Flat Earth

Originally posted by sonhouse
You keep harping on your hard on against NASA but I showed you similar images by several other countries who would have real motive to prove NASA faked anything. The fact the took similar images, what, shows they are in on the big conspiracy too?

BTW, you talk about the stairstep in images like you don't know about pixilization and such? If we had maybe ...[text shortened]... you know nothing about digital photography,

You are quickly going from stupid to just boring.

I understand real good about them pixels.
I don't understand why all of them conspire against the space programs and reveal they are presenting fudge instead of truth.
Did you get a chance to see all of the photoshopping NASA has done on their "images" yet?
Are you maintaining a straight face when attempting to state they have not lied?

Originally posted by Great Big Stees
I once dated Bigfoot, thinking it was a female. Turns out it wasn't and as such there was never a second one...date I mean.

Hope you had lots of vaseline🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hope you had lots of vaseline🙂

I didn't be "he" sure looked like a member of a 50s band. Ya know, "a little dab'll do ya." but in his case he used substantially more than a dab.

Originally posted by Great Big Stees
I once dated Bigfoot, thinking it was a female. Turns out it wasn't and as such there was never a second one...date I mean.

No one can argue sir that you haven't lived a full life.

🙂

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
No one can argue sir that you haven't lived a full life.

🙂

If only you knew. 😲😀

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I understand real good about them pixels.
I don't understand why all of them conspire against the space programs and reveal they are presenting fudge instead of truth.
Did you get a chance to see all of the photoshopping NASA has done on their "images" yet?
Are you maintaining a straight face when attempting to state they have not lied?

Yeah right. They all lie. So tell me why the Chinese, the Russians and the Brits all come up with the same images?

Also what is up with your problem with the oblate spheroid bit? You have to know a sphere the size of Earth if spinning is going to bulge some at the equator and that alone takes it out of being a perfect sphere, a few miles at most. Wiki says 26 miles more in diameter at the equator than running a measure around the poles north and south.
Does that come as some kind of shock to you, that lo and behold, a spinning planet is not a perfect sphere?
Anyway why is that a big deal to an avowed flat earther?

You say you see this perfect sphere as if you could see Mt Everest from the moon or something. You can't just use your eyes to see the difference between a perfect sphere and the oblateness of Earth.

All you are doing here is throwing up strawmen in your desperate attempt at proving the entire planet of science wrong.

You never even deigned to comment on the image I showed of ISS with Earth in background showing a definite curve of Earth while the lines of the ISS were straight as an arrow.

I guess that would not be evidence in your eyes either.

So what would you say if YOU were sent to the ISS to see for yourself? How would you handle the cognitive dissonance you are presently experiencing about a flat Earth?

Originally posted by Great Big Stees
If only you knew. 😲😀

At least you know where the term 'foot long' originates.

And--- almost without saying--- it's all behind you.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yeah right. They all lie. So tell me why the Chinese, the Russians and the Brits all come up with the same images?

Also what is up with your problem with the oblate spheroid bit? You have to know a sphere the size of Earth if spinning is going to bulge some at the equator and that alone takes it out of being a perfect sphere, a few miles at most. Wiki s ...[text shortened]... How would you handle the cognitive dissonance you are presently experiencing about a flat Earth?

You first.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You first.

I don't have a problem with NASA, ESA, the Chinese or Russian space programs. I think I told you I was PART of NASA working Apollo back in 1970. I guess that must make me part of the big conspiracy too. So tell my why you don't have a hard on against the Russian space program since they say the exact same things about Earth?

So stop this futzing around and tell me exactly what you think the shape of Earth is AND WHY.
Right now you are just going round and round with non sequitur's that mean nothing and prove nothing.

You just keep throwing out strawmen. NASA lies but you don't do a specific instance and you ignore the same evidence given by the space programs of at least three other countries.

So I have to conclude you think all of THEM are lying too, indicating you believe there is some vast conspiracy hiding the truth only you and your buddies know.

So why do you throw out the strawman of the oblate spheroid if you think Earth is flat, what difference does it make to a flat earther if we call Earth a perfect circle or an oblate spheroid?

So what is the deal, you want to present real evidence or are you just going to continue as you have? Which is to say, saying nothing of substance just going over and over, NASA lies. So NASA lies. Do the Chinese lie also?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I don't have a problem with NASA, ESA, the Chinese or Russian space programs. I think I told you I was PART of NASA working Apollo back in 1970. I guess that must make me part of the big conspiracy too. So tell my why you don't have a hard on against the Russian space program since they say the exact same things about Earth?

So stop this futzing around a ...[text shortened]... nothing of substance just going over and over, NASA lies. So NASA lies. Do the Chinese lie also?

I feel as though I couldn't be any more clear than what I have with respect to the topic.
I have never described the earth as an oblate spheroid.
That description is from (among a handful of others) one Neil deGrasse Tyson--- a person many people consider to be a hack as well as an ass of a man.
IF the earth were, in fact, an oblate spheroid, it would appear as such in all of the space program images.
Of course, they are ALL images, not a single one of them actual photographs.
So there's that.
But set aside the exact shape for the moment and consider instead the variety of shapes and sizes the continents have taken in the images provided by the space programs.
Observe the official NASA images of the earth as they have been presented from their very first presentation up to the most recent.
One need not put a tremendous amount of effort into the examination in order to come to the realization something is amiss: the continents have routinely taken on multiple varied sizes and shapes--- both in relation to themselves as well as in proportion to the rest of the earth and other continents.
Closer examination will reveal a tremendous amount of Photoshop activity.
Just these two realities prompts the question: why?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I feel as though I couldn't be any more clear than what I have with respect to the topic.
I have never described the earth as an oblate spheroid.
That description is from (among a handful of others) one Neil deGrasse Tyson--- a person many people consider to be a hack as well as an ass of a man.
IF the earth were, in fact, an oblate spheroid, it ...[text shortened]... ndous amount of Photoshop activity.
Just these two realities prompts the question: [b]why?[/b]

More BLAH BLAH BLAH. You clearly don't WANT to know what is going on. Did you view the article I posted about why they look different? Did you see the photos of the earth globe taken at different distances to the same globe, what it does to the perspective of the view of say Australia which was one of the views tested? You really need to read that post if you really want to understand the ideas of perspective.

So you never said Earth was an oblate spheroid or squaroid or any other oid.
Are you still sticking with the flat earth deal?

And do you know why the laser experiments are bogus? Why the same laser experiments would work perfectly if you were on the moon but not on Earth?

And how school kids now can accurately duplicate the original well experiment from thousands of years ago?

What do you define as a "photograph" V what you deride as a mere image?

My guess is you think the old silver iodide photography with physical film is somehow superior to modern digital imaging? You do know they had very fine fish eye lenses even 100 years ago, right? So what would be this big difference between 'photography and 'imaging'?

Originally posted by sonhouse
More BLAH BLAH BLAH. You clearly don't WANT to know what is going on. Did you view the article I posted about why they look different? Did you see the photos of the earth globe taken at different distances to the same globe, what it does to the perspective of the view of say Australia which was one of the views tested? You really need to read that post if y ...[text shortened]... n 100 years ago, right? So what would be this big difference between 'photography and 'imaging'?

There is a very specific reason NASA refrains from using 'photograph' as opposed to 'image,' namely, a photograph stands on its own whereas it is permissible to doctor/alter an image.
ALL of NASA's presentations are images.
NONE of NASA's presentations are photographs.
It allows them to present whatever they want instead of the actual picture.
They've admitted as such.
You'd think a person who worked for NASA would know at least that much?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There is a very specific reason NASA refrains from using 'photograph' as opposed to 'image,' namely, a photograph stands on its own whereas it is permissible to doctor/alter an image.
ALL of NASA's presentations are images.
NONE of NASA's presentations are photographs.
It allows them to present whatever they want instead of the actual picture.
They've admitted as such.
You'd think a person who worked for NASA would know at least that much?

My deal at NASA was Apollo tracking and timing, atomic clocks and transponders, I knew and know not much at all about their photography.

Still, you are dissing NASA for using the dreaded digital imagery while seemingly it's ok with you the Chinese, the Russians, the Brits, they all use EXACTLY the same technique but you only have this hard on against NASA.

Did you look at the video, incidentally done on photograph film, in 1959, WAY BEFORE THERE WAS A NASA? Clearly showing the curvature of Earth.

Now if you are using the logic that only photo paper is believable then you are being a hypocrite if you deny the validity of those 1959 films. Have you looked at ANYTHING I posted? Or are you going to just diss NASA while the entire world's space agencies do exactly the same kind of imaging? Did you actually look at the 'debunk' page I posted here showing why some images of Earth looks different?

Till you do and have something intelligent to say on the subject in way of refutation, real arguments instead of the blah blah blah NASA lies crap, I am through talking about it.

So far you have presented exactly ZERO in the way of arguments or even spelling out your real position Vis a Vis the shape of Earth.

Originally posted by sonhouse
My deal at NASA was Apollo tracking and timing, atomic clocks and transponders, I knew and know not much at all about their photography.

Still, you are dissing NASA for using the dreaded digital imagery while seemingly it's ok with you the Chinese, the Russians, the Brits, they all use EXACTLY the same technique but you only have this hard on against NAS ...[text shortened]... RO in the way of arguments or even spelling out your real position Vis a Vis the shape of Earth.

Thread update:

The Earth ain't flat.

Originally posted by sonhouse
My deal at NASA was Apollo tracking and timing, atomic clocks and transponders, I knew and know not much at all about their photography.

Still, you are dissing NASA for using the dreaded digital imagery while seemingly it's ok with you the Chinese, the Russians, the Brits, they all use EXACTLY the same technique but you only have this hard on against NAS ...[text shortened]... RO in the way of arguments or even spelling out your real position Vis a Vis the shape of Earth.

If I have zero, I guess that puts you in the negatives.
Since NASA and--- just for you--- ALL other space programs clearly have access to photographs, why hasn't there been a SINGLE photograph of the earth from space?
Why has every single one of the presentations been altered images?