NASA's $1 billion Jupiter probe just sent back breathtaking new images of the Great Red Spot
in Science

agsr · July 2017

I think these images are amazing and a great accomplishment by NASA.

NASA's $1 billion Jupiter probe just sent back breathtaking new images of the Great Red Spot

http://www.businessinsider.com/latest-jupiter-pictures-nasa-juno-2017-7/?r=US&IR=T/#this-monumental-storm-has-raged-on-the-solar-systems-biggest-planet-for-centuries-scott-bolton-the-juno-missions-leader-said-in-a-nasa-statement-1

Erfisflat · July 2017

That's hilarious. I'd rather have four billion 25 cent candies.

Erfisflat · July 2017

Is it just me, or does Juno look like a fidget spinner that takes selfies? Seriously, storms change right? Jupiter's storms have been claimed to be changing significantly.

That being said, look at the 2014 image of Jupiter:

Two years later,

the contrast has changed a bit, and they've added a little pizzazz on top. All the NASA fanboys ooh and ahhh at the wonderful images from the imaginary space vacuum. Seriously, the images overlap. It's a direct copy, with some Photoshop added.

Thank you magical selfie taking fidget spinner spaceship. Well worth the $1,000,000,000...

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

Can you please keep your conspiracy theory out of my scientific achievement? Or at least make it interesting to rebuttt?

That second image is not the actual imagery taken in 2016, which was taken focusing on the ultraviolet portion of the spectrum.

The second image it is just a visual example of the aurora showing it's scale used in a press release and in fact Hubble specifically labelled it as being from 2014 when they used it for this purpose. For reference please see the "release Image" section of their press release Here.

Specifically you can look under the "Fast facts" section here or even just the "about this image" here where in the details for this 2016 press release it specifically says "This visible-light image of Jupiter was taken with the Wide Field Camera 3 aboard NASA's Hubble Space Telescope on April 21, 2014."

Your claim is based on the falsehood that these images are meant to represent Jupiter 2 years apart, when that isn't the case. The only portion of it from 2016 is the blue section on the top which has been overlaid on top of the image to represent the findings they got when investigating Jupiter's Auroras.

Perhaps if you were less eager to jump to wild outlandish conspiracies and more willing to do basic investigation work, you would have noticed this for yourself.

Erfisflat · July 2017

So, basically the same thing I just said. The same image with some fairy dust sprinkled on it. I was assuming that...

Jupiter as captured by the Hubble Space Telescope, July 24, 2016,

showing the giant planet's brilliant aurora

Credit: NASA

http://zerospinzone.blogspot.com/2017/06/astronomers-come-up-with-brilliant-way.html?m=1

Meant the whole image was "captured", but you just confirmed my whole point. Tell me, is this just laziness? Why not take a new picture and superimpose the two? Also, do you think this think is actually a telescope spaceship?

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

@Erfisflat

I thought your point was that NASA was faking images, using the evidence of two pictures which you incorrectly thought were meant to be taken 2 years apart but which looked the same? Of course as NASA explains, this is just the same image. If you're conceding that argument that's fine but that's very much not the point I just made, which is about you being mistaken and making false claims..

As for why the writer of http://zerospinzone.blogspot.co.uk made the same mistake you did I couldn't say, I have no history with that blogger nor desire to investigate because it isn't important. As we know that that both you and this random blogger are incorrect it doesn't really matter and I would suggest in future that you don't rely on random bloggers for your evidence. Doing so could avoid you making false claims and assumptions like you've done here.

Erfisflat · July 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

@Erfisflat

I thought your point was that NASA was faking images, using the evidence of two pictures which you incorrectly thought were meant to be taken 2 years apart but which looked the same? Of course as NASA explains, this is just the same image. If you're conceding that argument that's fine but that's very much not the point I just made, which is about you being mistaken and making false claims..

As for why the writer of http://zerospinzone.blogspot.co.uk made the same mistake you did I couldn't say, I have no history with that blogger nor desire to investigate because it isn't important. As we know that that both you and this random blogger are incorrect it doesn't really matter and I would suggest in future that you don't rely on random bloggers for your evidence. Doing so could avoid you making false claims and assumptions like you've done here.

Because photo shopping is a common practice at NASA? Like Pluto

Mercury

Earth

Satellite selfies, etc. Etc.
My point is that they are the same picture, with some Photoshop added in 2016.

Tell me, is this just laziness? Why not take a new picture and superimpose the two? Also, do you think this think is actually a telescope spaceship?

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

Erfisflat said:

Because photo shopping is a common practice at NASA? Like Pluto, Mercury, Earth

Satellite selfies, etc. Etc.

Based on your posting to date, I'm taking this as you indicating it's part of a giant world wide conspiracy where government agencies, both private and public astronomy organisations and amateur enthusiasts are all conspiring to fake information about space.

As the only claim you've actually laid out so far turns out to be false as you hadn't bothered to spend even a few minutes investigating it, forgive me if I don't believe in a gigantic hoax based purely on your say so.

Erfisflat said:
My point is that they are the same picture, with some Photoshop added in 2016.

Let's check the record as to the point you were trying to make and which you are now backpedalling away from.

" Jupiter's storms have been claimed to be changing significantly.

That being said, look at the 2014 image of Jupiter:

Image: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/juno/images/jupiter/jupiter2.jpg

Two years later,

Image: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gv0BB0Rb4K4/WTl8v8Oj9lI/AAAAAAABrc8/0wqISmVLSUgTqxSkxBh0bRqnd5Nlpp2-gCLcB/s1600/Jupiter%2Baurora3x2.jpg

the contrast has changed a bit, and they've added a little pizzazz on top. All the NASA fanboys ooh and ahhh at the wonderful images from the imaginary space vacuum. Seriously, the images overlap. It's a direct copy, with some Photoshop added."

You presented them as proof that Jupiter's storms hadn't changed significantly, which is something that the storms are understood to do by all educated astronomers. To show this was the case you presented two pictures, one used in 2014 and one used in 2016, with the implication that Nasa was nefariously pretending to take new images of Jupiter which were actually fakes.

Of course as shown that wasn't the case and you just hadn't bothered to investigate your wild claims.

Erfisflat said:

Tell me, is this just laziness? Why not take a new picture and superimpose the two?

Better question, why would they? The image itself wasn't part of some study or part of the actual research, which and shown previously was focused on the ultraviolet range, it was part of a press release. It was something NASA's media department put together so newspapers would have a graphic to go with the story. So what should it matter? Should they have assumed that a year later a conspiracy theorist would be trying to prove his claims by relying on random images in press releases without even bothering to perform basic checks first? If so, should they have cared? I can just imagine the call from NASA's head of communications to the head of Hubble trying to convince them they should put aside actual research to focus on that instead!

Erfisflat · July 2017

"You presented them as proof that Jupiter's storms hadn't changed significantly, which is something that the storms are understood to do by all educated astronomers."

False. I presented proof that NASA was using an old photograph with some fairy dust added with Photoshop to produce a new image, which is a true claim. The public isn't really investigating NASA so one could see that image and think the image was real, when in fact, it is fabricated, like the rest of the images (you ignored) you pretend are real.

Erfisflat · July 2017

"Can you please keep your conspiracy theory out of my scientific achievement? "

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

@Erfisflat

To quote you:

" Jupiter's storms have been claimed to be changing significantly.

That being said, look at the 2014 image of Jupiter:"

You presented them as proof that Jupiter's storms hadn't changed significantly, which is something that the storms are understood to do by all educated astronomers and I have shown to be based on you not investigating the facts. If you disagree, explain why your comments specifically present them in that fashion. Also as you have not defended it or given any rebuttal, do you concede that there is no good reason that a NASA press release in 2016 would require Hubble to take new photos of Jupiter?

In regards to your images, you haven't made an argument with them. You just interspersed your post with random images with no explanation. What do you expect me to say "Yes, that sure is a picture of the planet Pluto with the features of the cartoon dog Pluto superimposed over a section of it! Good job presenting random images!"?

Erfisflat · July 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

@Erfisflat

Two quote you:

" Jupiter's storms have been claimed to be changing significantly.

That being said, look at the 2014 image of Jupiter:"

You presented them as proof that Jupiter's storms hadn't changed significantly, which is something that the storms are understood to do by all educated astronomers and I have shown to be based on you not investigating the facts. If you disagree, explain why your comments specifically present them in that fashion. Also as you have not defended it or given any rebuttal, do you concede that there is no good reason that a NASA press release in 2016 would require Hubble to take new photos of Jupiter?

In regards to your images, you haven't made an argument with them. You just interspersed your post with random images with no explanation. What do you expect me to say "Yes, that sure is a picture of the planet Pluto with the features of the cartoon dog Pluto superimposed over a section of it! Good job presenting random images!"?

"Seriously, the images overlap. It's a direct copy, with some Photoshop added."

This is my claim. It is true. The storms changing was just the logical supporting evidence, not the conclusion. Your well researched rebuttal supports the claim. Seeing that you seem to be a NASA fanboy, I was assuming you recognized the photos I presented, or could at least research them. The Pluto image is a photo of Pluto from NASA. Yes, the dog was added to show the similarities, if you couldn't figure that out on your own...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/a-colorful-landing-on-pluto/

Which gives us a NASA Disney connection. As does the Mercury photo.

http://gizmodo.com/nasa-probe-found-han-solo-on-mercurys-surface-1341113838

The clone tool earth is 2012 blue marble, and the last one is a claimed photo from NASA that is comical, would you like me to point out the obvious flaws in that one?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth

Erfisflat · July 2017

@AlwaysCorrect

You're willing to believe NASA is legit because they draw you some cartoons bro? They're telling you there is no God, Photoshop you a few images to support the Copernican Principle, and you believe it. I thought Christians were gullible with their belief systems...

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

Erfisflat said:

"You presented them as proof that Jupiter's storms hadn't changed significantly, which is something that the storms are understood to do by all educated astronomers."

False. I presented proof that NASA was using an old photograph with some fairy dust added with Photoshop to produce a new image, which is a true claim. The public isn't really investigating NASA so one could see that image and think the image was real, when in fact, it is fabricated, like the rest of the images (you ignored) you pretend are real.

So you can't give any actual reason or logic to explain why you presented as per my quote, and will instead just mindlessly repeat the very unsupported claim I was questioning?

As you have done this twice it seems we have come to an impasse due to your refusal to respond appropriately and will trust neutral observers to note that you couldn't offer any defense for why you presented this argument as being about changes in Jupiter's storms between 2014 and 2016 and then backtracked when proven wrong.

Frankly, that this is the best defence you could scramble back to speaks volumes. Oh no, when putting together a press release their PR department used a base image of Jupiter that was two years old! Which is a bad thing for reasons you are unable to articulate even though you have been directly asked to!

Erfisflat said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

@Erfisflat

Two quote you:

" Jupiter's storms have been claimed to be changing significantly.

That being said, look at the 2014 image of Jupiter:"

You presented them as proof that Jupiter's storms hadn't changed significantly, which is something that the storms are understood to do by all educated astronomers and I have shown to be based on you not investigating the facts. If you disagree, explain why your comments specifically present them in that fashion. Also as you have not defended it or given any rebuttal, do you concede that there is no good reason that a NASA press release in 2016 would require Hubble to take new photos of Jupiter?

In regards to your images, you haven't made an argument with them. You just interspersed your post with random images with no explanation. What do you expect me to say "Yes, that sure is a picture of the planet Pluto with the features of the cartoon dog Pluto superimposed over a section of it! Good job presenting random images!"?

"Seriously, the images overlap. It's a direct copy, with some Photoshop added."

This is my claim. It is true. The storms changing was just the logical supporting evidence, not the conclusion. Your well researched rebuttal supports the claim.

Why is your only defence cherrypicking your own statements? You still haven't given an explanation for why you started off this line of enquiry with

"Jupiter's storms have been claimed to be changing significantly.

That being said, look at the 2014 image of Jupiter:"

So why did you say that if you're now renouncing that position? That you can only defend your argument by ignoring your own words speaks volumes in and of itself.

Also the point you're now claiming and the point I'm claiming are not mutually exclusive. As you're talking about it in terms of "conclusion", let's look at it in scientific terminology.

Your hypothesis was: NASA has been faking images of Jupiter.

Your methodology was: Comparing photos in 2014 and 2016. Jupiter's winds move the atmosphere so it should look dissimilar enough to be visible from a decently sized photograph. If it is identical the pictures are likely fakes

Your data was: Two pictures, one from 2014 and another identical picture which was the same picture from 2014 but which you believed was from 2016 because you didn't check,

Your conclusion was: The pictures are the same.

I am not disputing the conclusion you came to because that's part of my argument. I'm talking about the hypothesis you were trying to support with it, the rationale you gave for doing this comparison in the beginning. You clearly stated it was about Jupiter's storms changing.

Seeing that you seem to be a NASA fanboy, I was assuming you recognized the photos I presented, or could at least research them. The Pluto image is a photo of Pluto from NASA. Yes, the dog was added to show the similarities, if you couldn't figure that out on your own...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/a-colorful-landing-on-pluto/

Which gives us a NASA Disney connection. As does the Mercury photo.

http://gizmodo.com/nasa-probe-found-han-solo-on-mercurys-surface-1341113838

Again, are you going to present an argument? This just seems to be random non-pertinent observations.

The clone tool earth is 2012 blue marble, and the last one is a claimed photo from NASA that is comical, would you like me to point out the obvious flaws in that one?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth

Making arguments is pretty essential in a debate, so yes please. If you could make an argument containing the minimum of the following points for each image that would be a great help as I consider them the bare minimum to making adequate arguments rather than unsubstantiated claims:

- Picture of image you believe is relevant
- Source of image so it's credentials can be verified
- Reliably sourced description of what the image should be expected to show according to NASA/scientific theory
- Observations you can see which do not match NASA's statements/scientific theory
- The conclusion you draw from this disparity

You have ticked off the first part already and for some of them have done the second, but at this stage I still have no idea what point you are trying to make and no reason to believe you even if you told me, which is points 3 to 5.

Erfisflat said:

@AlwaysCorrect

You're willing to believe NASA is legit because they draw you some cartoons bro? They're telling you there is no God, Photoshop you a few images to support the Copernican Principle, and you believe it. I thought Christians were gullible with their belief systems...

Literally the only person here trying to sway beliefs with cartoons is you. You have posted pictures with stuff (including cartoons) drawn on them and no explanation as to why they matter and expects that to magically think your beliefs are legitimate.

Also why would I think NASA is legit because of cartoons. I check sources. The only person who has been caught out by edited images here is you.

Erfisflat · July 2017

"why you presented this argument as being about changes in Jupiter's storms between 2014 and 2016 and then backtracked when proven wrong."

I was obviously showing that this was a copy of a picture, with a reference (you never played spot the differences?)to the cloud and storms to compare. You have created a strawman. My argument is not "the storms on Jupiter haven't (actually) changed for 2 years", it is "this is the same picture with some special effects drawn in to fool the general public". Just because you proved that in this case, they quietly admit it, doesn't make the claim any less true. At least one of the images is demonstrably faked (the storms haven't moved". Just because I
stated: "Seriously, storms change right? Jupiter's storms have been claimed to be changing significantly." Doesn't make this relevant in anyway to the overall conclusion, NASA makes a lot cartoons.

This is the general idea I was getting across, that you can't seem to comprehend. There are many, and anyone who has done any digital imagery background can plainly see that there are hardly if any actual photos of anything space related from NASA. This is your belief system.

This is a cartoon. Agreed?

Cartoon.

They're all cartoons. Most of them are quietly admitted as you have shown, but some, that are demonstrably faked, aren't. They put the 2012 Blue Marble on the iPhone and out of all the millions that saw that image, how many do you think thought that was a real picture? What's really great is that all of it's fake. No actual videos from space, no real photographs at all. Sci-fi, emphasis on fi.

" I still have no idea what point you are trying to make and no reason to believe you even if you told me, which is points 3 to 5."

Your cognitive dissonance is showing a bit. Any unbiased person reading this and looking at the pictures can easily understand my point. One image we can pass off as chance, but this is more than one instance. You being overly critical is just intellectually dishonesty from bias. And then,

"I check sources"...

Erfisflat · July 2017

@alwayscorrect
"why you presented this argument as being about changes in Jupiter's storms between 2014 and 2016 and then backtracked when proven wrong."

I was obviously showing that this was a copy of a picture, with a reference (you never played spot the differences?)to the cloud and storms to compare. You have created a strawman. My argument is not "the storms on Jupiter haven't (actually) changed for 2 years", it is "this is the same picture with some special effects drawn in to fool the general public". Just because you proved that in this case, they quietly admit it, doesn't make the claim any less true. At least one of the images is demonstrably faked (the storms haven't moved". Just because I
stated: "Seriously, storms change right? Jupiter's storms have been claimed to be changing significantly." Doesn't make this relevant in anyway to the overall conclusion, NASA makes a lot cartoons.

This is the general idea I was getting across, that you can't seem to comprehend. There are many, and anyone who has done any digital imagery background can plainly see that there are hardly if any actual photos of anything space related from NASA. This is your belief system.

This is a cartoon. Agreed?

Cartoon.

They're all cartoons. Most of them are quietly admitted as you have shown, but some, that are demonstrably faked, aren't. They put the 2012 Blue Marble on the iPhone and out of all the millions that saw that image, how many do you think thought that was a real picture? What's really great is that all of it's fake. No actual videos from space, no real photographs at all. Sci-fi, emphasis on fi.

" I still have no idea what point you are trying to make and no reason to believe you even if you told me, which is points 3 to 5."

Your cognitive dissonance is showing a bit. Any unbiased person reading this and looking at the pictures can easily understand my point. One image we can pass off as chance, but this is more than one instance. You being overly critical is just intellectually dishonesty from bias. And then,

"I check sources"...

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

@Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

I was obviously showing that this was a copy of a picture, with a reference (you never played spot the differences?)to the cloud and storms to compare. You have created a strawman. My argument is not "the storms on Jupiter haven't (actually) changed for 2 years", it is "this is the same picture with some special effects drawn in to fool the general public". Just because you proved that in this case, they quietly admit it, doesn't make the claim any less true. At least one of the images is demonstrably faked (the storms haven't moved". Just because I
stated: "Seriously, storms change right? Jupiter's storms have been claimed to be changing significantly." Doesn't make this relevant in anyway to the overall conclusion, NASA makes a lot cartoons.

You realise you have just conceded the point right? What you have just admitted to is just my point in different words and more than that in mindboggling fashion you still think the evidence supports you.

You think the picture shows that "this is the same picture with some special effects drawn in to fool the general public" and they are being fooled to believe in "the imaginary space vacuum".

Of course as explained the evidence does not support your conclusion. If, as the scientific and public consensus believes, space and planets are real - we would not expect the image of the planet to differ because it is exactly the same image of a planet. You argument is false, based on evidence you didn't bother to investigated.

This is the general idea I was getting across, that you can't seem to comprehend. There are many, and anyone who has done any digital imagery background can plainly see that there are hardly if any actual photos of anything space related from NASA.

The issue here is that you are trying to get across "general ideas". Anyone can have a "general idea" about anything. That doesn't mean it is based in reality. If you have any specific claims you would like to support with evidence, feel free to do so.

For example, although I'm a little unclear what you're trying to say here (I'm guessing "anyone who has done any digital imagery background" means "anyone who has any digital background imagery experience"), you are making claims with no actual evidence to back it up, hence irrelevant and no need for me to respond.

This is a cartoon. Agreed?

Cartoon.

They're all cartoons.

I agree that 100% of the two images you have posted are "cartoons". Do you have a point to this random claim as it doesn't seem to support anything?

Also I don't think most people would call them cartoons and your reliance on semantic conceits is an indicator that you lack a solid argument.

Most of them are quietly admitted as you have shown, but some, that are demonstrably faked, aren't.

This is just an unsupported opinion. You offer no evidence to back it up.

They put the 2012 Blue Marble on the iPhone and out of all the millions that saw that image, how many do you think thought that was a real picture? What's really great is that all of it's fake. No actual videos from space, no real photographs at all. Sci-fi, emphasis on fi.

This is just an unsupported opinion. You offer no evidence to back it up.

Your cognitive dissonance is showing a bit. Any unbiased person reading this and looking at the pictures can easily understand my point. One image we can pass off as chance, but this is more than one instance. You being overly critical is just intellectually dishonesty from bias.

This is just an unsupported opinion. You offer no evidence to back it up.

And then,

"I check sources"...

Meaningless criticism with no rationale offered for why it should be believed.

All in all a very poor effort. You often talk on these forums about how you have studied this kind of thing for years and the evidence is there but it's just most people don't bother to look. Well why is it then that when given the chance, you cannot support your claims with any actual evidence and resort to making wild claims without even a single iota of evidence or reason to back them up? Why are you just making unsupported claims?

northsouthkorea · July 2017

@erfisflat , what do you make out of the images. I believe that they are striking and could help in research of that planet.

Max_Air29 · July 2017

The images don't seem the be tampered with unless the changes are for image quality and image resolution.

NASA has spent some of their budget on this probe as far as I know and they will most likely try to extend their bang for the buck.

Erfisflat · July 2017

northsouthkorea said:

@erfisflat , what do you make out of the images. I believe that they are striking and could help in research of that planet.

It's the best CGI a billion dollars can buy. I'm going to make a few tomorrow.

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

Erfisflat said:

northsouthkorea said:

@erfisflat , what do you make out of the images. I believe that they are striking and could help in research of that planet.

It's the best CGI a billion dollars can buy. I'm going to make a few tomorrow.

You can also make CGI images of cats. This does not mean all images of cats anyone in the world has ever provided are all automatically CGI. Assuming so would be a logical fallacy, which is what you are doing here.

NASA provides the raw image files from Juno at https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing as well images which the public have made from those raws which are particularly breathtaking.

If you would like to claim the images from Juno are fake, please provide evidence and reasoning and not logical fallacies. While you're at it, please either defend or concede your other unsupported claims.

Erfisflat · July 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

Erfisflat said:

northsouthkorea said:

@erfisflat , what do you make out of the images. I believe that they are striking and could help in research of that planet.

It's the best CGI a billion dollars can buy. I'm going to make a few tomorrow.

You can also make CGI images of cats. This does not mean all images of cats anyone in the world has ever provided are all automatically CGI. Assuming so would be a logical fallacy, which is what you are doing here.

NASA provides the raw image files from Juno at https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing as well images which the public have made from those raws which are particularly breathtaking.

If you would like to claim the images from Juno are fake, please provide evidence and reasoning and not logical fallacies. While you're at it, please either defend or concede your other unsupported claims.

I've actually held a cat. Hell, I've taken pictures of cats, so instead of claiming "fallacy" and your evidence being a false analogy fallacy, tell me have you been to Jupiter or snapped a photo of Jupiter? You've never left earth because it's impossible.

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

@Erfisflat

What exactly is your logic where you think you having seen a cat is an acceptable and relevant rebuttal? Do you think if you have seen a version of something in person (like a cat) that any represention of a cat you come across is automatically real and not digitally created? Do you think any image of something you haven't seen personally is automatically a faked digital image?

You are steeped in logical fallacies. Just because it is possible to make a CGI image of something does not mean all pictures of that thing are CGI. Likewise whether or not you have seen a physical example of something does not mean that all examples of that type of thing are either CGI or not CGI.

Please support your completely unevidenced and unsupported claims or concede the points.

Erfisflat · July 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

@Erfisflat

What exactly is your logic where you think you having seen a cat is an acceptable and relevant rebuttal? Do you think if you have seen a version of something in person (like a cat) that any represention of a cat you come across is automatically real and not digitally created? Do you think any image of something you haven't seen personally is automatically a faked digital image?

You are steeped in logical fallacies. Just because it is possible to make a CGI image of something does not mean all pictures of that thing are CGI. Likewise whether or not you have seen a physical example of something does not mean that all examples of that type of thing are either CGI or not CGI.

Please support your completely unevidenced and unsupported claims or concede the points.

Cats verifiably exist. Most anyone can see a cat. The only evidence you have for your unverifiable belief system is a few pictures, most ADMITTED Photoshop.

This is as scientific as you get. Here is a picture of a thing that neither of us, nor anyone we know can verify. This is the only evidence I offer of unicorn's existence and think you're smaller than me if you don't believe this is real.

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

@Erfisflat

Why are you sticking to logical fallacies and then heaping on outright lies?

You are trying to prove your logical that because a photo of something can be CGI, it automatically is CGI if you haven't experienced it personally. This is obviously untrue. Some things you haven't seen will be CGI, some won't. Automatically assuming they're all unreal is fallacious.

Above is a photo of the Slender Root Rat, discovered a little while ago in Indonesia. It is a picture that could be CGI (after all, pretty much any photos could be) and it is a picture of an animal you and no-one you know could possible personally verify. Is it CGI? Are you willing to automatically assume it is CGI just because you haven't seen it yourself previously? That is what your logic dictates you should do, right? Please note I could provide near infinite examples of things like this: photos of random people across the world, landscapes from places you are very unlikely to have ever visited, animals from remote locations, etc. Are you willing to unilaterally claim they are all CGI until you see what they represent in person?

You see the reason I and almost any sane person judge the unicorn picture to not be real isn't because it's a photo of something we've never seen (after all there are lots of photos of things we haven't seen almost everyone would be wiling to accept), it's based on a host of supporting details like unicorns never having been seen by any reputable source, them appearing frequently in mythological sources etc which don't apply to instances like the existence of the Slender Root Rat, Jupiter or billions of other examples of photos we haven't seen. You argument is still illogical.

Also my earlier reference to your outright lie is your claim that:

"The only evidence you have for your unverifiable belief system is a few pictures, most ADMITTED Photoshop."

This is patently false. There is a host of rationales beyond pictures to believe that Jupiter is real, ranging from the fact that Jupiter is one of the planets that is visible with the naked eye and has been known since ancient times to it (and some of its larger moons) being observed in detail even hundreds of years ago by the likes of Galileo, to the taw mathematics of orbital mechanics, etc, etc. While I'm sure you have some wild unsupported claims you will make about why all the evidence is wrong, the evidence is there even if you disagree with it and would like to prove it false. That you have to lie to try and defend your position speaks volumes.

Also if you want to prove most NASA photos are photoshops, please provide evidence of this rather than more unsubstantiated claims.

Erfisflat · July 2017

"You are trying to prove your logical that because a photo of something can be CGI, it automatically is CGI if you haven't experienced it personally. "

Not exactly, I could physically go to Indonesia and see for myself, if one intended to prove the rat exists. A picture is not scientific evidence. I could likewise go to these remote places and witness myself anything on the earth. That isn't the hard or impossible task. You'll never go to space, despite all the funding and Brazilians of dollars invested. You'll never even get to the iss, they tell you you either have to swear an oath to the government or be a brazzilianaire like them to leave earth. This is a false analogy fallacy.

"Jupiter is one of the planets that is visible with the naked eye and has been known since ancient times to it (and some of its larger moons) being observed in detail even hundreds of years ago by the likes of Galileo, to the taw mathematics of orbital mechanics,"

Yes, we all see Jupiter and his moons, does this mean Galileo was looking at physical terra firma? It's all CGI and space movies filling in the gaps in your imagination. Challenge Find a real picture of earth as a ball.

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

@Erfisflat

So for the third time you're making your argument, having once again conceded your previous argument, moving the goalposts with you.

First of all you make the argument that because something is an image it's fake. Then when that's pointed out as illogical you make the argument that because something is an image AND you have never seen a version of it in person it's fake. Then when THAT'S pointed out as illogical you make the argument that because something is an image AND you have never seen a version of it in person AND it's breached some abitrary measure of difficultness to assess it's fake.

Here's the thing, if you are unable to verify if something is real - it does not automatically mean it is fake. Do you assume that any results from electron microscopes or deep sea exploration - which are both presumably well outside your budget - are fake? I'm sure you will move the goalposts further, but really I'm only using the analogies to illustrate what should be a very obvious point. If you see a picture of something you can't verify yourself, you are not in a position to say if it is real or fake and must look at the corroborating evidence. Like you say, "A picture is not scientific evidence" but you're the one who has chosen to focus solely only on pictures and ignore all the scientific evidence. At any point you could have made an argument against the actual science. Instead you have made an argument which you yourself not admit does not count as scientific evidence.

I've been trying to explain the issue to you, but if it's still not clicking then I'm just going to leave the onus of trying to prove why you should randomly disbelieve pictures when it's convenient to do so (because it helps your pre-existing beliefs) on you. You haven't made a case for why it should be, so until you do the point is moot anyway.

In regards to checking Jupiter itself, we've had telescopes for hundreds of years which are capable of seeing Jupiter's features. The Great Red Spot was first identified nearly a couple of hundred years ago at least, possibly even earlier (we're unsure if some of the early observations were of the same storm so it's a grey area). You can go into a store today and buy a telescope which will let you see Jupiter, not in the same resolution as a satellite in orbit around it, but with clarity enough to see the features. You can even take pictures via modern telescopes, allowing you to upload photos or videos to youtube. If you wanted to, for the price of a plane to Indonesia and then covering expenses for however long it takes to try and track down a rare recently discovered small rodent, you could certainly buy a telescope and verify what Jupiter looks like for yourself.

Also on your last few points Jupiter is not terra firma (that's latin for solid earth), it's a gas giant.

Lastly here is real picture of earth as a ball as requested:

You can find several photos updated daily here and even rotate to see the whole: https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Kind of speaks to your illogical nature that you say pictures are not scientific evidence, then in the very same post request pictures as evidence.

Erfisflat · July 2017

"So for the third time you're making your argument, having once again conceded your previous argument, moving the goalposts with you.

First of all you make the argument that because something is an image it's fake. Then when that's pointed out as illogical you make the argument that because something is an image AND you have never seen a version of it in person it's fake. Then when THAT'S pointed out as illogical you make the argument that because something is an image AND you have never seen a version of it in person AND it's breached some abitrary measure of difficultness to assess it's fake."

My position is and always was that pictures from space are all computer generated images some under the guise of composite) some not so admittedly. You've created several strawmen now. I suppose you'll be having a go at those like you did the other. We might as well be debating about whether Juno looks like a fidget spinner, I said that first.

Here's the thing, if you are unable to verify if something is real - it does not automatically mean it is fake. Do you assume that any results from electron microscopes or deep sea exploration - which are both presumably well outside your budget - are fake? I'm sure you will move the goalposts further, but really I'm only using the analogies to illustrate what should be a very obvious point. If you see a picture of something you can't verify yourself, you are not in a position to say if it is real or fake and must look at the corroborating evidence. Like you say, "A picture is not scientific evidence" but you're the one who has chosen to focus solely only on pictures and ignore all the scientific evidence.”

This is ultimately what this debate in particular is about, how wonderful pictures are from space, considering them infallible and as scientific evidence for anything is a logical fallacy from Authority, simply because of verifiability from empiricism and the sources’ credibility. If you need me to show you that the government is untrustworthy, you are too far gone. Also, please present your scientific evidence.

“ At any point you could have made an argument against the actual science. Instead you have made an argument which you yourself not admit does not count as scientific evidence.”

At least you admit this isn't scientific evidence for anything... “Actual science”, GO. Show us how the scientific method is supposed to work.

“I've been trying to explain the issue to you, but if it's still not clicking then I'm just going to leave the onus of trying to prove why you should randomly disbelieve pictures when it's convenient to do so (because it helps your pre-existing beliefs) on you. You haven't made a case for why it should be, so until you do the point is moot anyway.

Cherry picking now? I'm not randomly disbelieving pictures, I'm seeing Photoshop everywhere, and this is The whole of The modern scientific community praising a government organization for their Photoshop ability and a LOT of people have let them control what they believe, without anyone being able to empirically confirm any of it, ever.

The case has already been made.

“In regards to checking Jupiter itself, we've had telescopes for hundreds of years which are capable of seeing Jupiter's features. The Great Red Spot was first identified nearly a couple of hundred years ago at least, possibly even earlier (we're unsure if some of the early observations were of the same storm so it's a grey area). You can go into a store today and buy a telescope which will let you see Jupiter, not in the same resolution as a satellite in orbit around it, but with clarity enough to see the features. You can even take pictures via modern telescopes, allowing you to upload photos or videos to youtube. If you wanted to, for the price of a plane to Indonesia and then covering expenses for however long it takes to try and track down a rare recently discovered small rodent, you could certainly buy a telescope and verify what Jupiter looks like for yourself.

Slightly off topic (don't create a strawman this time) you know that telescopes are made of curved and convex lenses, right? Seriously, the NIKON p900 is a telescopic zoom camera.

“Also on your last few points Jupiter is not terra firma (that's latin for solid earth), it's a gas giant.”

That's interesting because never in the scientific field has it ever been demonstrated that positive pressure gas system can exist adjacent to a vacuum without a physical barrier. Regardless, there is no reason to assume a tiny light above your head is another planet. This is why there is CGI. Hopefully you understand my position now.

That picture is riddled with subliminal messages, you know anything about subliminal messages? Mkultra?

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

Erfisflat said:

My position is and always was that pictures from space are all computer generated images some under the guise of composite) some not so admittedly. You've created several strawmen now. I suppose you'll be having a go at those like you did the other. We might as well be debating about whether Juno looks like a fidget spinner, I said that first.

This is just unsupported claims. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your points with reasoning or evidence, which includes your claims about me creating strawmen. A claim that someone is committing a logical fallacy is a claim like any other. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant.

This is ultimately what this debate in particular is about, how wonderful pictures are from space, considering them infallible and as scientific evidence for anything is a logical fallacy from Authority, simply because of verifiability from empiricism and the sources’ credibility. If you need me to show you that the government is untrustworthy, you are too far gone. Also, please present your scientific evidence.

This is just unsupported claims. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your points with reasoning or evidence.

Also why would I need to present scientific evidence when the burden of proof is on you? You are the one who is making the claim, I am questioning whether it is real. Until you have actually proven a point and not just made wild unsubstantiated claims, there is nothing for me to rebutt.

Lastly, you seem to misunderstand the logical fallacy of an argument from authority as you are misusing it here. There are two versions of an argument from authority, the modern and historical version.

The modern version refers to referencing someone as an expert to back up your argument when they aren't a relevant expert. E.g. referencing Stephen Hawking or some other physicist to prove evolution. While he may be very smart, he is not an expert in the relevant area so his word should hold no particular sway. As NASA's expertise is in astronomy, this version doesn't apply.

The classical version refers to relying on an expert's word that something is the case rather than looking at any actual evidence. As NASA provide evidence we are not merely relying on their word. Now you are more than welcome to claim that their evidence is fake, in which case you need to back up those claims, but that is a case of their evidence being wrong not simply relying on their word absent of any evidence.

At least you admit this isn't scientific evidence for anything... “Actual science”, GO. Show us how the scientific method is supposed to work.

The problem is you are the one making the positive claim. You are stating the pictures are fake and I am asking you to prove it, hence you are the one with the burden of proof that needs to be met. A complete lack of any evidence to support your arguments is bad for you.

Also you perhaps misinterpreted my point. I thought it would have been clear based on the context of the other part of the conversation. No photo is intrinsically proof of anything. However it can be proof of various things depending on the context. This is an argument you have already implicitly accepted as you have laid down conditions for when photos are and are not trustworthy.

The problem of course is that you are making categorical statements about which photos are and are not trustworthy (you claim all of NASA's aren't and all of yours are) but no proof as to why your claims are true.

Cherry picking now? I'm not randomly disbelieving pictures, I'm seeing Photoshop everywhere, and this is The whole of The modern scientific community praising a government organization for their Photoshop ability and a LOT of people have let them control what they believe, without anyone being able to empirically confirm any of it, ever.
The case has already been made.

This is just unsupported claims. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your points with reasoning or evidence, which includes your claims about me cherry picking. A claim that someone is committing a logical fallacy is a claim like any other. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant.

Slightly off topic (don't create a strawman this time) you know that telescopes are made of curved and convex lenses, right? Seriously, the NIKON p900 is a telescopic zoom camera.

This is just an unsupported claim. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your point with reasoning or evidence. A claim that someone is committing a logical fallacy is a claim like any other. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant.

Meanwhile your comment about telescopes seems a non-sequiter. If you have a point to make, make it. Vague insinuations do not rebutt my argument.

That's interesting because never in the scientific field has it ever been demonstrated that positive pressure gas system can exist adjacent to a vacuum without a physical barrier. Regardless, there is no reason to assume a tiny light above your head is another planet. This is why there is CGI. Hopefully you understand my position now.

This is just unsupported claims. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your points with reasoning or evidence. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant.

That picture is riddled with subliminal messages, you know anything about subliminal messages? Mkultra?

This is just an unsupported claim. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant. A video of a second person making random unsupported claims is little different from you making random unsupported claims. For instance he labels massive conspiracy theories as "obvious" and gives no actual rationale or evidence for them being true

At this point you are just making wild unsupported claims and are not meaningfully contributing to the debate. You are also failing to respond to my argument. For instance in my previous post I showed how your newest (and currently only) rationale was false using examples. You went off-topic when quoting the message and did not respond to my argument.

Erfisflat · July 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

Erfisflat said:

My position is and always was that pictures from space are all computer generated images some under the guise of composite) some not so admittedly. You've created several strawmen now. I suppose you'll be having a go at those like you did the other. We might as well be debating about whether Juno looks like a fidget spinner, I said that first.
This is just unsupported claims. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your points with reasoning or evidence, which includes your claims about me creating strawmen. A claim that someone is committing a logical fallacy is a claim like any other. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant.

This is ultimately what this debate in particular is about, how wonderful pictures are from space, considering them infallible and as scientific evidence for anything is a logical fallacy from Authority, simply because of verifiability from empiricism and the sources’ credibility. If you need me to show you that the government is untrustworthy, you are too far gone. Also, please present your scientific evidence.
This is just unsupported claims. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your points with reasoning or evidence.

Also why would I need to present scientific evidence when the burden of proof is on you? You are the one who is making the claim, I am questioning whether it is real. Until you have actually proven a point and not just made wild unsubstantiated claims, there is nothing for me to rebutt.

Lastly, you seem to misunderstand the logical fallacy of an argument from authority as you are misusing it here. There are two versions of an argument from authority, the modern and historical version.

The modern version refers to referencing someone as an expert to back up your argument when they aren't a relevant expert. E.g. referencing Stephen Hawking or some other physicist to prove evolution. While he may be very smart, he is not an expert in the relevant area so his word should hold no particular sway. As NASA's expertise is in astronomy, this version doesn't apply.

The classical version refers to relying on an expert's word that something is the case rather than looking at any actual evidence. As NASA provide evidence we are not merely relying on their word. Now you are more than welcome to claim that their evidence is fake, in which case you need to back up those claims, but that is a case of their evidence being wrong not simply relying on their word absent of any evidence.

At least you admit this isn't scientific evidence for anything... “Actual science”, GO. Show us how the scientific method is supposed to work.
The problem is you are the one making the positive claim. You are stating the pictures are fake and I am asking you to prove it, hence you are the one with the burden of proof that needs to be met. A complete lack of any evidence to support your arguments is bad for you.

Also you perhaps misinterpreted my point. I thought it would have been clear based on the context of the other part of the conversation. No photo is intrinsically proof of anything. However it can be proof of various things depending on the context. This is an argument you have already implicitly accepted as you have laid down conditions for when photos are and are not trustworthy.

The problem of course is that you are making categorical statements about which photos are and are not trustworthy (you claim all of NASA's aren't and all of yours are) but no proof as to why your claims are true.

Cherry picking now? I'm not randomly disbelieving pictures, I'm seeing Photoshop everywhere, and this is The whole of The modern scientific community praising a government organization for their Photoshop ability and a LOT of people have let them control what they believe, without anyone being able to empirically confirm any of it, ever.
The case has already been made.

This is just unsupported claims. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your points with reasoning or evidence, which includes your claims about me cherry picking. A claim that someone is committing a logical fallacy is a claim like any other. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant.

Slightly off topic (don't create a strawman this time) you know that telescopes are made of curved and convex lenses, right? Seriously, the NIKON p900 is a telescopic zoom camera.

This is just an unsupported claim. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your point with reasoning or evidence. A claim that someone is committing a logical fallacy is a claim like any other. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant.

Meanwhile your comment about telescopes seems a non-sequiter. If you have a point to make, make it. Vague insinuations do not rebutt my argument.

That's interesting because never in the scientific field has it ever been demonstrated that positive pressure gas system can exist adjacent to a vacuum without a physical barrier. Regardless, there is no reason to assume a tiny light above your head is another planet. This is why there is CGI. Hopefully you understand my position now.
This is just unsupported claims. If you would like to make a valid contribution you need to back up your points with reasoning or evidence. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant.

That picture is riddled with subliminal messages, you know anything about subliminal messages? Mkultra?
This is just an unsupported claim. The burden of proof is on you to back it up and until you do your unevidenced statements are irrelevant. A video of a second person making random unsupported claims is little different from you making random unsupported claims. For instance he labels massive conspiracy theories as "obvious" and gives no actual rationale or evidence for them being true

At this point you are just making wild unsupported claims and are not meaningfully contributing to the debate. You are also failing to respond to my argument. For instance in my previous post I showed how your newest (and currently only) rationale was false using examples. You went off-topic when quoting the message and did not respond to my argument.

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

@Erfisflat

If you think any of my criticisms are unfair, please explain why using reasoning and/or evidence. Otherwise, the issue that you are continually making wild unsupported claims without evidence to back them up is one that you have to deal with not me and until you do your argument lacks merit. Is it my fault if you make the same fundamental error constantly and so the same rebuttal replies in each case?

You'll please also note that where your argument did stray into something specific I could respond to (Your misuse of the appeal to authority logical fallacy, your use of "evidence" which is just unsupported opinion from a third source and doesn't contain any merit in terms of evidentiary value, who the burden of proof lies with, etc) I made a specific argument explaining my reasoning. Your argument here would therefore be an example of a strawman argument because you are misrepresenting my argument.

Erfisflat · July 2017

AlwaysCorrect said:

@Erfisflat

If you think any of my criticisms are unfair, please explain why using reasoning and/or evidence. Otherwise, the issue that you are continually making wild unsupported claims without evidence to back them up is one that you have to deal with not me and until you do your argument lacks merit. Is it my fault if you make the same fundamental error constantly and so the same rebuttal replies in each case?

You'll please also note that where your argument did stray into something specific I could respond to (Your misuse of the appeal to authority logical fallacy, your use of "evidence" which is just unsupported opinion from a third source and doesn't contain any merit in terms of evidentiary value, who the burden of proof lies with, etc) I made a specific argument explaining my reasoning. Your argument here would therefore be an example of a strawman argument because you are misrepresenting my argument.

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

@Erfisflat

Just to confirm, are you trying to use the same argument against me that I have used against you? Including the bits that clearly don't apply because it references specific portions of my posts?

Erfisflat · July 2017

Negative, if you're just go in to dismiss every point I'm wasting my breath with you.

AlwaysCorrect · July 2017

@Erfisflat

I'm willing to keep an open mind and judge your points based on the merits of your argument. Unfortunately as you are making unevidenced claims with nothing to substantiate them, your arguments have no merit and are nothing more than unsupported opinion rather than fact.

If you want your points to be treated seriously, make serious points.

melef · July 2017

I agree with @alwayscorrect on the debate.

SilverishGoldNova · August 2017

Breathtaking, are they CGI, Paintings, or Composites however?

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@SilverishGoldNova

They're photos of an actual planet. NASA has made the raw imagery publicly available and amateur astronomers have just put together nicer looking pictures from those raws.

If you want to claim images which have had their contrast altered to enhance the colours of what-have-you are fakes, cartoons or such like then feel free to but you'll only weaken your position even further with those kind of weak semantic arguments.

SilverishGoldNova · August 2017

@AlwaysCorrect I'll take that as composites, then.

AlwaysCorrect · August 2017

@SilverishGoldNova

So.... you just make random simplisitic claims that fit your pre-existing belief structure and you think it's a good thing to point this out?

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

6/16: The Takeout: Steve Coll

In this Debate

NASA's $1 billion Jupiter probe just sent back breathtaking new images of the Great Red Spot
in Science

NASA's $1 billion Jupiter probe just sent back breathtaking new images of the Great Red Spot

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

6/16: The Takeout: Steve Coll

In this Debate

NASA's $1 billion Jupiter probe just sent back breathtaking new images of the Great Red Spotin Science

NASA's $1 billion Jupiter probe just sent back breathtaking new images of the Great Red Spot

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

NASA's $1 billion Jupiter probe just sent back breathtaking new images of the Great Red Spot
in Science