frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Proving the stars are close

Debate Information

joecavalrymelefnamemcnameHankMissDMeanor
I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • joecavalryjoecavalry 430 Pts   -  
    The stars are not close for multiple reasons. The universe and galaxy are very large, stars are located throughout it. This can span distances of light years.
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    The stars are not close for multiple reasons. The universe and galaxy are very large, stars are located throughout it. This can span distances of light years.
    Thats a pretty piss poor reason. Not gonna lie. If the stars were really tens, even hundreds of light years away, it would be impossible to simply zoom in, and they wouldn't look like water
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Are you Sirius? (that's an astronomy joke)
    Neither of those links shows a close up view of stars, it's merely a zoomed-in view using a feeble terrestrial video camera. 

    Of course, attempting such a thing results in the visual distortion displayed in those links.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • @JoePineapples Sirius-ly tho, if they were 10's or 100's of lights years away, why could you zoom in and why would they look like water? Like, you see Sun? Now I have to get out of this Altair ego.


    Erfisflat
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Are you Sirius? (that's an astronomy joke)
    Neither of those links shows a close up view of stars, it's merely a zoomed-in view using a feeble terrestrial video camera. 

    Of course, attempting such a thing results in the visual distortion displayed in those links.
    I like this one, look at it, and tell me this is due to some distortion. Waiting on your reply in the earth is flat debate.

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Are you Sirius? (that's an astronomy joke)
    Neither of those links shows a close up view of stars, it's merely a zoomed-in view using a feeble terrestrial video camera. 

    Of course, attempting such a thing results in the visual distortion displayed in those links.
    http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/astrophotography/getstarted/camera/index.html


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    @JoePineapples Sirius-ly tho, if they were 10's or 100's of lights years away, why could you zoom in and why would they look like water? Like, you see Sun? Now I have to get out of this Altair ego.


    The answer is in the question, it looks like blobby water because of the attempt to zoom in on something light years away, using only a weak terrestrial camera.
    That's why so many millions (£/$) are spent on astronomy optics such as the recently completed HiPERCAM. The quality of the photos from it are astounding but aren't available for public viewing yet.
    Erfisflat
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @JoePineapples Sirius-ly tho, if they were 10's or 100's of lights years away, why could you zoom in and why would they look like water? Like, you see Sun? Now I have to get out of this Altair ego.


    The answer is in the question, it looks like blobby water because of the attempt to zoom in on something light years away, using only a weak terrestrial camera.
    That's why so many millions (£/$) are spent on astronomy optics such as the recently completed HiPERCAM. The quality of the photos from it are astounding but aren't available for public viewing yet.
    They're still getting the final touches done in Photoshop. You are so very gullible. And you think you lack any belief...
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:They're still getting the final touches done in Photoshop. You are so very gullible. And you think you lack any belief...
    No I've seen the photos, they just haven't been made public yet.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @JoePineapples
     
    We last saw you here.
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you Sirius? (that's an astronomy joke)
    Neither of those links shows a close up view of stars, it's merely a zoomed-in view using a feeble terrestrial video camera. 

    Of course, attempting such a thing results in the visual distortion displayed in those links.
    I like this one, look at it, and tell me this is due to some distortion. Waiting on your reply in the earth is flat debate.


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @JoePineapples
     
    We last saw you here.
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you Sirius? (that's an astronomy joke)
    Neither of those links shows a close up view of stars, it's merely a zoomed-in view using a feeble terrestrial video camera. 

    Of course, attempting such a thing results in the visual distortion displayed in those links.
    I like this one, look at it, and tell me this is due to some distortion. Waiting on your reply in the earth is flat debate.


    No problem. It's due to some distortion.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    @JoePineapples
     
    We last saw you here.
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you Sirius? (that's an astronomy joke)
    Neither of those links shows a close up view of stars, it's merely a zoomed-in view using a feeble terrestrial video camera. 

    Of course, attempting such a thing results in the visual distortion displayed in those links.
    I like this one, look at it, and tell me this is due to some distortion. Waiting on your reply in the earth is flat debate.


    No problem. It's due to some distortion.
    How very scientifically accurate of you. I don't see it as a plausible excuse though.
    Ghosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Erfisflat said:
    How very scientifically accurate of you. I don't see it as a plausible excuse though.
    You're willing to accept that atmospheric/ambient moisture distorts the view of our own Sun to a great extent, yet you have a hard time accepting that other stars billions of miles away will look distorted through a cheap camera?

    On top of the atmospheric effects there's chromatic aberration, scintillation, space debris, the fact that when you zoom in on something even a couple of miles away you're going to lose a lot of detail/visual quality, and all manner of other factors to take into consideration.


    feaGhosty
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    @JoePineapples If the stars were really far away then I don't think you could just zoom into them, it'd be alot harder than that, and could you explain how a bright ball of gas billions of miles turns into water?

    PS:


    fea
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    How very scientifically accurate of you. I don't see it as a plausible excuse though.
    You're willing to accept that atmospheric/ambient moisture distorts the view of our own Sun to a great extent, yet you have a hard time accepting that other stars billions of miles away will look distorted through a cheap camera?

    On top of the atmospheric effects there's chromatic aberration, scintillation, space debris, the fact that when you zoom in on something even a couple of miles away you're going to lose a lot of detail/visual quality, and all manner of other factors to take into consideration.


    To be fair, it isn't a cheap camera, it's probably the best camera available for astrophotography touting arguably the best zooming capabilities for this type of camera.
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/nikon-p900-new-king-superzooms
    fea
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    And the difference being that the distortion from atmosphere is noted when it is close to the ground. 99% of the earth's atmospheres moisture is just 30 miles from the surface, so looking at stars overhead will not produce the exact same results because you are looking through less of it.
    fea
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    To be fair, it isn't a cheap camera, it's probably the best camera available for astrophotography touting arguably the best zooming capabilities for this type of camera.
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/nikon-p900-new-king-superzooms
    The simple fact that you class a £400 camera as "not a cheap camera" and "the best camera available for astrophotography" shows that you don't know the first thing about astronomy optics. Over the last few months I've been involved in the production of a £75million+ astronomy camera/telescope. If you'd have told me about the Nikkon sooner I could have saved all the universities/space agencies/research centres and observatories around the world billions of pounds/dollars!
    DrCerealfeaGhosty
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    @JoePineapples If the stars were really far away then I don't think you could just zoom into them, it'd be alot harder than that, and could you explain how a bright ball of gas billions of miles turns into water?

    PS:


    Why would I try to explain something that I haven't claimed is true? You're the one that's made the assertion, why are you asking me?
    As for the photo comparison, yeah that's generally how it works - NASA (and anyone else who has multi million dollar telescopes) will have a better view with their equipment. Everyone else with their £20 - £1000 telescopes just get what they pay for.
    fea
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    To be fair, it isn't a cheap camera, it's probably the best camera available for astrophotography touting arguably the best zooming capabilities for this type of camera.
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/nikon-p900-new-king-superzooms
    The simple fact that you class a £400 camera as "not a cheap camera" and "the best camera available for astrophotography" shows that you don't know the first thing about astronomy optics. Over the last few months I've been involved in the production of a £75million+ astronomy camera/telescope. If you'd have told me about the Nikkon sooner I could have saved all the universities/space agencies/research centres and observatories around the world billions of pounds/dollars!
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
    fea
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    @JoePineapples
     
    We last saw you here.
    Erfisflat said:
    Are you Sirius? (that's an astronomy joke)
    Neither of those links shows a close up view of stars, it's merely a zoomed-in view using a feeble terrestrial video camera. 

    Of course, attempting such a thing results in the visual distortion displayed in those links.
    I like this one, look at it, and tell me this is due to some distortion. Waiting on your reply in the earth is flat debate.


    No problem. It's due to some distortion.
    @JoePineapples You implied the reason stars look like that is because of distortion 
    fea
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:
    To be fair, it isn't a cheap camera, it's probably the best camera available for astrophotography touting arguably the best zooming capabilities for this type of camera.
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/nikon-p900-new-king-superzooms
    The simple fact that you class a £400 camera as "not a cheap camera" and "the best camera available for astrophotography" shows that you don't know the first thing about astronomy optics. Over the last few months I've been involved in the production of a £75million+ astronomy camera/telescope. If you'd have told me about the Nikkon sooner I could have saved all the universities/space agencies/research centres and observatories around the world billions of pounds/dollars!
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

    I point out the huge and blindingly obvious difference between a cheap astronomy camera and a high-level one, and you try to play the anecdotal fallacy card?
    How old are you exactly? I don't mean to offend but your posting style and the way you respond to arguments is characteristic of someone who is extremely young and uninformed.
    Are you saying that you think telescopes/cameras that cost more than a few grand don't exist?
    feaGhosty
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    SilverishGoldNova said:
    @JoePineapples You implied the reason stars look like that is because of distortion 
    Yes I did. Why do you think the top level telescopes are so expensive?
    feaGhosty
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    SilverishGoldNova said:
    @JoePineapples You implied the reason stars look like that is because of distortion 
    Yes I did. Why do you think the top level telescopes are so expensive?
    We already have NASA admitting to faking images of the Earth, do you think we should trust them on Mars? 
    feaGhosty
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    We already have NASA admitting to faking images of the Earth, do you think we should trust them on Mars? 
    You don't have to trust them, Google search for your nearest public observatory and book in with them to look for yourself.
    On the subject of NASA;

    -Which photos have they admitted to faking? I keep seeing this claim popping up
    -Going back to the mars photos/telescope comparison, I believe the one on the right might be a composite photo taken from the mars orbiter

    Erfisflatfea
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    We already have NASA admitting to faking images of the Earth, do you think we should trust them on Mars? 
    You don't have to trust them, Google search for your nearest public observatory and book in with them to look for yourself.
    On the subject of NASA;

    -Which photos have they admitted to faking? I keep seeing this claim popping up
    -Going back to the mars photos/telescope comparison, I believe the one on the right might be a composite photo taken from the mars orbiter

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

    "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17."

    This means that 

    Pictures of earth that are admittedly photoshopped:
    1975, 2007, 1997, 2007 (Russian), 2013, 2012, 2002. That leaves us with 2015...

    http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/

    Likely a fake (which also calls into question the rest of the "photos" from this "satellite".

    And 1972, which they were caught red handed faking. (The whole film exposes a lot of NASA trickery, but skip to 34:00 to see the faking of earth photos)


    Ghosty
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:
    To be fair, it isn't a cheap camera, it's probably the best camera available for astrophotography touting arguably the best zooming capabilities for this type of camera.
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/nikon-p900-new-king-superzooms
    The simple fact that you class a £400 camera as "not a cheap camera" and "the best camera available for astrophotography" shows that you don't know the first thing about astronomy optics. Over the last few months I've been involved in the production of a £75million+ astronomy camera/telescope. If you'd have told me about the Nikkon sooner I could have saved all the universities/space agencies/research centres and observatories around the world billions of pounds/dollars!
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

    I point out the huge and blindingly obvious difference between a cheap astronomy camera and a high-level one, and you try to play the anecdotal fallacy card?
    How old are you exactly? I don't mean to offend but your posting style and the way you respond to arguments is characteristic of someone who is extremely young and uninformed.
    Are you saying that you think telescopes/cameras that cost more than a few grand don't exist?
    You really only claimed to have been involved with a high dollar telescope. This is entirely aneqdotal. I have this many (0) reasons to believe anything you say. You didn't point out ANY differences beside cost. Which telescope are you referring to? What part are you playing? A towel boy could say he was "involved" with the NFL and at the same time, not even know what a quarterback is. I'm almost 40 and I'm in construction and surveying. I have measured the earth for years. It is flat.
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    Could you quote the part of the Robert Simmon interview where you believe he admits to 'faking' photographs?
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Could you quote the part of the Robert Simmon interview where you believe he admits to 'faking' photographs?
    I did. If you need audio of the interview, here ya go.




    "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17."
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    It's photoshop, but it HAS to be.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @JoePineapples
    Are you aware of NASA' s involvement with vr technology?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  






    http://www.telemetricsinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39:splashmedia-&itemid=54

    http://www.telemetricsinc.com/case-studies/johnson-space-center

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=42888

    NASA's VR camera malfunction shows guy in the background with his wire harness unsuccessfully edited out, hand going through a hat, and VR object camera malfunction causes guy on the left to handle invisible object.



    If they can do this with their virtual reality cameras, who's to say they haven't put VR chips in all of the multimillion dollar telescopes to make you see whatever they want you to see? It's pretty obvious to me at this point.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Erfisflat said:

    If they can do this with their virtual reality cameras, who's to say they haven't put VR chips in all of the multimillion dollar telescopes to make you see whatever they want you to see? It's pretty obvious to me at this point.
    Yeah, maybe they did put VR chips in the telescopes, and maybe they put laser guns on the spaceships, maybe they put robots in the tanks and holograms in the food...

    ... THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
    SilverishGoldNovaGhosty
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:

    If they can do this with their virtual reality cameras, who's to say they haven't put VR chips in all of the multimillion dollar telescopes to make you see whatever they want you to see? It's pretty obvious to me at this point.
    Yeah, maybe they did put VR chips in the telescopes, and maybe they put laser guns on the spaceships, maybe they put robots in the tanks and holograms in the food...

    ... THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • We already have NASA admitting to faking images of the Earth, do you think we should trust them on Mars? 
    You don't have to trust them, Google search for your nearest public observatory and book in with them to look for yourself.
    On the subject of NASA;

    -Which photos have they admitted to faking? I keep seeing this claim popping up
    -Going back to the mars photos/telescope comparison, I believe the one on the right might be a composite photo taken from the mars orbiter

    You know, I explained it many times to you, so I don't see why I have to tell you again. 

    Erfisflat said:

    If they can do this with their virtual reality cameras, who's to say they haven't put VR chips in all of the multimillion dollar telescopes to make you see whatever they want you to see? It's pretty obvious to me at this point.
    Yeah, maybe they did put VR chips in the telescopes, and maybe they put laser guns on the spaceships, maybe they put robots in the tanks and holograms in the food...

    ... THEN WHO WAS PHONE?


    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:

    If they can do this with their virtual reality cameras, who's to say they haven't put VR chips in all of the multimillion dollar telescopes to make you see whatever they want you to see? It's pretty obvious to me at this point.
    Yeah, maybe they did put VR chips in the telescopes, and maybe they put laser guns on the spaceships, maybe they put robots in the tanks and holograms in the food...

    ... THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

    If your post is self evidently ridiculous in the first place, then I don't think my ridiculing it can be a fallacy.
    You set a baseless (false) premise that the Nasa video you showed was staged using VR instead of live action footage. You concluded that if they can do this, they could well be putting "VR chips" into multi-million dollar telescopes. This is a deductive fallacy.

    What else is so ridiculous about it? The very fact that you used the term "VR chip" shows that have absolutely no idea about the subject. Not only that, why would NASA try to fake video footage with something that's more costly and less visually convincing than other alternatives, such as filming inside a zero-G descent plane.
    Why on Earth would a VR character in the background need a harness anyway? I mean, come on it's like debating with an eight year old when you come out with stuff like that.
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    Erfisflat said:



    Do you have a source for this image?
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:

    If they can do this with their virtual reality cameras, who's to say they haven't put VR chips in all of the multimillion dollar telescopes to make you see whatever they want you to see? It's pretty obvious to me at this point.
    Yeah, maybe they did put VR chips in the telescopes, and maybe they put laser guns on the spaceships, maybe they put robots in the tanks and holograms in the food...

    ... THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

    If your post is self evidently ridiculous in the first place, then I don't think my ridiculing it can be a fallacy.
    You set a baseless (false) premise that the Nasa video you showed was staged using VR instead of live action footage. You concluded that if they can do this, they could well be putting "VR chips" into multi-million dollar telescopes. This is a deductive fallacy.

    What else is so ridiculous about it? The very fact that you used the term "VR chip" shows that have absolutely no idea about the subject. Not only that, why would NASA try to fake video footage with something that's more costly and less visually convincing than other alternatives, such as filming inside a zero-G descent plane.
    Why on Earth would a VR character in the background need a harness anyway? I mean, come on it's like debating with an eight year old when you come out with stuff like that.
    No matter how ridiculous an argument is, mocking it rather than trying to address it is still appeal to ridicule
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    @JoePineapples

    "If your post is self evidently ridiculous in the first place, then I don't think my ridiculing it can be a fallacy."

    Of course, you at first thought the idea of a flat earth was ridiculous, but you have disappeared from that debate and still have not given conclusive that you are riding a spinning pearoid through an infinite vacuum, which I think is ridiculous. But I have addressed your arguments and you dropped everything. If I were to ignore 

    "You set a baseless (false) premise that the Nasa video you showed was staged using VR instead of live action footage."

    It's not baseless, ive given my argument and evidence for that claim, all I've heard thus far is "that's ridiculous". Whether or not it is false is yet to be decided. Since you work in this field, maybe you can clear up this mystery for us with a conclusive, coherent and logical rebuttal.

     "You concluded that if they can do this, they could well be putting "VR chips" into multi-million dollar telescopes. This is a deductive fallacy."

    I've given my argument and reasoning for my claim with verifiable evidence. You've largely ignored that argument and instead are ridiculing my argument to dodge addressing it, all while trying to claim that I'm being fallacious. 

    "What else is so ridiculous about it? The very fact that you used the term "VR chip" shows that have absolutely no idea about the subject."

    I've never claimed to be an expert on the subject, but the evidence and argument is sound enough to deserve a response nonetheless. This is a corollary of an appeal to authority fallacy. 

    "Not only that, why would NASA try to fake video footage with something that's more costly and less visually convincing than other alternatives, such as filming inside a zero-G descent plane.

    Vomit comets were the only way to fake zero g before, AR is NOT less visually convincing due to the time restraints between dives. Using AR, this is eliminated. This is just one reason AR is more convincing than comet comets, simply for the longer shots. Do you have any good reason that vomit comets are more convincing than AR?

    "Why on Earth would a VR character in the background need a harness anyway? I mean, come on it's like debating with an eight year old when you come out with stuff like that.

    Nobody said the character is VR, his harness, had the malfunctioning camera acted right, would be edited out.
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    JoePineapples HA HA HA very funny. No I am not kidding. I'm not. Don't look at me like that. Come on you people it was a good one. Hey if you can't respect a good science joke then shame on you.
  • Nope said:
    JoePineapples HA HA HA very funny. No I am not kidding. I'm not. Don't look at me like that. Come on you people it was a good one. Hey if you can't respect a good science joke then shame on you.
    Quick Question: Any response to my arguments
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    Funny how I ask erfisflat for a source of his/her image and you respond with one, it's almost like you're the same user with two different accounts.

    So it is a genuine NASA image, good. Next question is, do you know what a composite image is?
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1201 Pts   -   edited November 2017
    Funny how I ask erfisflat for a source of his/her image and you respond with one, it's almost like you're the same user with two different accounts.

    So it is a genuine NASA image, good. Next question is, do you know what a composite image is?
    Yes, a composite image is an image made out of several parts or elements. But NASA images are faked, they're not just composites. We already have NASA saying the last time saying anyone took a picture was in 1972. Further more,  Would you like to explain the C/P clouds?


    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    Proving the stars are close? How close are we talking? 100000 light years, 1 light year, 1000000 kilometer, 1 kilometer, 1 meter, 1 cm, 1 mm, 1 planck length? What stars. The sun, Stares in other galaxies, the stare I just grew on this peace of paper?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Funny how I ask erfisflat for a source of his/her image and you respond with one, it's almost like you're the same user with two different accounts.

    So it is a genuine NASA image, good. Next question is, do you know what a composite image is?

    It's where the take scans of the flat earth from a drone or other high altitude device and project them onto a ball.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • AmpersandAmpersand 858 Pts   -  
    This seems to have gotten fairly off topic. The only argument that the stars aren't close seems to be the unsupported claim in the OP that "if we can zoom in on them, they are not all that far away" which seems fairly absurd and is certainly not backed up by any evidence or logic.
  • @Ampersand

    I posted, as a footnote, a meme about NASA, and Joe ended up focusing on that and turned the debate into NASA admitting to faking images 2.0.



    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Ampersand

    I posted, as a footnote, a meme about NASA, and Joe ended up focusing on that and turned the debate into NASA admitting to faking images 2.0.



    He's one of those that refuses to believe he's been lied to and fooled all his life.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Hank I see you left a fallacy on my debate. Mind explaining what fallacy I used? And mind addressing my points, if you can? 
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch