It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

a point by point demolition of the flat earth claims

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: totallackey

Nope, you are failing to understand the difference between composing an image and altering it. There is nothing there that says anything was altered. You are assuming composing an image means changing the reality of the content. Simply shouting that something altered does not mean that its content is not genuine or that you are correct.

Good old cathode ray tube TV' assembled their pictures from three different colours. Are all TV programmes imaginary?

Are the satellite strips in my 1970 book of NIMBUS images Photoshopped? How does the method of taking those strips square with the idea of a flat Earth?




All opinion.

You are assuming that composing an image does not mean changing its content.

Ever see The Bedroom ny Van Gogh? Three of those suckers hanging in the Art Institute in Chicago right now. The original, then two more painted from memory. All different upon closer inspection.

For the most part, composition in art and photography, by its very nature, implies alteration.




posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Just as a small example, and I hope this isn't dragging thread too far from its original premise. Here is one photograph from the introduction to one of the NIMBUS volumes I own. I took it just now. Notice the identifying mark showing the location of the image. Each image is date and time stamped.



Here's the tile corresponding to that identifier from the site I linked to:



Now, show me where anything has been added or taken away.

You can download any single day's images from the site I linked to and follow the imaging sequence. Please explain how that imaging sequence is possible in a flat earth scenario. Here they are in a single image, again from my book, with the area photographed above outlined:



Oh wait, I composed that image - it's instantly fake right?

How's that Chicago skyline image coming along? Why not just post the one you claim to have on your phone that you said illustrates your point?


I do not have access to all of the images you have presented and cannot tell you whether you faked it or not, whether you are showing what you want to show or not.

I took a thirty second video yesterday with my phone, along with eight pictures or so. Today, I am going back up there to the same spot. I will take some more photos to see if the skyline is visible. I want to capture the skyline in as many different conditions as possible.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: totallackey
All NASA images are either:

Photoshopped;
Composites; or,
Artist renditions.

Even the ones taken in the 60s and 70s using fim cameras?


Especially those. We just started to blow out Ray Harryhausen and Kubrick was especially happy to do it. How excited were you when you got your first model/bike/action figure, etc...I betcha you wore the # out of that thing, just like all humanity do with shiny new toys/tech.

That reply doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

Direct, unaltered scans of the Apollo photographic film are freely available on the Internet, including shots of the clearly round Earth. Cloud patterns in those shots match the cloud patterns captured by weather satellites orbiting Earth at that time, proving that those Apollo shots are genuine.


The fact my reply makes no sense to you does not invalidate the statements. Film and the special effects industry really started to come together during the late 60's and early 70's.

Nothing in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was too far different from what was presented to us on television for Apollo, in terms of any film or still shots.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

What, by your definition, then, constitutes an unaltered image?

Do you trust images your own camera creates?

How does the fact they could create some special effects and editing in the 60s and 70s automatically mean that all NASA footage and photos are fake? I'd like to hear your logic on this.

Do you not think that your arguments here are just rhetoric and weasel-wording in order to avoid admitting that you could be wrong?
edit on 26-3-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: totallackey

What, by your definition, then, constitutes an unaltered image?

Do you trust images your own camera creates?

How does the fact they could create some special effects and editing in the 60s and 70s automatically mean that all NASA footage and photos are fake? I'd like to hear your logic on this.

Do you not think that your arguments here are just rhetoric and weasel-wording in order to avoid admitting that you could be wrong?


Not at all. It does not automatically mean anything as I could be wrong. So could you. Right?

No...not you or anyone else agreeing with you...You are right, of course...



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: totallackey

What, by your definition, then, constitutes an unaltered image?

Do you trust images your own camera creates?

How does the fact they could create some special effects and editing in the 60s and 70s automatically mean that all NASA footage and photos are fake? I'd like to hear your logic on this.

Do you not think that your arguments here are just rhetoric and weasel-wording in order to avoid admitting that you could be wrong?


Not at all. It does not automatically mean anything as I could be wrong. So could you. Right?

No...not you or anyone else agreeing with you...You are right, of course...


The fact is, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows the Earth is not flat. I find it unfathomable why some FE believers come up with the most far-out, unlikely and impossible situations to explain how the earth could be flat when in reality the most simple explanation that easily, completely and absolutely explains observable fact, experimental analysis and common sense shows that all these things can simply be explained if the earth was (pretty much) spherical.

What possible reason could there be for a centuries old, world-wide "conspiracy" to hide a flat earth from the public? Really, what possible reason could there be?

I'm all for thinking outside the box, but there is being outside-the-box and being in another universe althgther...which FE most certainly is.

What has happened in your life to make you doubt, and see a world-wode conspiracy in this?

I just don't get it...
edit on 26-3-2016 by MasterAtArms because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MasterAtArms

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: totallackey

What, by your definition, then, constitutes an unaltered image?

Do you trust images your own camera creates?

How does the fact they could create some special effects and editing in the 60s and 70s automatically mean that all NASA footage and photos are fake? I'd like to hear your logic on this.

Do you not think that your arguments here are just rhetoric and weasel-wording in order to avoid admitting that you could be wrong?


Not at all. It does not automatically mean anything as I could be wrong. So could you. Right?

No...not you or anyone else agreeing with you...You are right, of course...


The fact is, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows the Earth is not flat.

Purely subjective conclusion of which I will not keep you from enjoying. It is a tremendous feeling to experience the peace of mind one gains upon reaching such a state. Congratulations and I sincerely mean that.

I find it unfathomable why some FE believers come up with the most far-out, unlikely and impossible situations to explain how the earth could be flat when in reality the most simple explanation that easily, completely and absolutely explains observable fact, experimental analysis and common sense shows that all these things can simply be explained if the earth was (pretty much) spherical.

Allow me to solve your dilemma. Keep believing what you want, while I reach my own conclusions via my own methods.


What possible reason could there be for a centuries old, world-wide "conspiracy" to hide a flat earth from the public? Really, what possible reason could there be?

I have no reason either and since I have made no statement of a conspiracy I fail to understand why you have introduced the word to this discussion.


I'm all for thinking outside the box, but there is being outside-the-box and being in another universe althgther...which FE most certainly is.

Contradictory and resorting to ad hom. Come on...


What has happened in your life to make you doubt, and see a world-wode conspiracy in this?

I just don't get it...


Maybe, just maybe, you should stick to proof reading and stick the psycho analysis or fake statements of concern in your bong and take a toke. Really, you resort to thinly disguised feeble derision and mockery.

Why not just admit you are relying on faith in other humans for your conclusions. There is nothing wrong with this sort of stance. Some people rely on faith in dead people. Some people are more comfortable with living people. Me? Neither suits me. Some things I just gotta see for myself.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey




Purely subjective conclusion of which I will not keep you from enjoying


How is my belief in 100% verifiable evidence subjective?




Keep believing what you want, while I reach my own conclusions via my own methods.


I'm not believing in what I "want" if you mean without rational thought and application of logic, I am believing what Is, to my satisfaction, verifiable conclusions that I and other people come to. That is no different to you believing whatever you want, even if it is heresay, nonsense or just plain bad information.




I have no reason either and since I have made no statement of a conspiracy I fail to understand why you have introduced the word to this discussion.


You don't need to mention "conspiracy" because your very belief in FE indicates that you believe that the "truth" is being hidden from people for some nefarious reason. That is the definition of a conspiracy.




Maybe, just maybe, you should stick to proof reading and stick the psycho analysis or fake statements of concern in your bong and take a toke. Really, you resort to thinly disguised feeble derision and mockery.


And you resort to statements such as that to try and make your point? I am sorry but the feeble ramblings of some no-name internet person who believes in such utter nonsense do not bother me one teeny tiny bit. I don't care one iota what you think of me or my beliefs. Insult away, I don't care. And I was actually asking you why you believe in this. But its OK, I don't think you really do believe it, deep down.




Why not just admit you are relying on faith in other humans for your conclusions. There is nothing wrong with this sort of stance. Some people rely on faith in dead people. Some people are more comfortable with living people. Me? Neither suits me. Some things I just gotta see for myself.


I don't need other people to tell me what to believe. Which is why I do not believe you. I believe what I see, what makes sense and what is verifiable. For example, I can walk to my local beach, and see the naval ships coming into port appear to rise from the horizon, superstructure first, and the reverse when the leave port. Its the same reason I cannot see the French coast from here in SW England, its too far away and essentialy "under" my horizon. Simplest explanation - we live on a giant sphere.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

a reply to: totallackey
Why not just admit you are relying on faith in other humans for your conclusions. There is nothing wrong with this sort of stance. Some people rely on faith in dead people. Some people are more comfortable with living people. Me? Neither suits me. Some things I just gotta see for myself.

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
I don't need other people to tell me what to believe. Which is why I do not believe you. I believe what I see, what makes sense and what is verifiable. For example, I can walk to my local beach, and see the naval ships coming into port appear to rise from the horizon, superstructure first, and the reverse when the leave port. Its the same reason I cannot see the French coast from here in SW England, its too far away and essentialy "under" my horizon. Simplest explanation - we live on a giant sphere.

It's the same with me. I don't need someone telling me the earth is a sphere, because I can see the results of that sphere with me own eyes.

I regular take trips to a location far north of where I live (about 15 degrees north), and when I'm north, Polaris is about 15 degrees higher in the sky than when I am farther south. A spherical Earth explains that observation quite well, and the idea of a spherical Earth is consistent with many other observations I have made.

What I'm told about the shape of the Earth is irrelevant. I can see the effects of a spherical Earth with my own eyes.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Don't bother with the arguments. We need flat earthers to remind us how utterly ridiculous things can become when you start to dismiss the vast majority of science without thought. They remind me that the very same narrow minded dismissive attitude can pervade any subject........yep the same attitude drives other beliefs on other subjects.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

You do have access to them, because I have just shown you the pictures I took on my phone this morning, and you have the link from where you can get the archived images.

You really think I have better things to do with my time than fake images that anyone can get from a book if they only go out and buy it, like I did, and prove me to be a liar? One of the reasons I buy these original volumes is to counter the claims of those who don't seem to realise that there was a world before digital.

I look forward to your photos. I won't be so discourteous as to accuse you of being a liar when you post them.

E2A: Just for fun,


edit on 26/3/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey




Purely subjective conclusion of which I will not keep you from enjoying


How is my belief in 100% verifiable evidence subjective?




Keep believing what you want, while I reach my own conclusions via my own methods.


I'm not believing in what I "want" if you mean without rational thought and application of logic, I am believing what Is, to my satisfaction, verifiable conclusions that I and other people come to. That is no different to you believing whatever you want, even if it is heresay, nonsense or just plain bad information.




I have no reason either and since I have made no statement of a conspiracy I fail to understand why you have introduced the word to this discussion.


You don't need to mention "conspiracy" because your very belief in FE indicates that you believe that the "truth" is being hidden from people for some nefarious reason. That is the definition of a conspiracy.




Maybe, just maybe, you should stick to proof reading and stick the psycho analysis or fake statements of concern in your bong and take a toke. Really, you resort to thinly disguised feeble derision and mockery.


And you resort to statements such as that to try and make your point? I am sorry but the feeble ramblings of some no-name internet person who believes in such utter nonsense do not bother me one teeny tiny bit. I don't care one iota what you think of me or my beliefs. Insult away, I don't care. And I was actually asking you why you believe in this. But its OK, I don't think you really do believe it, deep down.




Why not just admit you are relying on faith in other humans for your conclusions. There is nothing wrong with this sort of stance. Some people rely on faith in dead people. Some people are more comfortable with living people. Me? Neither suits me. Some things I just gotta see for myself.


I don't need other people to tell me what to believe. Which is why I do not believe you. I believe what I see, what makes sense and what is verifiable. For example, I can walk to my local beach, and see the naval ships coming into port appear to rise from the horizon, superstructure first, and the reverse when the leave port. Its the same reason I cannot see the French coast from here in SW England, its too far away and essentialy "under" my horizon. Simplest explanation - we live on a giant sphere.


Simplest explanation for nearly all of what you have written?

Faith in what someone else has told you.

i DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING YET! Hell, I am looking into what life actually is or is not. Pardon me if I go out and test the stuff out myself. You? Go relax. Pop a beer bottle. Chill.

PS: Perspective and the limitations of human eyesight are just as plausible for your ship on the horizon example. Next time, take a pair of binoculars. Better yet, take a camera, along with a telescopic lens. Take a photo regular and then take one with telescopic. Not that will even prove the issue. Just give you something to think about.

Have a nice day.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

a reply to: totallackey
Why not just admit you are relying on faith in other humans for your conclusions. There is nothing wrong with this sort of stance. Some people rely on faith in dead people. Some people are more comfortable with living people. Me? Neither suits me. Some things I just gotta see for myself.

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
I don't need other people to tell me what to believe. Which is why I do not believe you. I believe what I see, what makes sense and what is verifiable. For example, I can walk to my local beach, and see the naval ships coming into port appear to rise from the horizon, superstructure first, and the reverse when the leave port. Its the same reason I cannot see the French coast from here in SW England, its too far away and essentialy "under" my horizon. Simplest explanation - we live on a giant sphere.

It's the same with me. I don't need someone telling me the earth is a sphere, because I can see the results of that sphere with me own eyes.

I regular take trips to a location far north of where I live (about 15 degrees north), and when I'm north, Polaris is about 15 degrees higher in the sky than when I am farther south. A spherical Earth explains that observation quite well, and the idea of a spherical Earth is consistent with many other observations I have made.

What I'm told about the shape of the Earth is irrelevant. I can see the effects of a spherical Earth with my own eyes.



I call Bravo Sierrra on this...

In other words, you want us to believe you are going to present us the example of Polaris and tell us that you did all the math and subsequent proofs demonstrating your observations allows as its only solution a spherical Earth.

Okay, lay it out there. Come on...I double dare you.

edit on 26-3-2016 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey


I call Bravo Sierrra on this...


FFS man, this is not just common knowledge, it's easily verifiable by virtually anyone in the northern hemisphere that isn't FEtarded.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
Don't bother with the arguments. We need flat earthers to remind us how utterly ridiculous things can become when you start to dismiss the vast majority of science without thought. They remind me that the very same narrow minded dismissive attitude can pervade any subject........yep the same attitude drives other beliefs on other subjects.


HAHAHAHA!!! Who is narrow minded? Who wants to shut down argumentation and debate?

Please look at the first statement. Weak and feeble.

"...Lookin kinda dumb with a finger and thumb in the shape of an L on the forehead..."

Dismissed...they really allow this kind of low content posting on this site?

Go look in a mirror...



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: totallackey


I call Bravo Sierrra on this...


FFS man, this is not just common knowledge, it's easily verifiable by virtually anyone in the northern hemisphere that isn't FEtarded.


FFS man, no it is not. If it is, post us the math and the proof.
Simple.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: totallackey

You do have access to them, because I have just shown you the pictures I took on my phone this morning, and you have the link from where you can get the archived images.

You really think I have better things to do with my time than fake images that anyone can get from a book if they only go out and buy it, like I did, and prove me to be a liar? One of the reasons I buy these original volumes is to counter the claims of those who don't seem to realise that there was a world before digital.

I look forward to your photos. I won't be so discourteous as to accuse you of being a liar when you post them.

E2A: Just for fun,



Where did I label you a liar? You better pony up.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey
Post the math? What math? Do you need help finding north or counting the number of degrees at your latitude?

Do you even have any #ing idea what you're arguing about here?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: totallackey
Post the math? What math? Do you need help finding north or counting the number of degrees at your latitude?

Do you even have any #ing idea what you're arguing about here?



Yeah. I do. Do you?

If you did, you would not be questioning my asking for the math.

Hint: Triangulation
edit on 26-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey
What help do you need?




top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join