Originally posted by sonhouseNo, you did not answer it.
In other words as far as you are concerned, it is a monologue where you ask questions, we answer and because you don't accept the answer, we have not answered the questions even though we did. You need to study a number of disciplines to understand our place in the universe like the sun really is 93 million miles away for starters.
I also answered the si ...[text shortened]... ap like that, how do you think you will ever be able to understand slightly more complex issues?
You offered a few formulas based upon assumed distances and sizes.
I consider both wrong, therefore do not consider the explanation satisfactory.
Your math completely contradicts that animation, as the animation shows the earth completely and wholly dominating the sky of the moon.
That's what you need to respond to.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTHAT's your 'evidence' that all images produced by NASA have been faked?
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]
Good grief.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is comedy gold.
I honestly believe the world is not a sphere with the given dimensions.
That has been eliminated beyond a shadow of doubt.
I suspect it is, as stated, similar to a record on a player, although not rotating; I don't know this, just suspect it.
The things I know are based upon things which can be proven.
The things I suspect are based on the things known.
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo.
THAT's your 'evidence' that all images produced by NASA have been faked?
Good grief.
That is but one example of thousands upon thousands of images.
Although that one alone contains many flaws, ALL of them have been manipulated in one form or another.
You are unable to provide a single one which has not.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGo on then, i'll humour you. Demonstrate how this is one is a fake.
No.
That is but one example of thousands upon thousands of images.
Although that one alone contains many flaws, ALL of them have been manipulated in one form or another.
You are unable to provide a single one which has not.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/images/index.html?id=376526
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWaiting for either one of you (or anyone else inspired) to answer the issues presented by this animation.
No contradictions.
Really.
Did you VIEW the animation?
Are you sighted?
In that animation, the earth would totally dominate the moon's sky--- it would unquestionably completely fill it up.
But that's not all that is wrong with the fraudulent animation.
Throughout the duration of the eclipse, observe the speed of the earth's rotation: doesn't matc ...[text shortened]... en your response on "cognitive dissonance" or "waffling" yet.
Were you getting around to that?
In the more recent eclipse, they offer a "series of images" depicting the moon's shadow across the sunlit face of the earth.
According to NASA's Earth Observatory website:
"For this eclipse, the EPIC team collected full-resolution images every 20 minutes on just the red, green, and blue channels. This allowed the satellite to collect 13 images spanning the entire four hours and twenty minutes of the eclipse.
Is there anything within the series of images which represents the type of cloud formation changes one would expect to see every 20 minutes--- let alone over the course of nearly four and a half hours?
Or, instead, do we see very little if any at all movement in the cloud cover?
Liars.
Frauds.
1 edit
-Removed-You've shown one image (there's also a video of the same shot), without any commentary on the particulars: vantage point elevation, zoom, wave height and etc..
There are other videos taken from across the water which depict the entire skyline, same city.
Additionally, there are a plethora of videos and images available which demonstrate myriad other locales, all with varying distances, elevations, heights of objects, etc., all without loss due to curvature.
It is noted you failed to comment on the six mile experiment I linked.
The one which should have seen 12' of loss, but instead there is... none.
Is there a reason for your silence on that example, or all of the other ones you know are available?
