PDA

View Full Version : Dear Folks



Rose G
2003-Jan-09, 07:37 PM
Dear folks, the photograph of the earth taken from outer space with Israel at the top of the picture is the most popular image of the earth taken from outer space; it has been used on book covers, posters, and is popular in many of our American public schools. And why would anyone on this forum take offense about my query about outer space photography and Israel? Shame on you. I merely asked about a photograph taken from outer space that places Israel at the top. What is wrong with that? My son-in-law is a nice Jewish man from New York City. Do not depict me as an anti-Semite, or somehow messed up with Zionism whatever that is. I ask you to use the scientific method, and please don't degenerate into your petty egos.

Glom
2003-Jan-09, 07:53 PM
Ms. G, you don't have to start a new thread every time you want to post something. If it's related to something in an already open thread, reply to that thread. It improves continuity so everyone knows what's going on.

Ian R
2003-Jan-09, 08:00 PM
Rose - so far you are most definitely living up to your reputation.

Silas
2003-Jan-09, 08:47 PM
Well, the serious answer is: just coincidence. If the picture had been taken at a later time, Italy might have been at the top, or Florida, or the Philippines.

Silas

JayUtah
2003-Jan-09, 08:49 PM
the photograph of the earth taken from outer space with Israel at the top of the picture is the most popular image of the earth taken from outer space

Sorry, I misunderstood your statement. You were explicit but I thought you meant something else. I could argue that the photograph known as "Earthrise" is more popular, but that's really not important. The popularity of the photo is debatable, but I'm perfectly willing to agree that the photo in question is widely reproduced and very popular.

And why would anyone on this forum take offense about my query about outer space photography and Israel?

Because it's what's called a "leading question". It contains ambiguous presumptions which you did not clarify or explain.

Most initial arguments here are stated in the form of a question. Therefore we receive questions from new posters as attempts to make a point. When you force people to guess what point you're trying to make, you can't very well get angry at them for guessing wrong.

I merely asked about a photograph taken from outer space that places Israel at the top. What is wrong with that?

Because you don't explain what you mean by the question, nor what you would consider the form of an acceptable answer.

First we have to resolve the hidden assumptions in your question. What do you believe is special about the apparent top of the earth's disk, and why? Does it have for you some sort of geographical significance that we should be aware of? Considering that the CM was pointed nose-downward in its PTC roll at the time, you could argue that this picture is really upside down with respect to the CM's orientation. Why is the top more significant than, say, the center -- which shows some part of eastern Africa, Madagascar, and the Arabian peninsula?

Israel is miniscule in this photo. Why mention Israel? Why not Egypt or Arabia, which are much more prominent and visible, and also near the top of the photo? You chose to mention Israel by name -- what significance does that hold for you? What significance did you think it would hold for any of us?

Second, what makes you think this photo has any significance along the lines you imply? Why does it have to be anything other than a function of where the spacecraft was and where and when it was launched?

I ask you to use the scientific method, and please don't degenerate into your petty egos.

If you resent being labelled an anti-Semite, then I resent being labelled petty and egotistic. If you want a scientific response, ask a scientific question without all the hidden assumptions and likely hidden agendas.

I know exactly what an ambiguous question can do in the hands of a crackpot propagandist. You ask an ambiguous question, wait for people to guess at your real meaning, and then take them to task for all their wrong guesses. This is so common a tactic it's in just about every textbook on rhetoric. I had a hunch you were fishing for the anti-Semitism accusation, so I waited until you had a variety of objections to your question to choose from. And it's no accident you chose the one you were hoping for. You could have answered any one of half a dozen or so posts, but you headed straight for the one that would give you the apparent rhetorical edge.

If I'm wrong about your motives, then it's up to you to clarify them. From my point of view it looks like a fishing expedition to collect rhetorical ammunition. What did you really want to know?

cable
2003-Jan-09, 09:10 PM
top of the earth is Arctica.
bottom is Antarctica.
is Israel in Arctica ?
if answer is NO, then Israel is not on top of the earth. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Glom
2003-Jan-09, 09:16 PM
Sorted. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ToSeek
2003-Jan-09, 09:43 PM
Heck, if any country is at the VERY top of the image, it's Turkey. (I originally said Iraq, but I think it goes even further north than that.)

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2003-01-09 16:50 ]</font>

JayUtah
2003-Jan-09, 09:53 PM
What so special about the top?

traztx
2003-Jan-09, 10:07 PM
I find it easier to orient when planet photos are rotated such that the north pole is as close to the top as possible. This is impossible, of course, if you are viewing from the North or South poles.

Special by convention, I suppose.

Rodina
2003-Jan-09, 11:51 PM
I would say the scientific explaination for Israel being at the top of the image is that, well, someone decided to orient the picture that way.

Peter B
2003-Jan-10, 01:52 AM
Where's the picture which has Australia at the top? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Chip
2003-Jan-10, 02:00 AM
Actually, there are no borders nor countries in the picture. Just "Mother Earth," with clouds, oceans, mountains, deserts, forests, and ice. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Irishman
2003-Jan-10, 11:37 AM
Rose G., shame on us? You ask a leading question and then blame us for following? Right.

What exactly is scientific about

Why does the most famous picture of the earth taken from outer space has Israel at the top of the world?

Perhaps you should explain your question better, so we don't go off on the wrong direction. What is it you want to know?

When I look at the picture, I see

The Earth - whole and united. A big blue marble.

Africa, hiding under the clouds, but mostly visible and clearly identifiable.

The Arabian peninsula, outlined by the Red Sea.

Antarctica, snowy white, yet discernable from the clouds.

The green of the jungle contrasting with the brown of the desert.

I see many things before I see "Israel at the top". In fact, when I read your description, my first reaction was, "Israel is at the top?" I can't make out much above Egypt, myself.

So what exactly are you wanting to know? Spell it out for us.

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-10, 01:26 PM
On 2003-01-09 20:52, Peter B wrote:
Where's the picture which has Australia at the top?

Here's one that has Middle Earth nearly at the top:
<center>http://sentient.home.mindspring.com/dan/mearthup.jpg</center>

irony
2003-Jan-10, 03:41 PM
On 2003-01-10 08:26, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Here's one that has Middle Earth nearly at the top:


I think you mean 'The Middle East.' /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

g99
2003-Jan-10, 04:17 PM
On 2003-01-10 08:26, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2003-01-09 20:52, Peter B wrote:
Where's the picture which has Australia at the top?

Here's one that has Middle Earth nearly at the top:


Been watching too much Lord of the Rings i see? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Glom
2003-Jan-10, 04:29 PM
Why would Middle Earth be at the top anyway? Wouldn't it be in the middle? Hence Middle Earth.

irony
2003-Jan-10, 04:31 PM
On 2003-01-10 11:29, Glom wrote:
Why would Middle Earth be at the top anyway? Wouldn't it be in the middle? Hence Middle Earth.


You know, that's a very good question... I always did wonder where the 'Upper' and 'Lower' Earths were. It's like in Norse mythology, they have 'Midgard,' the middle world, but the names of the other eight worlds (I think there were eight) have nothing to do with their location, thus leaving me wondering where exactly they all were supposed to be and why ours was in the middle.

Rodina
2003-Jan-10, 05:42 PM
Grapes, you are obviously part of the Penguin-Zionist Conspiracy to oppress the fishing stocks off Elephant Island.

END YOUR OCCUPATION NOW!

calliarcale
2003-Jan-10, 06:42 PM
irony, there is a reason why Midgard is called that, and it is based on the geometry of the worlds perced on Yggdrasil, the great world tree. (Side trivia: Yggdrasil can be translated as "Odin's gallows", as Ygg is an old name for Odin. According to myth, he did indeed hang on it in order to acquire certain knowledge.) Yggdrasil is an ash tree, I believe, and some worlds are in its branches, some are in its roots, and only one is on its trunk. That one is Midgard, which of course is in the *middle* of the tree. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif Some of the other more prominent worlds are Asgard, Valgard, and Niflheim, and there are a number of animals who dwell on the surface of Yggdrasil but which are not perceptible to those of us in Midgard.

Middle Earth gets its name in Tolkein's series from the fact that there are continents to the west and to the east of it. So it's in the middle, with other lands to the left and right (or east and west). Neither of those continents are known within the timeframe of the war of the rings; they have not yet been explored. But if you look at his maps long enough, from his Silmarillion maps (with Beleriand, which later is flooded) to his Lord of the Rings maps, it becomes clear that he had a more specific idea of where Middle Earth was. The landforms could conceivably evolve into the lands we now know as Europe, Africa, and Asia -- the Old World. The "new lands" to both the east and west are therefore probably the same landmass -- the Americas.

The real question for this thread should be:

Why does Rose G have to keep asking the exact same question over and over again?

Glom
2003-Jan-10, 06:47 PM
The really important question is why Ms G keeps opening new threads when her posts clearly warrant replies to old threads.

calliarcale
2003-Jan-10, 06:49 PM
Methinks the answer to that question starts with "tr" and ends with "oll", but I suppose I could be wrong.

Moose
2003-Jan-10, 06:50 PM
Repeatedly posing the same pointless arguments based on flawed assumptions pretty much ad-nauseum is the staple of the great (hee hee) conspiracists.

Rose G's mearly following in their footfalls.

JayUtah
2003-Jan-10, 07:21 PM
Why does Rose G have to keep asking the exact same question over and over again?

She seems to believe there isn't anything complicated about her question. She's either unwilling or unable to see why it's a loaded question.

calliarcale
2003-Jan-10, 07:29 PM
And evidently she is also unwilling to accept that the question has already been answered quite a few times in all of her threads: that this picture is popular simply because it's aesthetically pleasing.

That she doesn't accept that as an answer is clear evidence that she's fishing for an argument of some kind.

irony
2003-Jan-11, 12:54 AM
On 2003-01-10 13:42, calliarcale wrote:
irony, there is a reason why Midgard is called that... <too long to quote the whole thing>

Wow... I wasn't expecting an answer! Thank you very much!

nebularain
2003-Jan-11, 03:52 AM
On 2003-01-10 10:41, irony wrote:

On 2003-01-10 08:26, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Here's one that has Middle Earth nearly at the top:
I think you mean 'The Middle East.' /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

He! He!
Grapes is up to his pranks again. Look closely at the picture, and you will see that the picture he posted is the picture in question (the one where Israel is supposed to be at the top of the world - only it is just a picture of Africa and Antarctica on the planet) only upside down. Thus the Southern hemisphere is at the top, which means that Australia and New Zealand are at the top, too, just on the other side of the planet. The Lord of the Rings movies were filmed in New Zealand. The story of The Lord of the Rings takes place in Middle Earth. Get it? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

irony
2003-Jan-11, 03:54 AM
Stoopid, stoopid Irony...

We need a smilie for 'banging one's head against a wall.'

2003-Jan-11, 08:51 AM
I suspect that the only way to end this is to come up with a real answer to Rose's original question. The best way to do that is to toss it back at her.

Okay, Rose, I give up. Why is a photo featuring Israel at the top of the globe so popular/widely distributed?

Could it be that it's simply a beautiful picture of a full Earth? Nah...

jrkeller
2003-Jan-11, 02:30 PM
If you really look at the picture, I think Italy is at the top of the picture. I think it must be some sort of Catholic conspiracy.

Just Kidding.

The Shade
2003-Jan-11, 05:36 PM
Not to choose sides, but is it possible that she is simply patriotic about her country, even though she phrased her question wrong?

She really should reply and explain her question futher.

JayUtah
2003-Jan-11, 06:01 PM
Lots of things are possible. She might be patriotic. She might have simply chosen what she thought would have been a simple geographic reference without any nationalistic overtones. She may simply wonder where in the heck the photo was taken from.

The point is that with so many possibilities, it falls to Rose to be very explicit and (if necessary) pedantically thorough about her meaning. She can't simply berate us for trying to guess what she means by her question. Regardless of how many of us have flown off the handle, I think it's reasonable to believe she thinks there's some intentional symbolic meaning to the orientation of the earth in that photo.

Whether someone claims Israel is dominant because it's at the top, that Africa is dominant because it's in the middle and most clearly visible, or that Antarctica is dominant because it's visible at all, he can't just assume everyone goes along with the idea that there is any implied dominance in the photo. At some point you have to consider the possibility that you're reading something into the photo that just isn't intended. So far Rose doesn't seem willing to able to entertain that possibility.

She could very well simply be confused about assumptions she's never realized she was making. But this line of inquiry also fits the pattern of interrogatories with hidden agendas. That's why she has to clear up her motives. If she has some hidden agenda, I don't plan to cooperate with it.

If you approach someone and ask the sorts of questions Rose is asking, very often it ends up reported on a web site as, "The folks at Bad Astronomy refused to comment on why Israel is so dominant in a famous photo of earth." Not that we can do much to avoid that sort of yellow reporting, but it's important that we show we want to understand what's at stake.

g99
2003-Jan-11, 06:14 PM
My main question and what hints at the possibility that she might (not definitely, but leaning to that side of the teeter-totter) is that she really has not answered any of our posts. In one day she started three posts and then replied once. Then never again. She might be on vacation, or not able to get to a computer, but it seems a little fishy. Seems like she is dangling the perverbial carrot infront of our faces and see which ones of us will take it.

I agree with Jay. The question is loaded and has interesting possibilites of why it was asked. I am guessing that we will never know. I bet that next week someone with a different name will sign up and ask something just as troublesome. I think it is just someone trying to pull our chain.


(if you havn't guessed by now i am in a metaphor(is that the right term?) mood /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

nebularain
2003-Jan-11, 10:00 PM
I did a search for her other two posts (she has a total of six) and found she asked a question about the hammer and feather drop on the moon. She seemed to ask her questions in a complicated way there, too.

Well, Rose G, if you do decide to read through these posts (I don't know because you haven't said anything in a while, comparitively) I saw the hammer and feather drop on video when I was in high school over ten years, and I distinctly remember it because it made a strong impression to me, and I recall having seen the drop appear slower than it would on Earth (well, the hammer fell slower than it would on Earth anyway). As per the photo in question for this and the other three threads, I hope you can see that Israel's location on the photograph is mere coincidence.

Rose G
2003-Jan-12, 05:34 AM
My apology to the bad astronomy forum

The reason I asked the question about the popularity of the photograph of "Israel at the top of the world" or more precisely "the Middle East at the top of the world" taken from space is that, I admit, I have a conspiratorial nature to myself. I'm sorry I did not state that up front. Also I'm not a scientist, engineer, logician, nor a technician. I have always liked astronomy, baking cookies and I read a lot. I didn't know what I was in for when I posted my query on bad astronomy. However I believe I have a point to make.

When some of you view the earth from pictures taken from space, I understand it is easy to visualize that there are no political boundaries on the earth's surface. In "surface of the earth" reality most of you know there really are political boundaries. Political events deal with mass media words, pictures, sounds, symbols and people's emotions. I asked why would the most popularized picture taken from space have Israel and the Middle East at the top? Some answered because it's pretty. Well it is pretty, but so are other things that are not popularized by the mass media. Hitler's name and image have for many years been resuscitated by Hollywood and parts of the media, was he pretty? Of course not, Hitler was a pretty bad man. I understand when somebody says the earth has no top. It's all kind of relative from space. However a down to earth picture has a top, bottom, left and right side. Even if one cannot see Israel and parts of the Middle East because of the cloud cover at the top of the photograph does not mean that they are not politically, perhaps in a subliminal way, "on top of the world." Also I think that the mass media in the United States as well as the mass media in other countries have their own political agendas. What is one of the political agendas of the US media?--to continue to cement good relations with Israel; and Israel's media vice versa--that's my point. I should have stated that from the beginning. I did not realize the caliber of the people with whom I have been communicating.

Irony: I apologize about the "Scope" remark. It was in bad taste.

If I have angered or offended anyone on this forum then I am sorry. I know I'm not a politically correct person but that's just the way I am.

JayUtah
2003-Jan-12, 06:28 AM
I admit, I have a conspiratorial nature to myself. I'm sorry I did not state that up front.

I'm still not sure what you mean by a "conspiratorial nature", but it's kind of you acknowledge an ulterior motive.

Also I'm not a scientist, engineer, logician, nor a technician.

That's not a problem. You don't need to work in a technical or scientific profession to understand the principles of science, where applicable. You don't need to be a logician to think logically.

Your question doesn't really involve science. It involves logic in the sense that every question (loaded or otherwise) or comment involves logic. Logic isn't some esoteric, isolated branch of study. It's what describes useful thought.

When some of you view the earth from pictures taken from space, I understand it is easy to visualize that there are no political boundaries on the earth's surface.

You don't have to "visualize" the lack of political divisions as seen from space. That requires no imagination. I've seen hours of video and hundreds of photographs taken from space, and in most of them you can't even tell what part of the earth you're looking at.

I asked why would the most popularized picture taken from space have Israel and the Middle East at the top? Some answered because it's pretty. Well it is pretty, but so are other things that are not popularized by the mass media.

You're missing the point. You asked what the appeal of the photo was, that it should be used so often. The answer is simple aesthetics, not some postulated symbolic meaning or someone's hidden agenda.

Don't read too much into that. Just because aesthetics explains this particular choice by the media, authors, etc. doesn't mean it explains all similar choices. And we're still unclear over whether there is any active intent to position this photo prominently. Appeal is rather self-selecting. I know people in marketing who would give anything to be able to control public opinion in any meaningful way. I'm not a marketing guru, but the guiding principle seems to be that people are inherently fickle.

Even if one cannot see Israel and parts of the Middle East because of the cloud cover at the top of the photograph does not mean that they are not politically, perhaps in a subliminal way, "on top of the world."

Sorry, you're still trying to push an idea that no one here has yet subscribed to. There's nothing objective to suggest Israel is dominating this photo. Nothing "subliminal" or "possibly symbolic." Show this picture to anyone and ask what it depicts and I'll bet everyone you ask will say it shows southern Africa. Okay, Americans suck at geography, but anyone who can identify geographical features in this photo will see Africa.

What is one of the political agendas of the US media?--to continue to cement good relations with Israel; and Israel's media vice versa--that's my point.

So let me see if I understand this correctly:

The U.S. media's secret agenda includes the promotion of Israeli interests. Therefore they have chosen to make this photograph famous because it portrays Israel in a dominant light.

That still presumes two things: (1) the photo is popular because someone intends it to be, and not because of "market forces", and (2) Israel actually is featured dominantly. So far no one seems to agree with these assumptions.

And this is accepting (for the sake of argument) that the media really does have such an agenda. In other words, what you've got here is a pretty far-fetched theory.

If I have angered or offended anyone on this forum then I am sorry.

Well, I can't answer for everyone, but I wouldn't be here if contrary opinions weren't something that I felt I could deal with. The important thing here is to be able to support what you say with solid facts and/or well-reasoned arguments.

Rose G
2003-Jan-12, 08:07 AM
Dear JayUtah

I posted my last message on this forum about twenty minutes ago. You've come back with this tirade. Why? Please don't get so upset about what I wrote. Chill out for a while before you post. I don't care if you agree with my assumptions. Personally I think you are probably a nice guy on amphetamines. Or am I communicating with some sort of computer interface that I don't have any knowledge nor understanding about?

2003-Jan-12, 08:45 AM
And once again Rose completely misses the point. Evidently unable to understand the difference between an angry "tirade" and a thought-out response, she responds with a tirade of her own. Her basis for assuming she is being assaulted by an emotional outburst? The quick response of her critic.

Rosie, there is a difference between being critical and being sacrastic. Your last post has far more of the latter than the former.

Glom
2003-Jan-12, 11:27 AM
I posted my last message on this forum about twenty minutes ago. You've come back with this tirade. Why?

He most certainly did not. Jay doesn't use tirades. He responded to each of your points logically.


Please don't get so upset about what I wrote. Chill out for a while before you post.

I don't recall Jay getting angry or worked up.


I don't care if you agree with my assumptions. Personally I think you are probably a nice guy on amphetamines. Or am I communicating with some sort of computer interface that I don't have any knowledge nor understanding about?


You're attempting to win your argument through the use of a personal attack. Jay has responded logically and objectively to your arguments and you do nothing but berate him. Can't your argument alone stand up to scrutiny?

Irishman
2003-Jan-12, 11:57 AM
[demonstration mode]

Jay, you loser! How could you not understand what Rose has to say?! She's speaking English, you know. And what's with the bold font? Don't you know anything about using "quote"? Shame on you!

[/demonstration mode]

See, that's a tirade. Now can you see the difference between that and how Jay responded?

Speed of response has no bearing on content of response. That just shows how quickly the person read what you posted. If he's here when you post, it is easy to be the first to reply. If he's offline and checks in 6 hours later, then he wouldn't respond as quickly. Neither reflects on the content of that response.

Andrew
2003-Jan-12, 01:25 PM
Jay's response was posted 54 minutes after your own post. Your second response was posted 2 hours and 33 minutes after your first, not 20 minutes.

54 minutes is not especially hasty.

aporetic_r
2003-Jan-12, 05:11 PM
Rose,

A couple more points on the way things tend to work around here.

1) You mention that you are not "politically correct," and apologize for any offense this may have caused: People often come to the BABB and say any number of unfounded, poorly-reasoned things, and then later apologize for their self-perceived lack of "political correctness." In fact, PCness has nothing to do with this situation. While there are any number of situations on the BABB which do actually deal with it (and yes, some regular posterson here are way oversensitive about certain issues), your own situation has nothing to do with PCness. What it does have to do with is reason and critical thinking in general.

2) You say that you are not a logician, etc. It would appear that you are also perhaps not what I will term an "intellectual professional" (e.g. scientist, professor, public intellectual, investigative journalist, etc.) of any sort. I say this because I suspect that most people who engage in spirited arguments for a living, i.e. "intellectual professionals," read the tone of these posts differently than those who do not routinely engage in such debates. I also suspect that you do not commonly engage in text-based discussions, where tone is harder to interpret than in spoken communication. Although one or two people here may simply insult you, the vast majorities of posts are actually intended as serious critical discourse. Please do not feel attacked personally by these posts - people who deal with critical issues on a daily basis often disagree with one another quite strenuously, but are nevertheless otherwise friendly to each other.

Aporetic

JayUtah
2003-Jan-12, 06:41 PM
I get taken to task for answering too quickly and I get taken to task for not answering quickly enough. I get taken to task for being too "technical" and speaking over people's heads. I get taken to task for writing lengthy posts explaining things in simple terms. If I paid attention to everyone who took me to task, I think I would need amphetamines.

Rose: as has been stated, my response to your latest is about as dispassionate as it can be made. It is not a "tirade". We don't pick on people here, but it is our nature to pick apart what they say. This is just the intellectual process at work. Ideas are best after they've been kicked around a lot.

If we kick your ideas around, it's not because we don't like you. Sift through the archives here and you'll find posts in which I've planted my foot squarely in my mouth on some topic or another that someone else knew more about, and they happily cut me off at the knees.

Most of us here are far more addicted to getting it right than we are to any religion or political idealology or any such belief. We'd rather have facts behind us than legions of admirers or followers.

Actually, with your latest post, you probably settled a lot of the dust. You said you don't care if people agree with your assumptions. That's quite a breakthrough. As long as you acknowledge that they are assumptions, and that people aren't always going to agree, then you'll probably do fine. We all work from basic assumptions. At some point you can't prove your basic tenets and you have to say, "Sorry, that's just the way I feel."

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Jan-12, 07:47 PM
Rose, perhaps you didn't read the email I sent you. I strongly urge you to read the FAQ, linked at the top of every page on this board. When you are done, read it again.

David Hall
2003-Jan-12, 08:55 PM
If you read enough of Jay's posts, you'll realize that that's his normal style. His posts are almost always very logical, very methodical in nature. It can seem a bit cold at times, I know, but just realize there isn't anything personal behind it. It's just his nature.

Silas
2003-Jan-12, 10:45 PM
May I attempt an analogy?

What if, during 1944, America has launched a sounding rocket high enough to take a picture of, say, 40 per cent of the earth's surface. Suppose the photograph was *beautiful*, as if most likely would have been. Naturally, it would have been published in Life Magazine, in full color, and everyone would have been awed by it.

Suppose that, due to the way the rocket rotated in flight, Japan happened to be at the "top" of the photo.

Surely there would have been some -- many? -- who objected to the photo, and who would have questioned the loyalty of Life's photographic editors.

How do you demonstrate that something is, in fact, just a doggone coincidence?

Silas

Glom
2003-Jan-12, 10:50 PM
As I'm sure Jay would say, we don't have to prove that it is just a coincidence. It's up to Rose G. to prove that the photo was taken with the intention of placing Israel on the top.

nebularain
2003-Jan-12, 10:57 PM
On 2003-01-12 00:34, Rose G wrote:
Also I think that the mass media in the United States as well as the mass media in other countries have their own political agendas. What is one of the political agendas of the US media?--to continue to cement good relations with Israel; and Israel's media vice versa--that's my point.
Well, I'll agree with on this one point. The mass media does have a political agenda - a liberal political agenda (I say this as a conservative). I personally have seen more support for Israel coming from the conservative camps than the liberal camps. If ever there is some proof brought out that the mass media of the U.S. has some pro-Israel political agenda going on, my jaw will drop to the floor in sheer shock! Now, if some subtle pro-Israel agnda were being advocated with the photo, that message was so subtle that it got totally missed by pretty much everyone. Aside from you, whom I believe is actively looking for a lead, I have not heard of anyone looking at that picture and thinking even the most miniscule thing about Israel.

I'm sorry, Rose G, but if you are looking for evidence to support your conspiracy theory regarding the U.S. mass media supporting Israel, the "Earth from Space" picture is the wrong place to look. I understand your need to support your belief, but this one, honestly has "Dead End" and "False Lead" written all over it. I hope you can understand that.

Peter B
2003-Jan-13, 02:44 AM
On 2003-01-12 01:28, JayUtah wrote:
Okay, Americans suck at geography, but anyone who can identify geographical features in this photo will see Africa.


I think Jay hit the nail on the head here. When shown that photo, what proportion of the American population would be successfully able to locate Israel in it? (I suspect my fellow Australians wouldn't be much better, though... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif )

johnwitts
2003-Jan-13, 03:07 AM
Okay, Americans suck at geography, but anyone who can identify geographical features in this photo will see Africa

Most folks in the UK would be wondering what planet they were looking at...

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

VanBurenVandal
2003-Jan-13, 03:17 AM
From National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html)


Despite the threat of war in Iraq and the daily reports of suicide bombers in Israel, less than 15 percent of the young U.S. citizens could locate either country.


And that is on a political map, with no clouds… If there is some hidden agenda, it will, regrettably, need to be more obvious to succeed...

calliarcale
2003-Jan-13, 03:09 PM
I just had a thought....

Based on Rose's assertion that this image may represent some conspiracy on the part of the media to publicize images "dominated" by Israel, I started to wonder:

What does it signify that the media so frequently prints their supposed "Israel-dominant" image backwards?

*gasp, shock, horror*

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

kucharek
2003-Jan-13, 03:58 PM
When Rose thinks that this space picture is somehow pushed to give Israel some pro, then:
Why the hell did it took more than 20 years until an astronaut from Israel was taken onto a shuttle ride?

Harald

aporetic_r
2003-Jan-13, 04:08 PM
I usually let other people push the main points around here, but in this case I would really like Rose to elaborate upon why, if that particular bit of land has been consciously situated as it is in order to further some political agenda, it must be "Israel" and not "Palestine." Moreover, why is it not the first quiet move toward a new campaign for a Philistine Homeland?

Aporetic

kucharek
2003-Jan-13, 04:17 PM
Maybe a palestinian commando had hijacked Apollo 17 and had forced the A17 crew to divert on their way so this picture could be taken to show all the world that Palestina is on top... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

sts60
2003-Jan-13, 06:34 PM
Frankly, I'm tired of the whole discussion. None of you will ever admit the truth, which is that our press and government, in thrall to the Madagascarist powers-that-be, conspired to subtly propagandize the unwashed (except for brain-) masses by just "happening" to feature Madagascar prominently in the center of the picture.

Ian R
2003-Jan-13, 07:34 PM
On 2003-01-12 22:07, johnwitts wrote:
Okay, Americans suck at geography, but anyone who can identify geographical features in this photo will see Africa

Most folks in the UK would be wondering what planet they were looking at...

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Heh, don't show this photo to Charlie Duke; he'll probably end up telling you that he's lookin' at a picture of the Moon...

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Waarthog
2003-Jan-13, 08:11 PM
Heh, don't show this photo to Charlie Duke; he'll probably end up telling you that he's lookin' at a picture of the Moon...

I must have missed something here? Do you refer to the Lunar Module Pilot of Apollo 16? Or someone else?

Ian R
2003-Jan-13, 10:31 PM
Yep. I watched a documentary that John copied for me a while back and in it, Charlie relates an anecdote about his time as Apollo 11's CAPCOM. Anyway, there's a TV transmission coming from Columbia and Duke is watching the feed on the big screen in Mission Control.

Duke: "Wow, that's a great picture of the Moon you've got there Buzz."

Slight pause.

Buzz: "Err, Charlie you're looking at the Earth!"

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Waarthog
2003-Jan-13, 10:57 PM
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif OK thanks! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif I had not heard of that one! That's classic! Talk about oops. The HB's might pick up on this as a script error though! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

johnwitts
2003-Jan-14, 01:43 AM
Another thing to consider here, when looking at a plan to put Israel at the top of the world, would the plan work? What would it do? Why would it work? A 900 million dollar Moon mission just to make Israel look good? OK...

Rose G
2003-Jan-14, 06:20 AM
I guess I'm what some would probably call a conservative person. The bad astronomy forum is about lunar conspiracies. I have a Drake R8B shortwave communications receiver. I bought a book about shortwave radio to go with it. What was on the cover?--the photograph we are discussing. After buying a computer I realized that listening to Internet radio was better. The shortwave receiver has become redundant. I don't like listening to the establishment media. The library I go to has a large poster we are discussing with the same photograph on one of its walls. The mass media in America, I believe, is well understood to be liberal, left wing thinking. Also pro-abortion, anti-second amendment, and so on and so on with the conservative line; and also pro-Israel. Is that notion so hard to accept? I think it's true, that the establishment media in America has a favorable bias toward Israel and it shows up in the "popularization" of the photograph taken from space by our astronauts. And I'm not going to quote any so-called philosopher or writer, who just happens to spin your wheels so you feel good and go nowhere, to support my belief.

Peter B
2003-Jan-14, 06:39 AM
Hi Rose

I see your point - a couple of places where people have had the opportunity to use an alternate photo, they used the one you refer to.

The first problem is, though, if you want a photo of the Full Earth, which one are you going to use? There aren't actually that many genuine photos of the Full Earth around, because only Apollos 16 and 17 travelled at a time when a Full Earth was visible to them, and my opinion is that none of the others matches the aesthetic beauty of this one. The others are more obscured by cloud and the continents are hard to make out. The only alternative would be to manufacture a photo of a Full Earth, but it probably wouldn't look as good (my opinion).

But there's another problem. As you've seen from the comments others have posted, when most people look at the photo, the lands which are most obvious to them are Africa, Arabia and Madagascar. Israel might be at the top of the picture, but most people don't see it, any more than they notice India, south-east Asia, or the tip of western Australia.

In other words, you seem to be making a connection which others just don't notice.

Laser Jock
2003-Jan-14, 02:08 PM
On 2003-01-14 01:20, Rose G wrote:
I guess I'm what some would probably call a conservative person.


So am I. How is this relevant?




I don't like listening to the establishment media.


This is sort of an odd statement. The US has a free press, so it is not tied to an "establishment." I think that if you replaced the word "establishment" with "respectable," you would be more correct in the types of sources you dislike.



The library I go to has a large poster we are discussing with the same photograph on one of its walls.


Nice to know your library is well decorated. My library does not have this picture. The fact that your library displays this picture doesn't prove anything.



The mass media in America, I believe, is well understood to be liberal, left wing thinking.


I would almost agree with you. However, I think it's worth pointing out that many liberals think just the opposite is true. If you get far enough right, just about any position will seem "left wing."



Also pro-abortion, anti-second amendment, and so on and so on with the conservative line;


Umm... Don't you mean the liberal line?



and also pro-Israel. Is that notion so hard to accept? I think it's true, that the establishment media in America has a favorable bias toward Israel and it shows up in the "popularization" of the photograph taken from space by our astronauts.


Like it was said earlier, I wouldn't attribute a pro-Israel stance to "liberal, left wing" politics. Even then, I'm not sure that most media have a "favorable bias toward Israel." It is not unusual for a newspaper or TV station to do a report on a suicide bombing and get angry letters to the editor slamming them for being both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Finally, the "media" may very well be "pro-Israel", but trying to prove it from this picture is nonsense. You would do better to try to come up with specific news stories that are blatantly editorialized to support Israel. Or, you could also try to give the percentage of journalists that are Jewish. Such things might give some evidence for a pro-Israel stance in the media, but you would have to find them first.



And I'm not going to quote any so-called philosopher or writer, who just happens to spin your wheels so you feel good and go nowhere, to support my belief.


I have no idea what you mean by this statement. Does it mean that you don't want to give us evidence that what you say is true? We're just supposed to accept it by faith? Right....

Bill Thmpson
2003-Jan-14, 02:40 PM
On 2003-01-12 03:07, Rose G wrote:
Dear JayUtah

I posted my last message on this forum about twenty minutes ago. You've come back with this tirade. Why? Please don't get so upset about what I wrote. Chill out for a while before you post. I don't care if you agree with my assumptions. Personally I think you are probably a nice guy on amphetamines. Or am I communicating with some sort of computer interface that I don't have any knowledge nor understanding about?


Is Rose this the same person I patiently debated about a month ago and then she eventually told me that she thought I was waisting her time and she went off to investigate 9/11 because she thought the same persons involved in the Apollo hoax were also involved in the demonic attack at the WTC?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bill Thompson on 2003-01-14 09:42 ]</font>

JayUtah
2003-Jan-14, 02:49 PM
"The press" (i.e., day-to-day journalists) isn't the same entity that publishes science books. You can't lump them into one category for the purposes of bias. Further, neither entity was likely responsible for the poster in your library.

The notion that the photo in question is popular because someone wants it to be, is still way farfetched. I don't agree with it.

I posted the picture in question in my company's lunchroom with the caption "What is this a picture of?" and I got back 12 e-mail responses. They all correctly identified it as the earth, and seven of them went on to say it was the African continent. One person said it showed the "island of Java", which was not correct. This person happens to be a Java programmer and perhaps thought I was trying to make a statement.

Nobody said anything about Israel. I have yet to find anyone but you who thinks this photo has anything whatsoever to do with Israel. That's your assumption and no one shares it.

As to the media, I could go either way. Having visited Israel and the West Bank (and having friends there of both nationalities) on more than one occasion, I can say that there are holes in the American coverage of what goes on there, but nothing that I would say is especially biased either way. That's my opinion, and I believe it's reasonably accurate.

But there are so many holes in your argument that it simply makes no sense. You rely on a very unique (and so far indefensible) interpretation of a photo. You rely on a simplistic view of the American publishing industry. You rely on a characterization of the press that is speculative at best.

I simply see no evidence at all to support your theory. Have you considered that it might all just be in your head?

cable
2003-Jan-14, 05:32 PM
I think it's true, that the establishment media in America has a favorable bias toward Israel and it shows up in the "popularization" of the photograph taken from space by our astronauts.

for sure, there is a very strong pro-Israel lobby in the US ( medias, politics, business ...).
my opinion:
this photo has nothing to do with that lobby.
the top is fuzzy: could be israel, syria, turkey, black sea ......

Glom
2003-Jan-14, 05:50 PM
Exumptly, it could be any.

It's an interesting bit of selective vision on the part of a conspiracist. Israel is one of the world's smallest countries. You have countries like Zimbabwe, currently banned from the councils of the Commonwealth, South Africa, at the time under Apartheid rule, and the like, all in the centre of the frame, but the conspiracist is only concerned about a country that is so small, you can't really tell where it is.

ToSeek
2003-Jan-14, 06:17 PM
Since you really seem to want it, here's a photo of Israel (http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/lores.cgi?PHOTO=STS057-073-075)...

Glom
2003-Jan-14, 06:21 PM
Ther aren't any stars! This picture is pro-Israel propaganda forgery! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Actually, it's a very nice picture. I think that the empty black sky makes the pictures look more aesthetic. When sci-fi makers insist on adding starfields, they make it look cluttered.

JayUtah
2003-Jan-14, 07:19 PM
Looks like a picture of Egypt to me, but Israel is visible.

Should we look for six-pointed stars in the sky?

I can answer why filmmakers put in the stars. Because they're expected. Too late to change it now.

From a compositional standpoint you can't effectively have a foreground without a background. The filmmaker's art includes creating the perception of depth in a two-dimensional world. On stage we adjust the relative depth of a scene with lighting. We can "couple" or "separate" a character to or from his surroundings quite effectively according to the dramatic needs of the scene. But it's all about controlling the perception of depth.

In most science fiction space stories, the star field is needed to provide a reference for motion. That's why Stanley Kubrick not only included a star field behind his spacecraft, he moved the starfield in the frame to suggest the motion of the spacecraft. How very wrong according to physics, but how very right according to filmmaking.

Papa Bear
2003-Jan-14, 08:15 PM
I like your signature, Laser...

"You seem to be a good man. I hate to kill you."

"You seem to be a good man. I hate to die."

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

informant
2003-Jan-14, 08:31 PM
On 2003-01-14 13:17, ToSeek wrote:
Since you really seem to want it, here's a photo of Israel (http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/lores.cgi?PHOTO=STS057-073-075)...



Thank you!
Very impressive, the contrast between the green of the Delta and the yellow of the desert! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Ad Hominid
2003-Jan-14, 08:34 PM
On 2003-01-14 09:40, Bill Thompson wrote:
[quote]
On 2003-01-12 03:07, Rose G wrote:
Dear JayUtah

I posted my last message on this forum about twenty minutes ago. You've come back with this tirade. Why? Please don't get so upset about what I wrote. Chill out for a while before you post. I don't care if you agree with my assumptions. Personally I think you are probably a nice guy on amphetamines. Or am I communicating with some sort of computer interface that I don't have any knowledge nor understanding about?


Is Rose this the same person I patiently debated about a month ago and then she eventually told me that she thought I was waisting her time and she went off to investigate 9/11 because she thought the same persons involved in the Apollo hoax were also involved in the demonic attack at the WTC?

<a href=http://www.public-action.com>Carol Valentine?</a>

edited for punctuation






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ad hominid on 2003-01-14 15:37 ]</font>

Bill Thmpson
2003-Jan-15, 12:27 AM
<a href=http://www.public-action.com>Carol Valentine?</a>


I don't think so. But they have like minds. Clearly there is a trend here -- a NEED to believe in consparacy. I believe in what I read once about the JFK shooting. Put Kennedy on a scale and Oswald on the other end of the scale and it does not balance. People have a need to put weights on the scale to make it come into balance and this involves inventing dark sinister other-world involvements to cause the monumental historic event.

Irishman
2003-Jan-15, 05:55 AM
Rose G, let me understand this. You buy a book that has a picture of the Earth on it, you see the same picture in your library, and somehow this means that there is a plot by the liberal media to force this picture upon the world for the express purpose of clandestinely promoting Israel? Sorry, I don't see the connection. I can't connect the dots.

You claim the mass media has a bias supporting Israel. This clearly was your going in position, and it colored your interpretation of everything about this situation. You see a picture of the Earth in two places (I suppose you only listed two but could have seen more), and that means the media is forcing this image upon the world, for some nefarious purpose? You see a picture of the Earth, and what strikes you is not what is clearly visible in the photo, but a detail about geography that means some tiny country that is practically unnoticable in the photo was the main reason this photo is used? It strains credulity. It almost sounds paranoid.


The mass media in America, I believe, is well understood to be liberal, left wing thinking. Also pro-abortion, anti-second amendment, and so on and so on with the conservative line; and also pro-Israel. Is that notion so hard to accept?

Assuming you mean liberal line, I can see the connection. Certainly conservatives make a lot of noise about the liberal bias of the mass media news. The media being pro-Israel is not itself a far stretch to come by. America has been, in general, supportive of Israel. But I don't see how you make a connection between this opinion and the fact that you run into a particular picture of Earth a few times. I don't think that Israel is even visible in the image, I just can't see how you make that connection. It baffles me.

Laser Jock said:

This is sort of an odd statement. The US has a free press, so it is not tied to an "establishment." I think that if you replaced the word "establishment" with "respectable," you would be more correct in the types of sources you dislike.

That may be a little strong. "Mainstream" might be a better word. I don't know - that's Rose G's issue to clarify.

JayUtah said:

In most science fiction space stories, the star field is needed to provide a reference for motion. That's why Stanley Kubrick not only included a star field behind his spacecraft, he moved the starfield in the frame to suggest the motion of the spacecraft. How very wrong according to physics, but how very right according to filmmaking.

How very true. Movies and television are visible media. How do you convey a sense of motion to a vehicle with a background that is so far away that the motion would be undetectable? You can give the engines a humming noise that the crew of the vehicle would hear. But visually that comes off as wrong, because the audience can't tell if the ship is moving or still. Thus the storytelling needs the moving background.

Rose G
2003-Jan-15, 06:28 AM
The photograph we have been discussing is perhaps an example of the mass media putting something into the collective, unconscious public mind. I don't know. I don't seem to have the right words to explain this. Maybe somebody else has. Thank you all for this interesting and spirited discussion. And that's heart felt.

CJSF
2003-Jan-15, 12:57 PM
On 2003-01-15 01:28, Rose G wrote:
The photograph we have been discussing is perhaps an example of the mass media putting something into the collective, unconscious public mind. I don't know. I don't seem to have the right words to explain this. Maybe somebody else has. Thank you all for this interesting and spirited discussion. And that's heart felt.


At my last job I had the privilege of working with several top notch graphic designers. I can tell you, they don't give a rat's hind end what countries are in photographs of Earth. That photograph is still today the most beautifully composed non-simulated full Earth picture that exists.

Graphic designers are driven by two things: Does it look good? and Does the picture/graphic support the content? Often in that order.

CJSF

aporetic_r
2003-Jan-15, 04:17 PM
On 2003-01-15 01:28, Rose G wrote:
The photograph we have been discussing is perhaps an example of the mass media putting something into the collective, unconscious public mind.


The "something" is the problem. You have assumed that an image of the land curently claimed by the state of Israel - and I don't think that's what we have here, but in any case, on with the show - would cause people to slowly, half-consciously begin to like Israel more. Or at least you assumed that what the freakish left-wing Media (capital M, because apparently you think they are a single conglomerate, rather than a host of competing entities) thought that people would begin to like Israel more. On what do you base this assumption? Should the USPS stop putting up photos of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted because that will cause people to grow sympathetic to them? Even if it was proven - which it isn't - that simply showing a picture of X causes people to like X more, a few objections remain: 1) This isn't a very good picture of Israel, I'd think They could have found a better one; 2) Why would The Media want people to like Israel more? (And if you want to say because The Media is runs by Jews, go ahead, just do the research first - no one will get on your case for making a factual statement, but of course simply being a Jew does not mean one necessarily supports Israel [for instance, few of my Jewish colleagues like Israel]); 3) Why is it Liberal to like Israel, anyway? I'll try to remember to dig up some research on this last topic when I get in to the office this afternoon - I'm reasonaby certain that support for Israel is not distributed according to level of Liberality. Even just intuitively, it is easy to argue that conservatives are more likely to favor Israel, than are liberals (setting aside the entire issue regarding the efficacy of this linear political distinction).

Aporetic

nebularain
2003-Jan-15, 04:56 PM
1) If the U.S. is supporting Israel it is because Israel is a "democratic" nation. In fact, it is the only democratic nation in the Middle East, as far as I know. What is wrong with or conspiracy about supporting our friends and allies in the world?

2) Is it the "mass media" that is promoting the picture, or was it the people in the library ordering some posters to decorate the place with and someone thought that would be a good poster to display based on its aesthetic (wow, cool! A picture of the Earth from space - doesn't that just inspire you with awe to gaze upon?!) and educational (promoting science) value?

3) "Putting something into the collective, unconscious public mind?" That shows it clear as day - you want there to be a conspiracy. Oy! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

JayUtah
2003-Jan-15, 05:04 PM
The photograph we have been discussing is perhaps an example of the mass media putting something into the collective, unconscious public mind.

This conclusion still rests on the premise that the popularity of the photo results from someone's ulterior intent to do so. There's simply no evidence of that.

It's far more likely that the photo is popular because of its visual appeal. That is, editors thumb through the available photos and pick this one out as the one that looks best. Or they see the photo reproduced elsewhere and say, "That would make a great poster; let's see if we can get the photo." These and similar motivations are what I've termed "market forces". You have to be able to point to someone -- some editor or graphic designer -- who has given some indication that he chose this photo for its geographic symbolism. If you can't do that, then you have to conclude that the photo is popular simply because of its appeal and not because someone is trying to send a message.

darkhunter
2003-Jan-15, 05:39 PM
On 2003-01-15 12:04, JayUtah wrote:
The photograph we have been discussing is perhaps an example of the mass media putting something into the collective, unconscious public mind.

This conclusion still rests on the premise that the popularity of the photo results from someone's ulterior intent to do so. There's simply no evidence of that.

It's far more likely that the photo is popular because of its visual appeal. That is, editors thumb through the available photos and pick this one out as the one that looks best. Or they see the photo reproduced elsewhere and say, "That would make a great poster; let's see if we can get the photo." These and similar motivations are what I've termed "market forces". You have to be able to point to someone -- some editor or graphic designer -- who has given some indication that he chose this photo for its geographic symbolism. If you can't do that, then you have to conclude that the photo is popular simply because of its appeal and not because someone is trying to send a message.




I agree. One of my hobbies is drawing/graphics. I draw a picture 'cause I think it looks cool--and never quite understand when people try to interpret them and find my "meaning"....

CJSF
2003-Jan-15, 06:04 PM
On 2003-01-15 12:04, JayUtah wrote:
That is, editors thumb through the available photos and pick this one out as the one that looks best...


I would just add that often it isn't the editor's choice. It's the graphic designer who makes the decision. Sometimes the graphic designer might even show their proof to the one responsible for the content to make sure it works with it... but often that doesn't even happen.

What this means is that the person responsible for the graphic or photograph might not be well versed in the content it is intended for. The content person says "we need a nice photograph of Earth" and the graphic designer goes through their sources and finds one they think looks best and plunks it into the design. When they come across the Apollo photo, they recognize it. I know of one graphic designer I worked with who would probably try to find a DIFFERENT photograph or image of Earth specifically because that one is so overused. Are we to assume she has an anti-Israel bias?


CJSF

_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2003-01-15 13:09 ]</font>

Rich
2003-Jan-15, 06:27 PM
On 2003-01-15 11:56, nebularain wrote:
1) If the U.S. is supporting Israel it is because Israel is a "democratic" nation. In fact, it is the only democratic nation in the Middle East, as far as I know. What is wrong with or conspiracy about supporting our friends and allies in the world?


Poor Turkey, everyone always forgets them. They're a secular democracy. They're our ally and a NATO member (we even have several military bases there). Sure, they've got a few human rights issues with the Kurds and they like to throw pointy sticks at Greeks, but overall they are a good nation and one of the only secular muslim democracies in the whole world.

And as stated a dozen times over: this whole argument is moot because Turkey, not Israel, is at the top of the photo.

I've decided that this whole thing is something of a socio-political Rorschach test. People see what their internalized pre-conceptions and beliefs lead them to believe. Rose sees a Zionist-Left Wing conspiracy abetted by a "liberal" U.S. media to force a photo of Israel somehow dominating the globe onto the U.S. public. Others focus on weather patterns and points of geographic interest. Some reflect on the nature of space photography and debate on the what is the best photo of Earth taken from space. People like me tend to drool and gurgle... "Ooooo, pretty..."

It's all very interesting really. Ah shoot, I drooled on myself again. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Gramma loreto
2003-Jan-15, 07:10 PM
I suspect that Rose may ignore or discredit this post simply because she thinks that I'm unduly biased and unable to think for myself. After all, I receive paychecks from not just one but two government agencies (DOD and DOT). Be that as it may...

Rose, to help support your assertion that the media popularized this photo with the intent of promoting Israel, I suggest you conduct an experiment to determine if this result may have actually been acheived. Take a copy of this photograph out on the street and poll 1000 randomly selected people, asking these questions:

1) When you look at this picture, which region or country immediately comes to mind?

2) Can you locate the following places in this photo?

- Egypt
- Madagascar
- Yemen
- Israel
- Somalia

I selected these countries because all, with the possible exception of Israel, can be easily associated with a geographic feature visible in the photograph...assuming one knows where they are in the first place.

I suggest the questions be asked in the order specified above. However, in order to minimize researcher influence, do not conduct the poll yourself, personally. Engage the help of an assistant. Preferably, this assistant should be ambivalent on subjects relating to Israel. At the very least, do not inform this person of your own bias, nor of the anticipated/desired outcome of the poll.

To minimize visually leading cues from the pollster, place the photo in a folder to be held by the respondent while viewing the photo and answering questions.

Respondents should be approached in a variety of areas to avoid skewing results toward any particular demographic group(s).

I look forward to seeing the results of this experiment, should you rise to the challenge. Of course, with these results, you should also submit documentation of your controls, criteria, and methodology.

Glom
2003-Jan-15, 08:27 PM
That's good. Can you do my Statistics exam on Friday for me? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

g99
2003-Jan-15, 08:42 PM
How about this Jay: you said that you polled your coworkers about what they saw in the picture. Can you do it again, but ask them instead what is at the top of the picture? See what they say about that. Even better, ask that what the means and why that is at the top.

aporetic_r
2003-Jan-15, 08:49 PM
I look forward to seeing the results of this experiment, should you rise to the challenge. Of course, with these results, you should also submit documentation of your controls, criteria, and methodology.


I gots me some good training in survey methodology, so in all seriousness I'd be happy to assist with this, Rose. But it would have to be done right, and that takes time and money. Feel free to send me a private message about it if you want.

Aporetic

Glom
2003-Jan-15, 08:49 PM
They'd probably answer by saying that it was because America had a declination of about -10° when the photo was taken.

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Jan-15, 09:31 PM
I am getting to be of the opinion that this topic is getting way more attention than it deserves.

JayUtah
2003-Jan-15, 09:43 PM
I've already tainted that pool by revealing the purpose for asking the question. I could try again with other groups to which I belong. Besides, I don't agree with the bias implied by asking what's at the top of the photo. I much prefer to let the subject decide which portion of the photo is salient, and what he sees there. I want to find out what people find "significant" about this photo, regardless of what their definition of "significant" might be. The whole point of the study is to find out how people define "significance" for this photo, to see if any appreciable number of people seem to agree with Rose's definition of significance.

g99
2003-Jan-15, 10:27 PM
On 2003-01-15 16:43, JayUtah wrote:
I've already tainted that pool by revealing the purpose for asking the question. I could try again with other groups to which I belong. Besides, I don't agree with the bias implied by asking what's at the top of the photo. I much prefer to let the subject decide which portion of the photo is salient, and what he sees there. I want to find out what people find "significant" about this photo, regardless of what their definition of "significant" might be. The whole point of the study is to find out how people define "significance" for this photo, to see if any appreciable number of people seem to agree with Rose's definition of significance.





Ahhh..I see now. Thanks.

Donnie B.
2003-Jan-16, 03:41 AM
Well, before the BA decides to lock this down, I'll throw in my $.02...

If Rose is right, and somebody-or-other has foisted this photo on an unsuspecting public in order to subliminally influence their opinion (of Israel or anything else), then they've wasted their time.

Controlled studies have shown that "subliminal advertising" (such techniques as flashing one-frame images of popcorn on a movie screen to promote sales) simply do not work. The myth was originated and promoted by a company trying to sell the technique to theater owners. But the fact is, people's brains don't work that way.

So, even if there was a "top-of-the-world" conspiracy, it was doomed from the start. That means either the conspirators were pretty dumb and didn't know they were pursuing a wild goose, or there were no conspirators. Rose, you have nothing to worry about -- at least, in this case.

Now, if you show me a picture of several lovely young females on a tropical beach with the word "Israel" at the top, you just might influence my opinion of that country... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

g99
2003-Jan-16, 04:31 AM
But some subliminal advertising does work. But they use the sense of smell and hearing. All of the fast food restauraunts do it. Movie theaters do it, and many other places do it. The let their cooking food or waft aromas of their food into the air to make you want it more. Music works too in a similar fashion.

But back on topic...
This really has gotten more talk than it should of. The other two posts seem to be dead, but this one survived (no thanks to me /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif).
It is a idiotic idea that they planned a whole route and orbital path to match up with israel on top on the way to the moon. They have much better things to do than plan which country they will show best.

nebularain
2003-Jan-16, 05:11 AM
I think the problem is we are jsut having too much fun with this!

Rose G
2003-Jan-16, 07:07 AM
I think maybe the popular picture under discussion here is a political event. And political events are not decided by market forces. They are decided by those in power who have some political agendas. My point is that the mass media in this country has, as one of its political agendas--pro- Israel support. I don't have any problem with Israel. What I'm stating is I think factual. And It doesn't matter what the average person on the street thinks about this photo, I believe it was intended to be projected into the public, unconscious mind--the person on the street wouldn't know it or to be able to express an opinion on it. Good heavens, why is just about everyone on this forum defending Israel? Everybody and everything have faults. I have faults. Also, subliminal advertising does work. Man, some of you guys really know how to burn somebody. I thought I was done with this but if you want more then, why is Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, Richard Perle, Chairperson of the Defense Policy Advisory Board, and Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary for Policy in the Defense Department actively supporting Israel and, I guess, the upcoming war with Iraq? Yes I know you all are concerned with facts. Well, sometimes the facts are there but some of you just can't see them because they are below your eye-pointed, ear- listening, finger-touching conscious level. If you have ever slept in the woods at night then you probably know that your unconscious mind wakes you up if you hear a strange or threatening noise. Maybe some of you people should wake up. And please dear folks this is not an ad hominem.

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-16, 12:29 PM
On 2003-01-16 02:07, Rose G wrote:
My point is that the mass media in this country has, as one of its political agendas--pro- Israel support.
We got the point a long time ago.


I don't have any problem with Israel. What I'm stating is I think factual.
Not all of it.

And It doesn't matter what the average person on the street thinks about this photo, I believe it was intended to be projected into the public, unconscious mind--the person on the street wouldn't know it or to be able to express an opinion on it.
See? That's not a fact, that's speculation.


Good heavens, why is just about everyone on this forum defending Israel?
Just about everyone on this board has not even mentioned it. Just about the only posts about it since you've been on the board have been in the three threads you started, about this subject. I don't recall any post defending it--all the posts that I can remember merely criticized your subliminal advertising idea. Let's stick to facts, not political speculation.

CJSF
2003-Jan-16, 01:06 PM
Rose, before the BA locks this thread...

Please, using the 'quote' option in this BB, show us specific examples of any of us making pro-Israel statements.

CJSF

Thumper
2003-Jan-16, 03:38 PM
Whether or not anyone is pro-Isreal or not is irrelevant. Anyboby has the right to be pro-Isreal or (I guess) con-Isreal. Your original post asked why the image in question is so popular and then you speculated (you speculated), that it was being forced on us by the left wing pro-Isreal media (paraphrasing).

You say you don't care what anybody else in the world thinks, you think that this is happening. I guess that means you are dismissing even attempting to use Gramma loreto's experiment to try to quantify to any degree how successful this "subliminal" coercion is (or if it even exists).

I think the vast preponderance of evidence offered in these threads from a variety of given viewpoints leads us away from your hypothesis and towards others. (it's very pretty, it's one of the few clear pictures of a full Earth etc.)

YOU asked the question and got quite a few responses yet you are not only unsatisfied with them, you seem to be ignoring them. And whether the 2nd Assistant Undersecretary of Defense Policy favors good relations with Isreal, or wishes to go to war with Iraq is completely irrelevant to the question of why a 30 some year old picture of Earth from space is famous.

Your question has been asked and answered many times over. If instead you would like to discuss foreign relations and "media bias" perhaps there is some other more appropriate forum for that.

I'm sorry you've come away from this discussion unsatisfied.

(fixed sp)
(fixed more sp)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thumper on 2003-01-16 10:41 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thumper on 2003-01-16 10:59 ]</font>

nebularain
2003-Jan-16, 03:50 PM
I just had a disturbing thought. Rose's qualm doesn't have anything to do with the news that an Israeli is taking part in the shuttle mission that finally launched today, does it?

GrapesOfWrath
2003-Jan-16, 03:55 PM
Looking back, if it didn't, it will.

cable
2003-Jan-16, 03:59 PM
subliminal advertising does work.

of course it does /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
the following are examples of subliminal ad:
- superstring
- BB
- decoherence
- BH
- Redshift

I suspect the guys have something to sell .... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

aporetic_r
2003-Jan-16, 05:00 PM
And It doesn't matter what the average person on the street thinks about this photo, I believe IT [Aporetic's emphasis] was intended to be projected into the public, unconscious mind--the person on the street wouldn't know it or to be able to express an opinion on it.


The difficulty here is that IT (the one that I emphasized, above) is constituted by one's perception. What IT is to a person on the street is exactly what that person perceives it to be. Therefore, IT as such did not exist in the sense you imply - as an event, if you will - until a specific meaning was offered for it. So many different honest perceptions of the content of that picture have been asserted by the members of this discussion, that it should be clear that there is no universal IT to be foisted upon anyone. Even if all the shadowy government figures of 30-ish years ago (when this picture was first publicized) wanted to influence the American public's perceptions of Israel (which has never been needed, in actuality...check the polls on that), it could not be done by simply publishing a picture that happened to sort of include Israel. Such a picture is meaning-less without commentary or caption. In short (too late), it DOES matter what the average person on the street thinks about it, because if people don't think it is a photo of Israel, then it isn't!



Good heavens, why is just about everyone on this forum defending Israel?


I'm actually reasonably opposed to Israel. I also opposed to breaking pasta in half in order to get it to fit into the pot, movies that have been modified to fit my television screen, and naive epistemologies.




I thought I was done with this but if you want more then, why is Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, Richard Perle, Chairperson of the Defense Policy Advisory Board, and Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary for Policy in the Defense Department actively supporting Israel


Because they consider it good for the strategic US position in the region. Whether this is the actually the case is another matter entirely, but this is not the place for that discussion.



If you have ever slept in the woods at night then you probably know that your unconscious mind wakes you up if you hear a strange or threatening noise.


Basically your argument comes down to a sort of uncomfortable gut feeling about seeing a widely-publicized picture of the Earth that happens to include Israel. This is without significance. In order to make your case you have to go back and begin addressing the various specific objections that have been raised about this photo. You must also lay out the connections between this photo and US public opinion toward Israel. In all seriousness, this is not a difficult project to undertake. The hard part is identifying causality rather that mere correlation, but again, if you really want to do it I will happily lay out a research design and apply for the necessary funding.

Aporetic

Gramma loreto
2003-Jan-16, 05:25 PM
On 2003-01-16 02:07, Rose G wrote:
I believe it was intended to be projected into the public, unconscious mind--the person on the street wouldn't know it or to be able to express an opinion on it.The point (which you apparently missed) of my proposed experiment was two-fold. The first part asking which country comes to mind is an attempt to determine the influence (conscious or unconscious) of the photograph. The "geography test" portion would serve to determine whether or not a significant percentage public would even be susceptable to the putative influence of the image. After all, if they aren't even aware of the location of this tiny country, how can the image influence them?

Man, some of you guys really know how to burn somebody...Yes I know you all are concerned with facts. Well, sometimes the facts are there but some of you just can't see them because they are below your eye-pointed, ear-listening, finger-touching conscious level.Rose, Rose, Rose...you were the one who pointedly asked us to use the scientific method. We did. Now, you're complaining about our insistance on evidence and then equating this insistance to some kind of support for Israel. Tsk, tsk.


Maybe some of you people should wake up. And please dear folks this is not an ad hominem.Actually, a fair bit of your post was in fact argumentum ad hominem...but most of it was just handwaving.

I, too, will suggest that another forum would be more appropriate if you wish to discuss politics. Why not look up a fellow called Rolo in the skeptic forum over on Delphi. If you want to talk about Israel, he'll be more than happy to oblige.

sts60
2003-Jan-16, 05:57 PM
Well, sometimes the facts are there but some of you just can't see them because they are below your eye-pointed, ear- listening, finger-touching conscious level.

But you haven't really given us any facts, Rose; you made an assertion based on a feeling, but you haven't backed it up with any relevant evidence. People have pointed out this out, and offered other explanations, but you don't seem to admit the possibility your feeling was wrong. Instead, you question our motives.

I would note this is something we see a lot from believers in the "Apollo hoax", Planet X doomsday, geocentrism, etc. I don't think you'll convince anyone here this way.

If you are going to say, "I'm not trying to convince someone, I'm just asking questions", well, we answered your questions. You apparently don't like the answers, but you haven't explained your dislike other than by an appeal to media bias, government bias, and now BABB bias.

But that doesn't prove anything; I could simply accuse you of the same thing in reverse, despite your disclaimers. And I would be equally wrong in claiming to "disprove" you if I did that. See?

So - why, exactly, do you think we're wrong by explaining the picture's popularity as due to its aesthetics rather than the fact that one small country happens to be near the top of the picture, while many others are prominently featured?

CJSF
2003-Jan-16, 06:15 PM
I think I actually see where Rose might be going with this.

See, the photograph originally taken 'innocently' and published. Someone in power saw it and said, "Hey, this picture will serve our purpose well" (fostering pro-Israel sentiment). JUST THIS DECISION alone forever changed the spiritual make-up of that photgraph. Once that type of statment or thought was made by that individual or group, it made a spiritual imprint on that photograph and any derivitives of it. It isn't unlike claims homeopaths make with the "law of infinitesimals" (See this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2482&forum=9&9)). So even though we truly believe that the photo was chosen for it's aesthetic value - and it was - by those who use it, that indelible spiritual imprint stays with it. So with everyone unawares, this photo does it's job of fostering pro-Israel sentiment just by virtue of it being "tagged" with that purpose by someone.

Am I close?

CJSF

_________________
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Christopher Ferro on 2003-01-16 13:19 ]</font>

aporetic_r
2003-Jan-16, 07:12 PM
On 2003-01-16 13:15, Christopher Ferro wrote:
I think I actually see where Rose might be going with this.

See, the photograph originally taken 'innocently' and published. Someone in power saw it and said, "Hey, this picture will serve our purpose well" (fostering pro-Israel sentiment). JUST THIS DECISION alone forever changed the spiritual make-up of that photgraph. Once that type of statment or thought was made by that individual or group, it made a spiritual imprint on that photograph and any derivitives of it. It isn't unlike claims homeopaths make with the "law of infinitesimals" (See this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2482&forum=9&9)). So even though we truly believe that the photo was chosen for it's aesthetic value - and it was - by those who use it, that indelible spiritual imprint stays with it. So with everyone unawares, this photo does it's job of fostering pro-Israel sentiment just by virtue of it being "tagged" with that purpose by someone.

Am I close?

CJSF


I so hope you're wrong about that. It would be a terribly simplistic, strangely spiritual (for lack of a better term) argument. I'd prefer a claim of active government manipulation.

Aporetic

SpacedOut
2003-Jan-16, 08:12 PM
I guess it is now obvious why Dell Computers used this image on some of their POST Splash screens. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Jan-16, 08:14 PM
I am strongly of the opinion that this thread can serve no further purpose. Claiming that there is some hidden meaning in the orientation of a press photo has no basis whatsoever, and the tone of this thread has no hope of improving. Locked.