Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS

Quote from: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:17:17 PM

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?

What of it? I do not trust the source.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 04, 2015, 02:38:01 PM

Quote from: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:17:17 PM

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?

What of it? I do not trust the source.

OK can I ask why you don't trust the source?  Other than your belief that space travel is impossible or that NASA is lying.

Quote from: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:53:24 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 04, 2015, 02:38:01 PM

Quote from: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:17:17 PM

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?

What of it? I do not trust the source.

OK can I ask why you don't trust the source?  Other than your belief that space travel is impossible or that NASA is lying.

Thats the question isnt it? Why doesn't he trust NASA. It has to be because he personally doesn't believe they can do what they do, because there is no widespread verification that NASA is a lying entity. The vast majority of the worlds experts all look at what NASA does and say, "yep, they did that"

So isn't he arguing from the most pretentious of authority positions?

Quote from: ausGeoff on April 04, 2015, 05:19:32 AM

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?

Uh, maybe because it's zoomed in? Are you seriously asking this or...

Here it is (screenshot grab complete with my pointer

LOL... now you're really grasping at straws legion.  Often massive cloud fronts can give the appearance of virtually straight lines, but the point to note with this particular image is that the limb of the earth is showing a definite negative curvature—as you'd expect from that altitude.

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

http://imgur.com/HPorpLP

Actually, if you draw a line from one end to the other, there is still a little bit of curvature.

Damn. Legion is on a roll.

Using a fallacy improperly
Hypocrisy
Calling photos from a reliable source "fake" (pssst, burden of proof is on you to discredit photos from a reliable source)
Not recognizing arc length is directly proportional to perceived curvature
Typical nutjob distrust of NASA, the super-duper-bad-guy-lying-omniscient organization.

Keep it up. This is gold.

Yes, this is legion's darkest hour. It's like one who buries himself in lies. There is so much nonsense coming from his fingers that he can no longer keep it straight.

Quote from: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:17:17 PM

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?

I could be going out on a limb here, but I would go so far as to sat that the earth's curvature (or lack thereof) isn't really relevant part of those pictures.  I'd contend that the relevant part is the rather large hurricane that could not have been reasonably photographed from anything lower than low earth orbit.

Quote from: legion on April 04, 2015, 02:28:03 PM

Here it is (screenshot grab complete with my pointer

LOL... now you're really grasping at straws legion.  Often massive cloud fronts can give the appearance of virtually straight lines, but the point to note with this particular image is that the limb of the earth is showing a definite negative curvature—as you'd expect from that altitude.

Can you explain the bolded section.

geoffrey, after you've completed my last request, can you post the original link where you found those photos images. That animated gif is a bit embarrassing. Even for you.

Thanks.

Damn. Legion is on a roll.

1. Using a fallacy improperly
2. Hypocrisy
3. Calling photos from a reliable source "fake" (pssst, burden of proof is on you to discredit photos from a reliable source)
4. Not recognizing arc length is directly proportional to perceived curvature
5. Typical nutjob distrust of NASA, the super-duper-bad-guy-lying-omniscient organization.

6. Keep it up. This is gold.

1. I suppose I could be persuaded to change the fallacy to appeal to false authority.
2. Hypocrisy? Me?
3. When did I say the photos were fake? Putting words in my mouth, bub?
4. From the animated gif you people seem happy to accept as proof...?
5. Ad hominem.

6. You need to try harder. Then, it may be gold.

No wonder I don't see you post often. You are pretty bad at this.

Which are fake photos? The first? The second? Both...?





Edit: Links got messed up. See below

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568294/Summer-storm-weather-warning-super-typhoon-Maysak-violent-ripple-effect

https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/583235655842562048/photo/1

Which are fake photos? The first? The second? Both...?





Edit: Links got messed up. See below

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568294/Summer-storm-weather-warning-super-typhoon-Maysak-violent-ripple-effect

https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/583235655842562048/photo/1

Good for you.

Quote from: Dog on April 07, 2015, 04:07:47 PM

Damn. Legion is on a roll.

1. Using a fallacy improperly
2. Hypocrisy
3. Calling photos from a reliable source "fake" (pssst, burden of proof is on you to discredit photos from a reliable source)
4. Not recognizing arc length is directly proportional to perceived curvature
5. Typical nutjob distrust of NASA, the super-duper-bad-guy-lying-omniscient organization.

6. Keep it up. This is gold.

1. I suppose I could be persuaded to change the fallacy to appeal to false authority.
2. Hypocrisy? Me?
3. When did I say the photos were fake? Putting words in my mouth, bub?
4. From the animated gif you people seem happy to accept as proof...?
5. Ad hominem.

6. You need to try harder. Then, it may be gold.

No wonder I don't see you post often. You are pretty bad at this.

1. You still don't know what an appeal to authority is.
2. Yes you.
3. You still think if you don't say something it can't be inferred. How cute. Why don't you just tell us what you think?
4. Is incredulity really your only rebuttal? Stretch yourself.
5. Yup. (This is what admitting you are wrong is like. You should try it.)

Quote from: legion on April 09, 2015, 12:52:37 PM

Quote from: Dog on April 07, 2015, 04:07:47 PM

Damn. Legion is on a roll.

1. Using a fallacy improperly
2. Hypocrisy
3. Calling photos from a reliable source "fake" (pssst, burden of proof is on you to discredit photos from a reliable source)
4. Not recognizing arc length is directly proportional to perceived curvature
5. Typical nutjob distrust of NASA, the super-duper-bad-guy-lying-omniscient organization.

6. Keep it up. This is gold.

1. I suppose I could be persuaded to change the fallacy to appeal to false authority.
2. Hypocrisy? Me?
3. When did I say the photos were fake? Putting words in my mouth, bub?
4. From the animated gif you people seem happy to accept as proof...?
5. Ad hominem.

6. You need to try harder. Then, it may be gold.

No wonder I don't see you post often. You are pretty bad at this.

1. You still don't know what an appeal to authority is.
2. Yes you.
3. You still think if you don't say something it can't be inferred. How cute. Why don't you just tell us what you think?
4. Is incredulity really your only rebuttal? Stretch yourself.
5. Yup. (This is what admitting you are wrong is like. You should try it.)

1. Wrong. Demonstrate that posting a low res gif, from "an authority", to support an argument (unrelated to the subject matter of said gif) is not an appeal to authority. Re-read geoffreys original post to follow his "logic" (you clearly need to).
2. Reasoning?
3. Infer what you want. I don't accept the animated gif as anything other than a lame attempt from geoffrey to prove his case. It doesn't.
4. See above.
5. No idea what you are babbling about.

Disappointed in you, rama. I expect better.

That's all you get when I have 30 seconds to take a dump before putting my son to bed.

However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

The rebuttal of low resolution is feeble because the resolution in no way muddles the obvious sphericity of the Earth.

That's all you get when I have 30 seconds to take a dump before putting my son to bed.

However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

The rebuttal of low resolution is feeble because the resolution in no way muddles the obvious sphericity of the Earth.

Data point? Obvious sphericity? Taking a dump?

No further comments are needed.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 10, 2015, 04:47:44 PM

That's all you get when I have 30 seconds to take a dump before putting my son to bed.

However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

The rebuttal of low resolution is feeble because the resolution in no way muddles the obvious sphericity of the Earth.

Data point? Obvious sphericity? Taking a dump?

No further comments are needed.

You seem intent on never making a decent point so I suppose in this case you are right.

However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

It's well-known to most people on these forums that legion never lets any scientific evidence get in the way of his absurd notions about astrophysics or astronautics.  Or even photography for that matter LOL.

For some unknown reason, my topic seems to have really hit a raw nerve with the guy.  Seventeen responses?  Seriously?

Quote from: Rama Set on April 10, 2015, 04:47:44 PM

However, Ausgeoff never said the astronaut was an authority. You said that. He cited the photographer and gave its context. He even went out of his way to point out that this person was not part of the widely acknowledged authority on space travel. What renders your point even more irrelevant is that the claim is based on a clear data point not the knowledge or reputation of the photographer. If you wish to dispute the claim you must show why ithe photo does not support it.

It's well-known to most people on these forums that legion never lets any scientific evidence get in the way of his absurd notions about astrophysics or astronautics.  Or even photography for that matter LOL.

For some unknown reason, my topic seems to have really hit a raw nerve with the guy.  Seventeen responses?  Seriously?

Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?

Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?

Have you proved the gif is not sincere yet? No? Alright people will continue to dismiss you then.

Quote from: legion on April 13, 2015, 12:19:51 PM

Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?

Have you proved the gif is not sincere yet? No? Alright people will continue to dismiss you then.

Of course legion hasn't been able to provide any viable evidence that the GIFs (in my first post) are anything other than absolutely genuine.

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.  As per this non-response of his, he simply goes quiet and hopes nobody questions him further and asks for his "evidence".  He's the classic case of all talk and no action.

And which is why most people here dismiss his nonsensical claims.

Quote from: Dog on April 14, 2015, 02:38:07 PM

Quote from: legion on April 13, 2015, 12:19:51 PM

Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?

Have you proved the gif is not sincere yet? No? Alright people will continue to dismiss you then.

Of course legion hasn't been able to provide any viable evidence that the GIFs (in my first post) are anything other than absolutely genuine.

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.  As per this non-response of his, he simply goes quiet and hopes nobody questions him further and asks for his "evidence".  He's the classic case of all talk and no action.

And which is why most people here dismiss his nonsensical claims.

I don't need to disprove your 'evidence'. The fact that you write:

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.

shows your naivety, at best, or your stupidity, at worst. I'll let other readers decide which.

I think Legion is afraid to offer genuine criticism so instead resorts to a high school level understanding of epistemology. That is all his response delivered in the way of information.

Quote from: ausGeoff on May 12, 2015, 07:48:46 AM

Quote from: Dog on April 14, 2015, 02:38:07 PM

Quote from: legion on April 13, 2015, 12:19:51 PM

Scientifc evidence? Get real geoffrey. Where did you find that silly animated gif?

Have you proved the gif is not sincere yet? No? Alright people will continue to dismiss you then.

Of course legion hasn't been able to provide any viable evidence that the GIFs (in my first post) are anything other than absolutely genuine.

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.  As per this non-response of his, he simply goes quiet and hopes nobody questions him further and asks for his "evidence".  He's the classic case of all talk and no action.

And which is why most people here dismiss his nonsensical claims.

I don't need to disprove your 'evidence'. The fact that you write:

Quote

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.

shows your naivety, at best, or your stupidity, at worst. I'll let other readers decide which.

Another opportunity to come forward with evidence....... wasted. Not surprising.

I think Legion is afraid to offer genuine criticism so instead resorts to a high school level understanding of epistemology. That is all his response delivered in the way of information.

Oh dear, rama. Have you had a lobotomy? Or are you serious that the burden of proof falls on me to disprove some silly animated gifs? Are you also serious that geoffreys incredulity that I laugh at "even photographic images" is valid in our age of being able to fake anything using software?

Of course legion hasn't been able to provide any viable evidence that the GIFs (in my first post) are anything other than absolutely genuine.

He makes a habit of laughing at scientific evidence—even photographic images—without offering any proof whatsoever supporting his claims of fakery.

Rama Set said: 'That's all you get when I have 30 seconds to take a dump before putting my son to bed'.

Really?

Plus just WTF???

Think I'm getting an idea of who the sock-puppet master round here is.

Cos so many of you talking in the same, frankly very creepy, manner is highly unlikely.

Plus, just WTF??? Again.

Quote from: legion on April 09, 2015, 01:29:16 PM

Which are fake photos? The first? The second? Both...?





Edit: Links got messed up. See below

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568294/Summer-storm-weather-warning-super-typhoon-Maysak-violent-ripple-effect

https://twitter.com/AstroTerry/status/583235655842562048/photo/1

Good for you.

"Good for you" fails to answer my question. Which of the photos are fake? How can you tell?

Edit: Any other believer can chip in with their reasons why one photo is "genuine" and one is the result of manipulation.

It is very generous of you to allow anyone to chip in on a public forum.  Your photos are pretty.