Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS

Astronauts aboard the International Space Station have captured some fantastic and awe-inspiring shots of Super Typhoon Maysak and its cavernous eye.  The typhoon, now spinning in the far western Pacific Ocean with winds of 225km/h, is forecast to weaken and hit the Philippines over the weekend with winds of about 170km/h.  The curvature of the earth and its limb are clearly identified.




Samantha Cristoforetti MSME is a European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut of Italian nationality, and was trained specifically for the second long duration mission of the Italian Space Agency (ASI) on board the International Space Station.  She will be a Flight Engineer for Expeditions 42 and 43 between December 2014 and May 2015. The Soyuz TMA-15M carrying Cristoforetti and two other astronauts was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan.  (Note:  These two missions have no connection with NASA.)

Thank you for proving the FET.  You can obviously tell that this phenomenon is caused by aetheric whirlpools and the apparent curvature of the earth is caused by aetheric lensing.

Its all caused by fairies. Duh

Nonsense, this is clearly the P4 force in action. The hole is the centre of the earth's torus. TET proved.

If only they could have shown both sides of the earth to prove DET

it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.

Or the Earth is really big.

it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.

It's the usual argument from authority fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority:

The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct

geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

You forgot to quote this part.

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?

So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?

Really?

The sky is blue because I see it everyday, I have a picture.

I just argued from authority, am I wrong?

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?

Really?

The sky is blue because I see it everyday, I have a picture.

I just argued from authority, am I wrong?

You are not an authority, so, no, you are incorrect. That is not argument from authority.

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?

So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on April 03, 2015, 01:25:04 PM

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?

Really?

The sky is blue because I see it everyday, I have a picture.

I just argued from authority, am I wrong?

You are not an authority, so, no, you are incorrect. That is not argument from authority.

Oh, so if I were a specialist in the sky, suddenly my statement that the sky is blue would have been false?

Even you have to see how insipid that is.

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:32:08 PM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on April 03, 2015, 01:25:04 PM

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More "photos"?

Really?

The sky is blue because I see it everyday, I have a picture.

I just argued from authority, am I wrong?

You are not an authority, so, no, you are incorrect. That is not argument from authority.

Oh, so if I were a specialist in the sky, suddenly my statement that the sky is blue would have been false?

Even you have to see how insipid that is.

We can both verify the sky is blue under certain conditions. Authority is not needed. You need a better example.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:24:40 PM

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?

So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

And what you quoted is not what is being presented here.

The fallacy does not mention anything about supporting evidence.  Therefore, if someone presents supporting evidence, it is no longer an argument from authority.

The argument is NOT
-NASA is an authority on the shape of the world
-NASA says the world is round
-Therefore, the world is round

The argument presented here is
-Here is a photo of a typhoon
-You can see curvature in the photo
-Therefore the world is round

So what was your point of bringing up a logical fallacy that isn't in use here?

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:33:03 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:24:40 PM

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?

So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

And what you quoted is not what is being presented here.

The fallacy does not mention anything about supporting evidence.  Therefore, if someone presents supporting evidence, it is no longer an argument from authority.

The argument is NOT
-NASA is an authority on the shape of the world
-NASA says the world is round
-Therefore, the world is round

The argument presented here is
-Here is a photo of a typhoon
-You can see curvature in the photo
-Therefore the world is round

So what was your point of bringing up a logical fallacy that isn't in use here?

1. Here are some awesome photos showing the shape of the earth.
2. They were taken by a space agency (an authority).
3. Therefore, they prove the earth is curved.

I don't expect you to understand. My posts are not meant for you.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:46:09 PM

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:33:03 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:24:40 PM

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?

So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

And what you quoted is not what is being presented here.

The fallacy does not mention anything about supporting evidence.  Therefore, if someone presents supporting evidence, it is no longer an argument from authority.

The argument is NOT
-NASA is an authority on the shape of the world
-NASA says the world is round
-Therefore, the world is round

The argument presented here is
-Here is a photo of a typhoon
-You can see curvature in the photo
-Therefore the world is round

So what was your point of bringing up a logical fallacy that isn't in use here?

1. Here are some awesome photos showing the shape of the earth.
2. They were taken by a space agency (an authority).
3. Therefore, they prove the earth is curved.

I don't expect you to understand. My posts are not meant for you.

That is not what argument from authority is, and you know it.  As you said earlier,

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

Now you want to change it around to suit your needs. 
If you have a problem with the photo, then you need to show why it is not genuine.
Unless we are to take your authority on the subject.

Tapet says the photos are fake
Tapet is coming off as an expert on photo analysis
Therefore tapet is correct.

Seems that you are coming off as the one falling into the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Also, if your posts aren't intended for me, block me.  Otherwise I will respond to your posts as I see fit.

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 02:00:51 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:46:09 PM

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:33:03 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:24:40 PM

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 01:20:33 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 03, 2015, 01:11:42 PM

You forgot to quote this part.

Quote

s a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.

ALso, as far as I can tell, there is photographic evidence to support NASA's claims.  Since there is evidence, in my opinion, this is no longer an argument from authority.  Since we are not solely taking NASA's word that the earth is round.

So this argument is now

A is an authority on a subject.
A shows evidence of why they are correct.
A is most likely correct based on provided evidence.

Now if you would like to argue against the evidence that has been presented, then by all means go right ahead.  But don't just dismiss it without any counter evidence.  Show us why the picture doesn't represent what it shows.  Show us how it is fake.

Despite what wikipedia says, argument from authority is always a fallacy. Kindly elaborate on the bolded sentence. More photos?

So you can use wikipedia to support your argument about a logical fallacy that isn't even being used here, yet I can't use wikipedia to support my argument, mind you it is within the same page that you are using to support your argument, that your logical fallacy is not valid here.  Kind of hypocritical of you now isn't it?

And why would I need to show you more photos than what are presented here?  You are the one saying that there is something wrong with them so you have the burden of proof to support your claim that there is something wrong with the provided photos.

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

And what you quoted is not what is being presented here.

The fallacy does not mention anything about supporting evidence.  Therefore, if someone presents supporting evidence, it is no longer an argument from authority.

The argument is NOT
-NASA is an authority on the shape of the world
-NASA says the world is round
-Therefore, the world is round

The argument presented here is
-Here is a photo of a typhoon
-You can see curvature in the photo
-Therefore the world is round

So what was your point of bringing up a logical fallacy that isn't in use here?

1. Here are some awesome photos showing the shape of the earth.
2. They were taken by a space agency (an authority).
3. Therefore, they prove the earth is curved.

I don't expect you to understand. My posts are not meant for you.

That is not what argument from authority is, and you know it.  As you said earlier,

Quote

The fallacy is what I quoted. Nothing more.

Now you want to change it around to suit your needs. 
If you have a problem with the photo, then you need to show why it is not genuine.
Unless we are to take your authority on the subject.

Tapet says the photos are fake
Tapet is coming off as an expert on photo analysis
Therefore tapet is correct.

Seems that you are coming off as the one falling into the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

Also, if your posts aren't intended for me, block me.  Otherwise I will respond to your posts as I see fit.

1 and 2 are premises. 3 is the conclusion. The order of the premises is irrelevant.

I have no need to block you, or anyone else. I meant that my posts are for the more intelligent reader. Those who understand what evidence is, for example. Photos usually don't count. Unless they come from numerous, independent sources. Maybe.

Edit: To illustrate:

1. NASA took these photos I'm presenting.
2. In these photos, the earth is curved.
3. Therefore, we can be sure the earth is indeed, curved.

But there is evidence presented.  That means it is not any longer an argument from authority. 

Argument from authority, as you have so duly quoted, and you also asserted that there was nothing more to it than what you quoted would be as such.

NASA says the earth is round
NASA is an expert
Therefore the earth is round

Now since there is evidence presented, we are no longer taking their authority at face value.  We have evidence to discuss.
If you have an issue with the evidence, address that.  Show us why it is wrong. 
Otherwise we just have your authority on the subject to go by.

Also, you still have not shown us why all arguments from authority are logical fallacies when the page you yourself presented says that it is only a logical fallacy when misused.

I present you with this

An argument from authority (also appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam[2] and argumentum ab auctoritate), when correctly applied, can be a valid and sometimes essential part of an argument that requests judgement or input from a qualified or expert source

and

The appeal to authority is based around the following syllogism:
Premise 1 - Experts on a subject are usually correct.
Premise 2 - Experts on the subject have a consensus that P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is probably correct.
In its fallacious form, it could read:
Premise 1 - People with qualifications are usually correct.
Premise 2 - Those people say P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is definitely correct.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Since NASA is and authority on the subject, it is not fallacious at all to use their authority to form a valid argument. 
Now if the argument was
NASA says trees need sunlight to survive
NASA is an expert
Therefore trees need sunlight to survive
Is fallacious reasoning, even though the conclusion is correct because NASA is not an expert in the area of arbology.

Also picked this one up to

Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.  As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority

Both sites support my assertion that you are wrong in your assertion that all arguments from authority are fallacious. 

So now that we have gotten past your attempt to do a bunch of hand waving so you can just ignore the evidence presented, why don't you just get on with telling me what you believe is wrong with the pictures presented.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 03, 2015, 12:20:46 PM

it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.

It's the usual argument from authority fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority:

Quote

The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct

geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

Thanks for reminding me! I've got a thread of this nature in the bank.

it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.

LOL... I was wondering how long it'd take this whack-job to chime in with one of his silly denials and misrepresentations of what we're seeing with these images.  And I'm prone to thinking that "intelligent flat earther" is an oxymoron in the major leagues.

           

It's the usual argument from authority fallacy...

Quote

The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct

geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

Poor old legion doesn't even understand what an argument from authority actually is, and is confusing it with ipse dixit (he himself said it).

I personally never claimed myself as the authority in this scenario.  Put another way, the perpetrator of an ipse-dixitism makes an unfounded assertion and expects his word to be the final say.  I simply threw the pics and their source open for general discussion and/or people's interest.  And true to form—and just like his flat earth peers—legion gets so hot and bothered that he totally misses the point of my topic.

Sad really.

i don't know of any intelligent flat earther

Me neither.

There's now independanet terrestrial-based evidence supporting the veracity of the images I posted...

"At least four people have died after a super typhoon ripped through several small islands in the Federated States of Micronesia in the central and western Pacific.  Super Typhoon Maysak slammed into the outlying atolls of Fais and Ulithi in Yap state on Tuesday night, with sustained winds of around 250 kilometres per hour". 
ABC News Australia




I challenge any flat earther to deny the correlation between the ISS photographs and those taken on the ground in the path of Typhoon Maysak.



This is a satellite image (colour enhanced) of the typhoon with the Micronesian islands shown in red:



                                      [Image NOAA]

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 12:48:36 PM

It's the usual argument from authority fallacy...

Quote

The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct

geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

Poor old legion doesn't even understand what an argument from authority actually is, and is confusing it with ipse dixit (he himself said it).

I personally never claimed myself as the authority in this scenario.  Put another way, the perpetrator of an ipse-dixitism makes an unfounded assertion and expects his word to be the final say.  I simply threw the pics and their source open for general discussion and/or people's interest.  And true to form—and just like his flat earth peers—legion gets so hot and bothered that he totally misses the point of my topic.

Sad really.

Get real geoffrey. Of course you aren't an authority, in any scenario.

Why does one of the three images in the gif you posted show an apparently straight line for the edge of the earth?

Here it is (screenshot grab complete with my pointer  ):

Quote from: legion on April 03, 2015, 12:48:36 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 03, 2015, 12:20:46 PM

it's really amazing how much you rely on photos of such pathetically tiny amounts of curvature, as if you're not looking at the majority of the earth. i don't know of any intelligent flat earther who accepts the existence of the iss, so this thread is pointless already (photoshop exists) but even if it did such a tiny amount only lends credence to the bulge form of dual earth theory, and contradicts round earth theory.
can't have it both ways, people.

It's the usual argument from authority fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority:

Quote

The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:

    A is an authority on a particular topic
    A says something about that topic
    A is probably correct

geoffrey and flatorange often make threads like this. Maybe they have doubts and are sounding us out?

Thanks for reminding me! I've got a thread of this nature in the bank.

Get it posted. I love your topics.

Why does one of the three images in the gif you posted show an apparently straight line for the edge of the earth?

My guess is that the amount of the horizon that is shown in the picture is tiny and the curvature isn't as apparent.

But what of the curvature in the other pictures?