-Removed-The burden of proof is on me.
Think before you type, please.
I've made a claim, which is no small insignificant claim.
My contention is (for the umpteenth time) EVERYTHING produced by NASA is altered or manipulated.
There doesn't exist a single picture of the earth which is not a composite or in some fashion or another manipulated.
Could you ask for an easier argument?
Can you believe your luck??
All that is required for you to "win" the contest is to provide ONE picture of the earth from NASA which is NOT CGI'ed, manipulated or in any other fashion, manipulated.
You won't because you can't; you can't because it doesn't exist.
-Removed-I cannot provide what does not exist.
The claim relative to NASA is all images are manipulated.
Your task, since you claim NASA does not lie, is (or should be) the easier of the two: provide one image which is not manipulated.
I have provided at least one example of an obviously fake image of the earth (with the moon thrown in as a bonus).
That image is fraudulent on several levels, including its contradiction to many of NASA's other depictions of both the earth and the moon.
You are too lazy to even offer a counter claim, instead weakly insisting the opposite of my claim.
That's not how it works.
To counter a charge of "all images produced by NASA are manipulated," it is incumbent upon you to produce one example of the opposite, i.e., one NASA-produced image which is not manipulated.
We both know the reason you continue to stall on this point: anyone who has scratched the surface of the topic knows there is no such thing as an image which has not been manipulated.
With respect to distant objects, my claim can only be countered by one or more of three ways.
Show the math used to determine the curvature of the earth is in error; prove the phenomena does not exist; or prove some other phenomena is impacting the results.
The closest you've gotten to any of these is the last one with your feeble attempt to invoke the refraction of light.
However, you have also demonstrated your ignorance on the topic with the misapplication of the principle as well as an inability to show your work.
You cannot invoke magic or miracles when the topic is an everyday physical reality.
As long as you've been on the internet, you'd think you would have a good grasp on the concept of trolling by now.
I've made claims and supported them with evidence.
You've denounced the claims with no support other than insistence and insult, all the while denying anything has been offered.
One of the above paragraphs describes how a troll operates.
Which one do you think most accurately describes you?
[I'll give you a hint: it's not the first one.]
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou have given zero in the way of evidence. You have in fact only given opinions, charges made by other people whom you follow blindly since you have not much in the way of formal education. That is clear. You could not even follow my analysis of what size Earth would look like as viewed from Luna. I can only presume you are so brainwashed by your conspiracy buddies you don't believe the moon is actually a quarter million odd miles away. And you seem to think Sol is what, a few thousand miles away and it somehow rotates above this supposed flat planet while the rest of the solar system gets shyte in the way of sunlight.
I cannot provide what does not exist.
The claim relative to NASA is all images are manipulated.
Your task, since you claim NASA does not lie, is (or should be) the easier of the two: provide one image which is not manipulated.
I have provided at least one example of an obviously fake image of the earth (with the moon thrown in as a bonus).
That image ...[text shortened]... one do you think most accurately describes you?
[I'll give you a hint: it's not the first one.]
Which also means you have to deny the fact Venus is almost a thousand degrees on the surface and furthermore you would have to deny the fact the Russians actually landed a probe on Venus in spite of the atmospheric pressure being more like that on the inside of a bottle of nitrogen than Earth and sulfuric acid in the atmosphere and in spite of that was able to get about 20 minute of photo's of the surface of Venus which is pretty much like Dante's idea of hell.
All that must also be denied by you for you to maintain your cognitive dissonance.
Google that term, you probably don't even know what it is.
Your conspiracy buddies have you so deeply programmed you literally don't know which way is up any more. It is sad to think a human in the 21st century can be so deeply programmed and not even by religion which is ALSO disgusting in its own way.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou have given zero in the way of evidence.
You have given zero in the way of evidence. You have in fact only given opinions, charges made by other people whom you follow blindly since you have not much in the way of formal education. That is clear. You could not even follow my analysis of what size Earth would look like as viewed from Luna. I can only presume you are so brainwashed by your conspir ...[text shortened]... ry can be so deeply programmed and not even by religion which is ALSO disgusting in its own way.
Really?
So when you see a post of mine which includes a link, you do what with it, exactly?
Inspect the information on the linked website or just simply ignore it?
Unless you can think of some other method of substantiating claims, I’m kind of stuck with the way everyone else in the world does it: provide links which substantiate the claims.
This I have done.
How do I know?
Because you actually responded to the posts.
You didn’t respond to the links, but you did respond to the posts, so you cannot say you didn’t see them.
You have in fact only given opinions…
Do you mean my “opinion” as when you said it was my “opinion” that the eclipse link which took you to NASA’s website showed an animation?
That “opinion?”
How, even after quoting the same website TWICE to prove to you it was THEIR choice to use the term animation, that was my “opinion?”
You’re deluded, sir.
... charges made by other people whom you follow blindly…
I don’t follow anyone, blindly or otherwise.
Unlike you, I make up my mind for myself in light of the information before me.
I do not stick with the status quo simply because everyone else is in line.
I do not reject commonly held ideas unless there is a compelling reason to do so; the idea of being contrarian for contrarian’s sake is the unoriginal thinking of a small mind.
For those who are sighted, any sighted fool can distinguish between fantasy and reality and said fool can tell the eclipse animated at that linked website is fantasy.
Who needs a leader for that one?
…since you have not much in the way of formal education.
What is the purpose of education, exactly?
Isn’t at least part of the education process a review of the work completed by those who did not benefit from education?
And if I lack in formal education but am able to distinguish between concepts as well as maintain their order, does that put me at a disadvantage to someone such as yourself who has repeatedly gotten so confused and convoluted in your thinking that it required several corrections to get you to understand what model an oblate spheroid belongs to?
That records are round?
If you’re pitting whatever education you had earlier in life to my education, you’re clearly barking up the wrong tree.
You could not even follow my analysis of what size Earth would look like as viewed from Luna.
I had no problem following anything you’ve put forth up to this point.
The same cannot be said for you, however.
You were provided a NASA-created link of an eclipse which emphatically and demonstrably shows an earth that would completely dominate the horizon of the moon.
Apparently, that animation was lost on you.
All that must also be denied by you for you to maintain your cognitive dissonance.
As stated previously, because the various space programs have repeatedly lied, I take literally nothing they say at face value.
Google that term, you probably don't even know what it is.
More of your hilarious idiocy, wherein your penchant for sounding intellectual is betrayed by your general stupidity.
As the saying goes, pride comes before the fall.
Observe.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term used to describe the mental stress a person experiences as a result of dealing with their own inconsistent and/or contradictory thoughts.
The term you were unsuccessfully laboring to insult me with is confirmation bias.
But you probably already knew that, dintcha.
Your conspiracy buddies have you so deeply programmed you literally don't know which way is up any more. It is sad to think a human in the 21st century can be so deeply programmed and not even by religion which is ALSO disgusting in its own way.
What buddies are you imagining for me?
Do they like to drink beer, because I wouldn’t mind having a few buddies to sit around, drink some beers and do a little though-control program coding.
-Removed-Now, that’s how you win an argument!
Continue to claim the other side has offered nothing to support their viewpoint despite verifiable proof otherwise; never comment on the support offered; insult the intelligence of the other person despite your own inferior position; smugly dismiss the entire thing out of hand.
Nicely done.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy contention is (for the umpteenth time) EVERYTHING produced by NASA is altered or manipulated.
The burden of proof is on me.
Think before you type, please.
I've made a claim, which is no small insignificant claim.
My contention is (for the umpteenth time) EVERYTHING produced by NASA is altered or manipulated.
There doesn't exist a single picture of the earth which is not a composite or in some fashion or another manipulated.
Could you as ...[text shortened]... y other fashion, manipulated.
You won't because you can't; you can't because it doesn't exist.
As i've said to you before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is without doubt an extraordinary claim. Can you provide some extraordinary evidence to back it up?
Originally posted by Proper KnobIs reading comprehension really this bad?
[b]My contention is (for the umpteenth time) EVERYTHING produced by NASA is altered or manipulated.
As i've said to you before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is without doubt an extraordinary claim. Can you provide some extraordinary evidence to back it up?[/b]
If I make the claim that certain images are manipulated, you could rightly ask me to provide some as proof.
If I am claiming they ALL are manipulated, you (or anyone else so inclined) have the simplest of methods to show my claim is full of stuff: provide a picture that demonstrably is not manipulated.
As stated, I am saying the thing doesn't exist.
Proving me wrong is providing proof otherwise.
I cannot be expected to offer proof of something I claim does not exist.
That being said, I have offered a few links of their fraudulent images, the last of which was an animation produced by NASA which is so painfully fake, the mind reels.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn a few years space tourism will become much more commonplace (and affordable). Let's put this conversation on ice until 2021 when you can see for yourself what a doughnut you've been.
Is reading comprehension really this bad?
If I make the claim that certain images are manipulated, you could rightly ask me to provide some as proof.
If I am claiming they ALL are manipulated, you (or anyone else so inclined) have the simplest of methods to show my claim is full of stuff: provide a picture that demonstrably is [b]not manipula ...[text shortened]... the last of which was an animation produced by NASA which is so painfully fake, the mind reels.[/b]
😏
-Removed-Yeah, you keep on saying that, even though there are pages and pages preceding this one which support what I've been saying and expose you as a liar.
What your opinion is of me could not be less in terms of consequence.
You are devoid of common sense, lacking in even basic critical thinking and are, generally, a dweeb.
What is noteworthy, however, is the fact that you thought it was important to let others know your opinion of me--- as though your assessment is somehow indicative of anything related to the topic.
Your continued commingling of subjective and personal attacks with the objective facts of an issue speaks to your general inability to conduct yourself in a professional manner, thereby dismissing anything you try adding to the conversation.
You were consistently unable to hold up your end of the discussion, by employing juvenile tactics and subpar rejoinders.
Between the two of you, it was like talking to two stupid parrots who had learned three phrases and a few cuss words.
In a word, riveting.