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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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...
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.
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...
Purely subjective conclusion of which I will not keep you from enjoying
Keep believing what you want, while I reach my own conclusions via my own methods.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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,
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?