, though. You are welcome to come to my home. I know you've rejected this offer in the past, but really if that's the only way to make you shut up about your pseudo-intellectual points then I am willing to make it happen. I will even pay for your travel.
And a conspiracy could easily buy a new cat, find a new house, or drug me with hallucinogens or something to make me suggestible meaning my testimony was unreliable. So, by your definition, a conspiracy explains it, so it's not direct evidence.

Quote
The fact here is: you could not tell the difference between a shopped cat and a real picture of a cat, so you are not at all qualified to even be discussing this. You cannot determine if a photograpj is faked or genuine, that much is clear, so photographic evidence is always unsatisfactory. The fact that you "didn't want to examine" the photo just goes to show that you're making strawmen for the sake of post count and/or to look smarter than you actually are, and you are being disingenuous.
Given I didn't try, that we have only your word at the moment for the fakes, that there are people more qualified than me to examine photos, and there's a difference between making minor alterations and constructing an entire photo... you'd be amazed how little that says.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #231 on: February 24, 2015, 11:47:50 AM »
You done, BiJane?
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #232 on: February 24, 2015, 11:48:29 AM »
You done, BiJane?
Have you stopped being deliberately obtuse?

*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #233 on: February 25, 2015, 12:25:55 PM »
Dang it
I should have been visiting this thread more often, we went from circumpolar stars to cat pictures and a while lot of arguing.  Now I know what Im reading through at work tonight.
yep low content post here.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #234 on: February 25, 2015, 12:47:37 PM »
Dang it
I should have been visiting this thread more often, we went from circumpolar stars to cat pictures and a while lot of arguing.  Now I know what Im reading through at work tonight.
yep low content post here.

Can you find the discrepancies in my photo of Digit?
Read the FAQS.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #235 on: February 25, 2015, 12:52:20 PM »
So I express amusement at the fact of how far this thread strayed from the OP and what, you thought that was an attack on your argument?
I haven't even looked at your cat picture yet.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #236 on: February 25, 2015, 12:56:03 PM »
So I express amusement at the fact of how far this thread strayed from the OP and what, you thought that was an attack on your argument?
I haven't even looked at your cat picture yet.

I didn't assume you were attacking my argument. I was just asking a question?
Read the FAQS.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2833
Re: circumpolar stars
« Reply #237 on: February 25, 2015, 06:03:35 PM »
ok then since Ive now looked at the photo, I can't see any doctoring of it.  That doesn't mean this isn't, but I don't see anything other than some brown stuff behind the cats face on the blinds or wall, perhaps a little spray tool, or it could just be crud on the wall.  I personally never said photo evidence is proof.  Proof is a lot of evidence that can be tested and verified independently.