How you know ALL of the NASA photos are fake?

I mean really, you're saying that ALL of the photos (especially from the ISS) are CGI photos? How do you know that?

It's not that we claim with utmost certainty all of the photos are fake, but that we argue they ought not to be used as evidence because (1) photo manipulation is so easily achieved and (2) their content could've been distorted by certain natural phenomena and/or technological limitations in cameras.

It's not that we claim with utmost certainty all of the photos are fake, but that we argue they ought not to be used as evidence because (1) photo manipulation is so easily achieved and (2) their content could've been distorted by certain natural phenomena and/or technological limitations in cameras.

(1) photo manipulation is so easily achieved.         
It could, but for what reason?
(2) content could've been distorted by certain natural phenomena and/or technological limitations in cameras.
Would we not see the same distortions on any photography, even in ya mums favorite baby picture of you? Would anyone ever buy photos if every one has some distortion due to  natural phenomena and/or technological limitations?
Would that just mean that all cameras are clearly useless, all photos poor?

To be fair Jack, If something looks like dog shit, smells like dog shit, it usually will be dog shit. You could argue. "it could be cat shit", but you can't argue that there is no shit at all.

Pardon me and excuse the pun. 

(1) photo manipulation is so easily achieved.         
It could, but for what reason?

How would I know? I'm merely saying that that photo manipulation cannot be ruled out as a possibility calls into question the validity of the photos.

(2) content could've been distorted by certain natural phenomena and/or technological limitations in cameras.
Would we not see the same distortions on any photography, even in ya mums favorite baby picture of you? Would anyone ever buy photos if every one has some distortion due to  natural phenomena and/or technological limitations?
Would that just mean that all cameras are clearly useless, all photos poor?

Again, since the the content of the photos could've been distorted in a way that doesn't truly reflect reality, they should not be used to determine the shape of the Earth. Your questions are entirely irrelevant.

Let's put it simply. There should not be any need for CGI and rendering etc, when you supposedly have the technology to actually capture the real stuff like they supposedly have had for long enough.

The problem is, we keep getting cartoons, so why are people shocked that this stuff is getting questioned and pushed away as bullshit?

If they tell us they have a Tyrannosaurus Rex tied up in a zoo somewhere in a specially built forest but only every showed us cartoon effigies of it and never anything that remotely looks realistic, then you can expect it to be questioned. Not only that, you can't scream that it's real when you haven't seen anything other, more real than what anyone else has seen.
End result would be you harping on about it being real  for no other reason than you were told it's real. Ring any bells?

So now we know to regard as fakes all these Flat Earth photos that are presented to prove "there is no curvature, so the earth must be flat".  Thanks for that advice.

So now we know to regard as fakes all these Flat Earth photos that are presented to prove "there is no curvature, so the earth must be flat".  Thanks for that advice.

I don't recall a single instance where we claim that photos are all we need to determine the Earth's shape or "prove" Flat Earth Theory. The FAQ explains very clearly our stance on photographs.

No, what we know for sure is that the most damning visual evidence Against Flat Earth Fantasy is blatantly disregarded without investigation.
Damning evidence, treated as unworthy of consideration or respect, regardless of what the could be scientifically proven, given the resources available. 

No, what we know for sure is that the most damning visual evidence Against Flat Earth Fantasy is blatantly disregarded without investigation.
Damning evidence, treated as unworthy of consideration or respect, regardless of what the could be scientifically proven, given the resources available.

I think their argument is more founded upon the idea that as a refutation, photographic evidence doesn't count for much. And they're right, are you a FEer after looking at this?



Of course not, images can be faked, as that one clearly is. Most FEers probably claim they reject the evidence as unreliable because of something else that, in their mind, provides good evidence of FET. They 'know' the images are faked, because they 'know' the Earth is flat.

So, to answer the titular question Jack, what is it that makes you certain that the world is flat, so much so that you believe NASA has been faking countless images far in advance of what technology was actually capable of at the time of the first photos?

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 03, 2016, 08:11:00 AM

snip

snip


snip

The imaginative mind of Terry Pratchett, (Diskworld)

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 03, 2016, 08:11:00 AM

No, what we know for sure is that the most damning visual evidence Against Flat Earth Fantasy is blatantly disregarded without investigation.
Damning evidence, treated as unworthy of consideration or respect, regardless of what the could be scientifically proven, given the resources available.

I think their argument is more founded upon the idea that as a refutation, photographic evidence doesn't count for much. And they're right, are you a FEer after looking at this?



Of course not, images can be faked, as that one clearly is. Most FEers probably claim they reject the evidence as unreliable because of something else that, in their mind, provides good evidence of FET. They 'know' the images are faked, because they 'know' the Earth is flat.

So, to answer the titular question Jack, what is it that makes you certain that the world is flat, so much so that you believe NASA has been faking countless images far in advance of what technology was actually capable of at the time of the first photos?

Here is a very good picture of a flat earth

Quote from: BiJane on January 03, 2016, 10:17:21 AM

Quote from: getrealzommb on January 03, 2016, 08:11:00 AM

No, what we know for sure is that the most damning visual evidence Against Flat Earth Fantasy is blatantly disregarded without investigation.
Damning evidence, treated as unworthy of consideration or respect, regardless of what the could be scientifically proven, given the resources available.

I think their argument is more founded upon the idea that as a refutation, photographic evidence doesn't count for much. And they're right, are you a FEer after looking at this?



Of course not, images can be faked, as that one clearly is. Most FEers probably claim they reject the evidence as unreliable because of something else that, in their mind, provides good evidence of FET. They 'know' the images are faked, because they 'know' the Earth is flat.

So, to answer the titular question Jack, what is it that makes you certain that the world is flat, so much so that you believe NASA has been faking countless images far in advance of what technology was actually capable of at the time of the first photos?

Here is a very good picture of a flat earth

Whoops, that's a few zeroes too few on the width. Not fixing it though :|