bishop's failures to deliver on accusations, assertions, commitments

1] bishop made three very specific allegations of fraudulent nasa photos.  yet so far has tried to defend only one of those claims [and failed rather badly - see link below].  that leaves two very specific accusations of fraud to illustrate with equally specific examples.  it is trivially easy - and equally cowardly - to just accuse an organization of very specific fraud.  and in this case it should be nearly equally trivial to back those assertions up from the readily available nasa archives.  presumably he knows where to find the specific photos he criticized.  where are they.

thread: Doctored Photos


2] bishop made an outlandish assertion that he can see a beach 33 miles away, from a telescope just above water level.  he also has a digital camera, and the adapter (which he claimed didn't exist but does) to connect the two is dirt cheap.  yet he steadfastly refuses to provide the visual evidence that he claims is trivially easy to witness.  in this case, visual evidence is the only kind of evidence that means anything.  we certainly cannot trust his highly suspect account in written word form.  on the other hand, i *do* have exhaustively documented and repeated first-hand photographic evidence that directly and resoundingly contradicts his claims.  i have repeatedly challenged bishop to just *commit* to providing his evidence, then i will immediately provide mine for all to scrutinize.  he clearly has no ethical issues with just promising bs, so why not?  bishop has in fact directly challenged me to provide my visual evidence.  in return i directly challenged bishop to provide *his* visual evidence, or even just *commit* to providing it.  he has avoided this perfectly reasonable co-challenge like the plague.  it's time to commit and deliver.  or in this case, just even commit.

thread: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture


3] on oct 31, bishop stated "I do have video evidence for reproductions of Rowbotham's work coming in today through the post. I'll have it converted and uploaded online within a few days."  aside from potential copyright violation, no such video has materialized.  where is that video?

thread: looking for bishop's video


bishop, you routinely make assertions, accusations, and commitments that you fail to support or deliver on.  it's time to deliver.  (or in the second case, just commit in the first place.)  you have a real credibility problem brewing, and it should be trivially easy to dismiss them, with actual action (rather than hiding behind a few keystrokes of rowbotham copy/pastes).

cpt_bthimes rocks, hes like a RE god!

[Nominated for position of God]
Nice work man.

Sorry, but FAIL.

You care about what Bishop says and make posts about it.  Don't.  If anything, make the forums more enjoyable and join him in laughing at nooblets.

I don't care if Tom Bullshit is a troll or not. The last thing anyone needs to do in a discussion is say you have/done something and fail/ignore to present it.

@ Mr. Ireland. cpt_Bthimes does make things enjoyable. Tom Bishop's stupidity and CPT's (very) short temper is the reason I come here.

I gave Gulliver one of these for the RE document he made.

cpt bthimes deserves one as well!

I gave Gulliver one of these for the RE document he made.

cpt bthimes deserves one as well!

Right click - save.
I stole it. 

@ Mr. Ireland. cpt_Bthimes does make things enjoyable. Tom Bishop's stupidity and CPT's (very) short temper is the reason I come here.

Doing the exact same thing everyone else has but in a more excessive manner is enjoyable?  Sad.

Quote from: Tom Dipshit on December 16, 2007, 06:34:46 PM

@ Mr. Ireland. cpt_Bthimes does make things enjoyable. Tom Bishop's stupidity and CPT's (very) short temper is the reason I come here.

Doing the exact same thing everyone else has but in a more excessive manner is enjoyable?  Sad.

I'm trying to understand your train of thought here.
No one else was ever really succeeding. Sure Tom had to ignore some posts here and there, and lead threads off topic and fight losing wars, but complete pwnage is extremely entertaining.

Back to topic:
Re: bishop's failures to deliver on accusations, assertions, commitments

I don't want him to see this thread and check the last posts and start arguing that the conspiracy doesn't have to be larger than half the world population.

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 16, 2007, 06:48:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Dipshit on December 16, 2007, 06:34:46 PM

@ Mr. Ireland. cpt_Bthimes does make things enjoyable. Tom Bishop's stupidity and CPT's (very) short temper is the reason I come here.

Doing the exact same thing everyone else has but in a more excessive manner is enjoyable?  Sad.

I'm trying to understand your train of thought here.
No one else was ever really succeeding. Sure Tom had to ignore some posts here and there, and lead threads off topic and fight losing wars, but complete pwnage is extremely entertaining.

I feel like I am on survivor. "It is time to vote......the * person voted out tonight, Tom Bishop"

At least tom is right out front with his bs. the real problem is with some of the other members who put forth a serious face but in reality they are as full of it as tom. Engy I am looking in your direction

wow, honored with the virtual kudos.  (i suppose i should only be "virtually" honored?)  but the battle is not yet over, the fat man has not sung: bishop must either put up or shut up, and i would honestly prefer the first.  i don't want to see a grown man (?) shamed, no matter how trollish he is.

1.) In my quote am referring to comparisons of North America between this photo and this photo. Obviously not the same earth. Additionally, the second image seems to have stars in the background. No other image of the earth from space has stars.

The second image which contains stars comes directly from NASA's website, so there is no doctoring applied.

2.) Once I procure the proper equipment I am planning to document my findings with photography.

3.) The video I had ordered was a documentary called "In Search of the Edge: An Inquiry into the Shape of the Earth and the Disappearance of Andrea Barns." It was shown on the Discovery Channel a while back.

I was told by a colleague that Rowbotham's experiments were reproduced in a Learning Channel documentary, and assumed that this video was the same one. However, my colleague must have been referring to a different Flat Earth documentary since upon watching this particular video, the content seems to deal more with the explorations of Antarctica rather than the convexity of standing water.

My colleague tells me that the video featured on the Learning Channel has an FES member from England who takes us to the Bedford Canal in Cambridge and preforms Rowbotham's original experiments. The FES member in the video further demonstrates math on a chalkboard to back up the assertion that, considering the events on the Bedford Canal, the earth cannot be a globe. I am unsure of the title of this documentary, however.

1.) In my quote am referring to comparisons between this photo and this photo. Obviously not the same earth.

You do realize that the first 'photograph' is not so much a simple photograph, as a computer mosaic of high resolution satellite data.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/BlueMarble_history.html

You do realize that the first 'photograph' is not so much a simple photograph, as a computer mosaic of high resolution satellite data.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/BlueMarble_history.html

If the first image is a mosaic of existing satellite photographs upon a 3D globe as you say, why are there vast color discrepancies between other images of North America from space?

And why does the second image I presented - the one hosted on NASA's server - contain stars? No other image of the earth from space displays stars.

2.) Once I procure the proper equipment I am planning to document my findings with photography.

The same vague delay tactic. Set a time and date.

I missed how a conspiracy as powerful as they have to be, could forget something like the stars. 

The same vague delay tactic. Set a time and date.

Why don't you set up a time and date to photographically contradict the vast body of data in the Flat Earth Literature?

I missed how a conspiracy as powerful as they have to be, could forget something like the stars. 

So you don't have an explanation for why stars appear in the photograph?

It can't be marks on the negative, since the stars only appear in space an nowhere on the earth. So what are they?

When many images are created by many different individuals over a number of decades; it's not too surprising to find that there are discrepancies between one photo and another.

Quote

The same vague delay tactic. Set a time and date.

Why don't you set up a time and date to photographically contradict the vast body of data in the Flat Earth Literature?

Quote

I missed how a conspiracy as powerful as they have to be, could forget something like the stars. 

So you don't have an explanation for why stars appear in the photograph?

It can't be marks on the negative, since the stars only appear in space an nowhere on the earth. So what are they?

When many images are created by many different individuals over a number of decades; it's not too surprising to find that there are discrepancies between one photo and another.

I already did it just like you already have. I never promised to buy equipment necessary to show proof on the forums nor post it.

As for the stars, I didn't even look at the pictures. For publications, NASA might strengthen the colors or crop out the stars making raw pictures look different. Big whoop.

1.) In my quote am referring to comparisons of North America between this photo and this photo. Obviously not the same earth. Additionally, the second image seems to have stars in the background. No other image of the earth from space has stars.

The second image which contains stars comes directly from NASA's website, so there is no doctoring applied.

2.) Once I procure the proper equipment I am planning to document my findings with photography.

3.) The video I had ordered was a documentary called "In Search of the Edge: An Inquiry into the Shape of the Earth and the Disappearance of Andrea Barns." It was shown on the Discovery Channel a while back.

I was told by a colleague that Rowbotham's experiments were reproduced in a Learning Channel documentary, and assumed that this video was the same one. However, my colleague must have been referring to a different Flat Earth documentary since upon watching this particular video, the content seems to deal more with the explorations of Antarctica rather than the convexity of standing water.

My colleague tells me that the video featured on the Learning Channel has an FES member from England who takes us to the Bedford Canal in Cambridge and preforms Rowbotham's original experiments. The FES member in the video further demonstrates math on a chalkboard to back up the assertion that, considering the events on the Bedford Canal, the earth cannot be a globe. I am unsure of the title of this documentary, however.

Could you provide a way to get to that second picture from the web page?  I was following links and I got this:



I would be surprised if that second pic was on the NASA website.  The stars look like MS Paint dots!

1.) In my quote am referring to comparisons of North America between this photo and this photo. Obviously not the same earth. Additionally, the second image seems to have stars in the background. No other image of the earth from space has stars.

The second image which contains stars comes directly from NASA's website, so there is no doctoring applied.

2.) Once I procure the proper equipment I am planning to document my findings with photography.

That first picture is part of the Blue Marble Project, which is not an actual photograph but a rendering of the Earth made by different satellite images.

As for why they look different, there could be several explanations:
1) Different camera
2) Different lighting
3) Different film
4) Different picture resolution.  The blue marble project is a series of hi-res pictures.
5) Since the Blue Marble project is made to look pretty, NASA could be spicing up the image to make it look more appealing than the Apollo 16 picture.  One example is that in the Blue Marble project, the images are sorted through in order to remove as much cloud coverage as possible.

Also, earth's color can change.  Here are two images, on taken in January of 2004 and one taken in July of 2004:



Blue Marble images through the months

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2007, 08:36:19 PM

1.) In my quote am referring to comparisons of North America between this photo and this photo. Obviously not the same earth. Additionally, the second image seems to have stars in the background. No other image of the earth from space has stars.

The second image which contains stars comes directly from NASA's website, so there is no doctoring applied.

2.) Once I procure the proper equipment I am planning to document my findings with photography.

That first picture is part of the Blue Marble Project, which is not an actual photograph but a rendering of the Earth made by different satellite images.

As for why they look different, there could be several explanations:
1) Different camera
2) Different lighting
3) Different film
4) Different picture resolution.  The blue marble project is a series of hi-res pictures.
5) Since the Blue Marble project is made to look pretty, NASA could be spicing up the image to make it look more appealing than the Apollo 16 picture.  One example is that in the Blue Marble project, the images are sorted through in order to remove as much cloud coverage as possible.

Also, earth's color can change.  Here are two images, on taken in January of 2004 and one taken in July of 2004:



Blue Marble images through the months

Whoa now hold on there a second...are you trying to tell me that... snow melts and things green up towards the middle of the year??
I dunno......

1.) In my quote am referring to comparisons of North America between this photo and...

good, good.  you're taking this seriously, finally.

first of all, while it's good that you have posted an alleged discrepancy - and i'll get to that in a minute - it is not one of the remaining two you have been asked to clarify.  specifically, you claimed [my numbers inserted]: "1) The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown.  2) The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another [you lost this one].  3) Clouds have shadows in one image but no others. Et cetera."

so you still have #s 1 and 3 to lose go.

ok?  ok.  so back to the two globes.

the first one, as trekky pointed out before me, is from the blue marble project.  even i recognized that immediately.  a poor attempt, bishop.  really.  some dead giveaways are the continental shelf and ocean floor features clearly visible, yet anyone with a hint of common sense wouldn't believe they really would be from an actual all-at-once visible photo.

...this photo. Obviously not the same earth. Additionally, the second image seems to have stars in the background. No other image of the earth from space has stars.

The second image which contains stars comes directly from NASA's website, so there is no doctoring applied.

the stars are obviously painted in.  for starters, stars would not even be remotely visible in that shot.  the camera is exposed for a very large [in the frame], very high albedo object.  just as you can see no stars in the sky when photographing a full moon zoomed in anywhere close to that size [with an albedo of asphalt mind you], you should not see stars in that shot.  you can see very few stars in the sky with the naked eye with a (comparatively tiny) full moon overhead, and the human eye has far more dynamic range than film.

secondly, if you zoom into the image, the aliasing is very light, and mysteriously blocky, on the "stars", and not at all consistent with the aliasing of the earth in the same image.  also, the aliasing of the stars is entirely consistent with jpeg compression of an image with zero aliasing on the stars originally (try it - draw white streaks a few pixels wide on a black background in ms paint, and save it as medium quality jpeg).  the "stars" were clearly - and very badly - added in after the fact.  the streaking of the stars aren't even in a consistent direction of amount.

now the question - why is an image with badly faked stars hosted on a nasa.gov subdomain?  i don't know, but you "conveniently" only provided a link to the jpeg.  i googled the link itself, and turned up no actual page contianing it (which might have provided clarifying details).  for all i know, it could have been on a page highlighting bad fakes, or user-submitted content.  provide a link to the page with the image *and* descriptive content, then we'll talk more.  until then, it's irrelevant as an obvious fake.

in the spirit of full disclosure and honest debate [an alien concept to bishop i know], i should point out an interesting twist i noticed.  trekky posted another version of the exact same pic without the badly faked stars.  that image is also hosted on the same nasa.gov subdomain (different directory).  although trekky surely didn't notice and posted in good faith, the badly faked stars from the original have been blotted out, again very badly.  you can just barely tell - i noticed by accident by catching the image from an extreme angle on my lcd monitor.  further tweaking confirmed.  the background is not quite black.  the blotted out fake stars are done (badly) with pure black.

trekky, can you provide the original page that you found that image on?  might help resolve things.

so far there is no evidence (that i have the technical savvy to determine at least) of any malfeasance or unfair play by either bishop or trekky in either the "starry" or "non-starry" photos.  the photos seem to be on nasa servers.  someone with more internets expertise should dig into this.  until then, i can hear the screams of "see!  this is proof that nasa is faking photos by hiring a 5-year old with ms-paint!"  until we learn the context or more about it, it is proof of nothing but bad ms-painting on both versions.

2.) Once I procure the proper equipment I am planning to document my findings with photography.

bishop, as pointed out here two and a half freakin' months ago, the adapter for your camera (SteadyPix Universal Camera Mount) can be obtained for $36.95.  you live in monterrey with a nice ocean panorama, some of the most expensive real estate in the nation.  just take out a second mortgage on your mailbox flag with a 30-year repayment plan, i think you'll be able to cover it.  i would also think you would be highly interested and motivated in jumping at the chance to photograph this phenomenon that should shake the round earth theory to it's core.  that is, unless you were just lying because it was convenient to your story, in which case you'd do anything possible to convince us you "can't" photograph it for some stupid reason.

that did kind of sound like a commitment though.  is it?  is there some kind of time frame we can expect?  can we donate to a "tom bishop telescope adapter fund" or something?  because if that's a commitment bishop, be very clear and precise about it, something we can hang our hats on and hold you to.  tell you what: i know you are afraid of commitment.  maybe you are being held hostage.  so just write the word "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" in a reply to this.  i will take that as your commitment to "procure the equipment" (you know, the $37 peice of plastic), and i will post my evidence.  it's that easy.

3.) The video I had ordered was a documentary called "In Search of the Edge: An Inquiry into the Shape of the Earth and the Disappearance of Andrea Barns." It was shown on the Discovery Channel a while back.

I was told by a colleague that Rowbotham's experiments were reproduced in a Learning Channel documentary, and assumed that this video was the same one. However, my colleague must have been referring to a different Flat Earth documentary since upon watching this particular video, the content seems to deal more with the explorations of Antarctica rather than the convexity of standing water.

My colleague tells me that the video featured on the Learning Channel has an FES member from England who takes us to the Bedford Canal in Cambridge and preforms Rowbotham's original experiments. The FES member in the video further demonstrates math on a chalkboard to back up the assertion that, considering the events on the Bedford Canal, the earth cannot be a globe. I am unsure of the title of this documentary, however.

ok.  so you said you would upload a video as soon as you received it.  what you got was allegedly not the video you expected [due to some rediculously long-winded and therefore suspicious reason].  but that's ok, all we can do is take your word, in this case it is immune from disproof.

that's fine.  why didn't you just say so, a long time ago?  or when first challenged on it?  were you afraid of being seen as being wrong [however trivially] about something?

the bedford level experiment has been debunked.  get over it.

instead, focus your efforts on: providing the two remaining pictures you need to provide to back up your random assertions of nasa fraud, and just *commit* to buying the freakin' telescope adapter already, and shut this debate down once and for all with your shocking visual evidence of a flat earth - which i for one (and many others have already stated as well) will accept with open arms.

oops, i see bishop's first accusation of nasa fraud has already been submitted and then shot down in the post two above this by trekky. 

bishop, you fail on two of the three "proofs" of your nasa faked photo claims.  please, if those (the glaciers melting or blue marbe composite) are not the evidence of your discolored continents you intended, now is your chance for rebuttal and new nasa pics.

Yeah there could be a number of reasons for the colouring being a little different. The first time they landed a rover on Mars to take pictures, they had to wait for the data to be sent back to put together a colour image. They filtered in too much blue at first showing Mars with a blue sky.  However, the next day they sorted it out and showed Mars to have a pink sky.

I didn't see stars on either of those pics, maybe I clicked on the wrong ones or something. But in one case the camera might have been configured to let in the right amount of light to capture the Earth but not the stars, and maybe in the other pic it was tuned to be able to capture them both. Not that I'm a photographer, so maybe I'm talking bollocks. But I know that the moon landing conspiracy believers ask why you can't see any stars in the footage on the moon, and that's because the camera is only supposed to let in a certain amount of light.   

Oh yeah, how could I have been so blind, I see the stars now. yeah, blatently dotted on.

in the spirit of full disclosure and honest debate [an alien concept to bishop i know], i should point out an interesting twist i noticed.  trekky posted another version of the exact same pic without the badly faked stars.  that image is also hosted on the same nasa.gov subdomain (different directory).  although trekky surely didn't notice and posted in good faith, the badly faked stars from the original have been blotted out, again very badly.  you can just barely tell - i noticed by accident by catching the image from an extreme angle on my lcd monitor.  further tweaking confirmed.  the background is not quite black.  the blotted out fake stars are done (badly) with pure black.

trekky, can you provide the original page that you found that image on?  might help resolve things.

Whoa, I just saw that.  They are blotted out...

Let's see, I went to:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov

Then clicked on "Solar System Exploration"

Then clicked "Earth" on the left.

Bishop's picture (just found it) is under "Images of Earth (NSSDC Photo Gallery)".  It's like the second picture on the page.

Mine is under "Images of Earth (Catalog of Spaceborne Imaging)" then under "Apollo 16", first image.

Why is NASA hosting images edited with MS Paint?

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 16, 2007, 06:48:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Dipshit on December 16, 2007, 06:34:46 PM

@ Mr. Ireland. cpt_Bthimes does make things enjoyable. Tom Bishop's stupidity and CPT's (very) short temper is the reason I come here.

Doing the exact same thing everyone else has but in a more excessive manner is enjoyable?  Sad.

I'm trying to understand your train of thought here.
No one else was ever really succeeding. Sure Tom had to ignore some posts here and there, and lead threads off topic and fight losing wars, but complete pwnage is extremely entertaining.

Don't you ever pay attention?  People 'pwn' Tom all the time.  Look at Gulliver.  All Gulliver did was hate on Tom day in and day out.  It's old.  It's boring.  It's sad.

Gulliver was already gone when I got here.

As for why they look different, there could be several explanations:

1) Different camera

Are you implying that the expensive color hasselblad cameras taken up on the Apollo missions were unable to perceive the color green?

2) Different lighting

A camera's flash from space will not illuminate the earth.

3) Different film

Are you implying that the cutting edge Kodak film  taken up on the Apollo missions were unable to perceive the color green?

4) Different picture resolution.  The blue marble project is a series of hi-res pictures.

How does increasing or decreasing the resolution of an image eliminate the color green?

5) Since the Blue Marble project is made to look pretty, NASA could be spicing up the image to make it look more appealing than the Apollo 16 picture.  One example is that in the Blue Marble project, the images are sorted through in order to remove as much cloud coverage as possible.

That's a valid cop-out. NASA does have a nasty habit of adding false color to its images. Every Hubble image, for example, comes in black and white. All stars and space phenomena produce white like. In reality there are no red, blue, or yellow hues from nebulae. It's all added in for visual effect.

Also, earth's color can change.  Here are two images, on taken in January of 2004 and one taken in July of 2004:

This is valid criticism. However, the Apollo missions took place all throughout the year. If you study the Apollo images of the earth closely you will find that there is not one spec of green on any of the continents. The continents appear as a uniform brown in each and every Apollo shot.