circumpolar stars

Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.

Looks like a fish eye lens to me.  Or, are you saying this is a picture of a globe as well?

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 07:31:06 PM

http://i.imgur.com/QMFYJ4F.jpg
Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.

Looks like a fish eye lens to me.  Or, are you saying this is a picture of a globe as well?

http://psd.fanextra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fishy46.jpg

There are no remnants of a fish eye lens in the photograph. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Here:

Perhaps you think this picture is real as well?

Perhaps you think this picture is real as well?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Tatooine.jpg

Perfect rebuttal, you fell right into my trap.

I've decided to entertain BiJane's massive strawman argument for laughs.
May I present.... Digit, my cat. He is angry that I made him do this, as you can tell.


Satisfied now, BiJane? If you think it's shopped, please show proof of it being shopped.   

Perhaps you think this picture is real as well?

What does a cat have to do with Tatooine? 

What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?

Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2015, 09:10:34 PM

What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?

Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?

No, just like I would not convict someone of murder due to the eyewitness report of an individual.  You are really bad at this debate thing, aren't you? 

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 09:14:16 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2015, 09:10:34 PM

What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?

Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?

No, just like I would not convict someone of murder due to the eyewitness report of an individual.  You are really bad at this debate thing, aren't you?

Good, then this does not pertain to you. Vauxhall agrees that photographs can be used as evidence. You are really bad at this reading comprehension thing, aren't you?

What a perfect example from a mod.

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2015, 09:16:16 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 09:14:16 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2015, 09:10:34 PM

What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?

Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?

No, just like I would not convict someone of murder due to the eyewitness report of an individual.  You are really bad at this debate thing, aren't you?

Good, then this does not pertain to you. Vauxhall agrees that photographs can be used as evidence. You are really bad at this reading comprehension thing, aren't you?

What a perfect example from a mod.

If you only want to address one person, then use the PM function.  This is a public forum, after all. 

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 09:17:43 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2015, 09:16:16 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 09:14:16 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2015, 09:10:34 PM

What does a cat have to do with Tatooine?

Would you say that photographic evidence is evidence?

No, just like I would not convict someone of murder due to the eyewitness report of an individual.  You are really bad at this debate thing, aren't you?

Good, then this does not pertain to you. Vauxhall agrees that photographs can be used as evidence. You are really bad at this reading comprehension thing, aren't you?

What a perfect example from a mod.

If you only want to address one person, then use the PM function.  This is a public forum, after all.

If you want to be a good mod, then don't use personal attacks. That is a rule you (rarely) enforce, after all.

Besides, whether or not I was addressing one person is completely irrelevant. Vauxhall presented an argument, and I was addressing it. If you don't agree with the warrant of that argument (that being that photographs can be used as evidence), that doesn't mean I have to privately message him, that just means you don't have to agree.

Thanks for more insight into the level of competence of the mods.

EDIT: Dawww, who's the bad debater now?

Stars are planes? even a few of them? lets build on that for a second. 
Say they are in low earth orbit. no, that wouldn't work, they would be moving too fast
anything below 15k feet and you can hear them.... especially at night, when its quieter..... still too fast
Hmm, so cruising altitude is too slow, and low is too loud....
and planes move rather quickly across the night sky compared to the stars.....

Ballons..... not enough mass to accurately track the path in the presence of the higher altitude winds.
flying spaghetti monster!!!!!! we are onto something here...... kidding kidding.

however, wouldn't that drastically change their position if relative to two observers or any person who enjoys astronomy enough to look at the stars once a week with just your eyes? Someone just 500 miles away would be seeing the same constellation at a vastly different angle, changing not only their appearance but distance between them.

edit: typo

Jet Fission. I know you think you're being clever right now, but you're really just being wrong. Photographic evidence from space is still absolutely bogus. It's completely different.

My example was not intended to be the basis of even more strawman aruguements. Please do not fall into the BiJane loop.

And you're seriously making a grave error if you think I am the cornerstone on which all other flat earthers base their opinions. I am not that smart and I dont want all that responsibility. So please treat other FE'ers like individuals from now on. You are extremely offensive.

Jet Fission. I know you think you're being clever right now, but you're really just being wrong. Photographic evidence from space is still absolutely bogus. It's completely different.

My example was not intended to be the basis of even more strawman aruguements. Please do not fall into the BiJane loop.

And you're seriously making a grave error if you think I am the cornerstone on which all other flat earthers base their opinions. I am not that smart and I dont want all that responsibility. So please treat other FE'ers like individuals from now on. You are extremely offensive.

You're the one making a claim it's not a hallucination.
Please provide proof Jet Fission's photos are fakes, if you hold that they are. if you do not, then I may happily reject your photos of your so-called cat for exactly the same reasons that you fail to supply.
It's not actually that different. After all, I don't think you have a cat, so any photos showing otherwise must be faked. I mean, you even have a motive to do the faking: you're trying to score points in an argument, and regain credibility.

You challenged me to produce evidence of my cat. I've done that and now you're... doing what exactly? Prove that an unrelated photo is faked? I dont understand. Please try to keep your requests on topic.

Almost all photos from space have the same errors in some of the pixels. There is demonstratable proof. Please point out these proofs in my picture of Digit. I have never used the hallucination card in any arguement, so I don't understand how you think that was my contention to begin with. What is it with RE'ers and false premises?

Perhaps you think this picture is real as well?

Why should it not be real?

You challenged me to produce evidence of my cat. I've done that and now you're... doing what exactly? Prove that an unrelated photo is faked? I dont understand. Please try to keep your requests on topic.

Almost all photos from space have the same errors in some of the pixels. There is demonstratable proof. Please point out these proofs in my picture of Digit. I have never used the hallucination card in any arguement, so I don't understand how you think that was my contention to begin with. What is it with RE'ers and false premises?

You seem to misunderstand how arguments works.

Please point out those proofs in the photos provided to you. If you cannot do that, and still reject them as fake, then it stands to reason I should be allowed to do the same, and reject your photo as fake.
It doesn't matter how the topic came up. 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?

Would anyone like to return to the OP and address the issue of stars rotating around two points? Or would jroa like to post more screenshots from Star Wars that prove nothing?

Would anyone like to return to the OP and address the issue of stars rotating around two points? Or would jroa like to post more screenshots from Star Wars that prove nothing?

I wouldn't get your hopes up, the only response so far comes worryingly close to "That's no star, it's a space station!"
Well, airplane, but still.

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 07:31:06 PM

Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.

Looks like a fish eye lens to me. 

Nope jroa... you weren't asked what it "looks like" to you:  You were asked for evidence that it was faked.  A dolphin "looks like" a fish, but it isn't.  Something that just looks like something else can't be classified as evidence.

Your comment also further indicates that you just don't understand how a camera's lenses work.  There is zero curvilinear distortion in the earth image, but the second image is almost totally distorted—apart from along its major optical axes.  Any competent photographer will tell you that the image of the planet could/can be taken with a long focal length lens, and the second has been taken with a lens of a far, far shorter focal length.  Possibly in the order of 8mm.


The black area surrounding this image is not the equivalent of the black sky in the earth image—which is an actual part of the image.



The black on this image defines the "image circle" on the camera's sensor, and is not a part of the image as such;  it's just where no light has fallen on the sensor.  Totally different thing to the earth image.  Sorry.





EDIT:  I'm getting really, really sick of repeatedly fixing the [img] coding on this site!

BiJane, you have forgotten how arguments work. If you have a problem with my picture of Digit, please present your points. You asked for evidence. You're now saying that evidence is not sufficient. Please explain why.

What is your deal with bringing up off-topic demands? Thats not how an argument works. Thats why this series of straw man arguments from you is called the BiJane loop. You're like a first grader in debate class.

BiJane, you have forgotten how arguments work. If you have a problem with my picture of Digit, please present your points. You asked for evidence. You're now saying that evidence is not sufficient. Please explain why.

What is your deal with bringing up off-topic demands? Thats not how an argument works. Thats why this series of straw man arguments from you is called the BiJane loop. You're like a first grader in debate class.

Have you forgotten why the subject was brought up?
It was your insistence that there be direct evidence, such that there can be no other explanation, for gravity. My intent is to show your definition is meaningless. My illustration was that there is always an alternate explanation. The only reason there's a loop is because you refuse to acknowledge what I'm writing.
Evading something by referring to it as off topic, when it is clearly relevant to the matter of credibility at hand, is transparent, and futile.

Quote from: jroa on February 21, 2015, 08:53:54 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on February 21, 2015, 07:31:06 PM

Prove this photograph was shopped or is fake.

Looks like a fish eye lens to me. 

Nope jroa... you weren't asked what it "looks like" to you:  You were asked for evidence that it was faked.  A dolphin "looks like" a fish, but it isn't.  Something that just looks like something else can't be classified as evidence.

Your comment also further indicates that you just don't understand how a camera's lenses work.  There is zero curvilinear distortion in the earth image, but the second image is almost totally distorted—apart from along its major optical axes.  Any competent photographer will tell you that the image of the planet could/can be taken with a long focal length lens, and the second has been taken with a lens of a far, far shorter focal length.  Possibly in the order of 8mm.


The black area surrounding this image is not the equivalent of the black sky in the earth image—which is an actual part of the image.

The black on this image defines the "image circle" on the camera's sensor, and is not a part of the image as such;  it's just where no light has fallen on the sensor.  Totally different thing to the earth image.  Sorry.

How would you know what the original scene looked like in order to determine that there is no distortion in the photo?  Sounds like you are just making things up again and trying to pass it off as facts. 

BiJane, please try to stay on topic. I will not respond to you if you continue to move the goal post.

BiJane, please try to stay on topic. I will not respond to you if you continue to move the goal post.

Vauxhall, please try to stay on topic. I will not respond to you if you continue to evade.

BiJane, you have forgotten how arguments work. If you have a problem with my picture of Digit, please present your points. You asked for evidence. You're now saying that evidence is not sufficient. Please explain why.

What is your deal with bringing up off-topic demands? Thats not how an argument works. Thats why this series of straw man arguments from you is called the BiJane loop. You're like a first grader in debate class.

It looks like you're having a bit of trouble with comprehension.

Since the beginning, BiJane has been trying to make a point about your standards of evidence by mocking you. We are claiming that your standards of evidence are ridiculous, and we are proving it by flipping the scenario onto you. You claim that you have a cat? Okay, prove it. You take a picture? Nope, that's fake.

You used a picture of your cat to prove its existence. This means that you agree that photographs can be used as evidence. Therefore, the Earth is round unless you prove that photographs and videos of a clearly round Earth are shopped in any way, as you said. Do you honestly think we'd be seriously arguing about the existence of your cat without a purpose?

How would you know what the original scene looked like in order to determine that there is no distortion in the photo?

Are you now claiming that the earth image shows distortions?  Can you please indicate exactly where those alleged distortions are occurring?  I'm unable to see any.  Unless you have any contradictory evidence, I'm prepared to accept the NASA image as legitimate.

Sounds like you are just making things up again and trying to pass it off as facts.

Sound like?  What does that mean exactly?  Are you accusing me of "making things up" or not?  Do you have any viable evidence to support this claim? 

And if you disagree with the "facts" I've posted about lenses and image distortion, then by all means post your own interpretations of the facts.  I've been in the photography game a long time, so your facts better be pretty convincing jroa.

Bring 'em on!

Quote from: jroa on February 22, 2015, 12:26:21 PM

How would you know what the original scene looked like in order to determine that there is no distortion in the photo?

Are you now claiming that the earth image shows distortions?  Can you please indicate exactly where those alleged distortions are occurring?  I'm unable to see any.  Unless you have any contradictory evidence, I'm prepared to accept the NASA image as legitimate.

Quote

Sounds like you are just making things up again and trying to pass it off as facts.

Sound like?  What does that mean exactly?  Are you accusing me of "making things up" or not?  Do you have any viable evidence to support this claim? 

And if you disagree with the "facts" I've posted about lenses and image distortion, then by all means post your own interpretations of the facts.  I've been in the photography game a long time, so your facts better be pretty convincing jroa.

Bring 'em on!

What I am accusing you of is saying, "I don't see any distortion so it must be true."  Even though you do not have a reference to tell that the picture is not distorted.  I know this probably goes over your head, but, please, try to keep up. 

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 22, 2015, 12:21:56 PM

BiJane, you have forgotten how arguments work. If you have a problem with my picture of Digit, please present your points. You asked for evidence. You're now saying that evidence is not sufficient. Please explain why.

What is your deal with bringing up off-topic demands? Thats not how an argument works. Thats why this series of straw man arguments from you is called the BiJane loop. You're like a first grader in debate class.

It looks like you're having a bit of trouble with comprehension.

Since the beginning, BiJane has been trying to make a point about your standards of evidence by mocking you. We are claiming that your standards of evidence are ridiculous, and we are proving it by flipping the scenario onto you. You claim that you have a cat? Okay, prove it. You take a picture? Nope, that's fake.

You used a picture of your cat to prove its existence. This means that you agree that photographs can be used as evidence. Therefore, the Earth is round unless you prove that photographs and videos of a clearly round Earth are shopped in any way, as you said. Do you honestly think we'd be seriously arguing about the existence of your cat without a purpose?

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.

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.

How do you define proof? Must it be based on yet more badly defined 'direct evidence,' which is the very thing under question? Or could it simply be examples of problems, which is all you have to offer on the photos of the Earth (prove me wrong), and which I have given should you choose to scroll up.

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

They've clearly read it more than you.

I still see nothing about my cat in your post. I'm skipping over all your off-topic points until you address Digit properly.