[totallackey]

And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:

Not a valid point.

Making that point using this image is evidence that you don't understand basic geometry.

Those photos are taken at different distances.

Aside from these images not taken using what could be termed as a, "point and shoot camera," and actually taken using digital scans of specific areas and then "stitched together (subject to all the other conditions of such types of imagery)" the argument of "perspective," then becomes one not hinging on field of vision, focal length, or distance.

It becomes an argument based only on the imagination and current world view of the presenter.

[andruszkow]

And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:

Not a valid point.

Making that point using this image is evidence that you don't understand basic geometry.

Those photos are taken at different distances.

Aside from these images not taken using what could be termed as a, "point and shoot camera," and actually taken using digital scans of specific areas and then "stitched together (subject to all the other conditions of such types of imagery)" the argument of "perspective," then becomes one not hinging on field of vision, focal length, or distance.

It becomes an argument based only on the imagination and current world view of the presenter.

No.

Regardless of the Composite nature of the image, the distance is still key to understand why the size of the continents differ. This is what happens when looking at a sphere from different distances, regardless of the Composite nature of the image.

[totallackey]

No.

Regardless of the Composite nature of the image, the distance is still key to understand why the size of the continents differ. This is what happens when looking at a sphere from different distances, regardless of the Composite nature of the image.

This must qualify as the most laughable response ever uttered here on this forum.

Acknowledging the composite nature of the image, the fact they are stitched, and then boldly stating this entire process would not impact the nature of perspective shown.

Absolutely total garbage.

I direct your attention to the 2012 image.

There is no possible way North America would take up that amount of a so-called globe of 8000 miles diameter, no matter the reported distance from which the original scans took place.

[andruszkow]

No.

Regardless of the Composite nature of the image, the distance is still key to understand why the size of the continents differ. This is what happens when looking at a sphere from different distances, regardless of the Composite nature of the image.

This must qualify as the most laughable response ever uttered here on this forum.

Acknowledging the composite nature of the image, the fact they are stitched, and then boldly stating this entire would not impact the nature of perspective shown.

Absolutely total garbage.

I direct your attention to the 2012 image.

There is no possible way North America would take up that amount of a so-called globe of 8000 miles diameter, no matter the reported distance from which the original scans took place.

Is that so?

Mind you, composite can mean a number of things: Mix of RGB channels in digital photography (every single digital camera out there), stitching multiple images into one complete one. Being composite doesn't change the fact that the distance to a sphere changes how many degrees of the sphere you're able to observe.

Example: https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg

Nobody should require people to be educated in a certain field to make statements. Bold statements based on ones own interpretation of reality are invalid though. Don't waste my time.

[totallackey]

No.

Regardless of the Composite nature of the image, the distance is still key to understand why the size of the continents differ. This is what happens when looking at a sphere from different distances, regardless of the Composite nature of the image.

This must qualify as the most laughable response ever uttered here on this forum.

Acknowledging the composite nature of the image, the fact they are stitched, and then boldly stating this entire would not impact the nature of perspective shown.

Absolutely total garbage.

I direct your attention to the 2012 image.

There is no possible way North America would take up that amount of a so-called globe of 8000 miles diameter, no matter the reported distance from which the original scans took place.

Is that so?

Mind you, composite can mean a number of things: Mix of RGB channels in digital photography (every single digital camera out there), stitching multiple images into one complete one. Being composite doesn't change the fact that the distance to a sphere changes how many degrees of the sphere you're able to observe.

Exactly my point.

And why do you ignore the process of stitching?

Why do you insist on promoting these images as if they are "point and shoot?"

They are not.

The process by which these images arise is better described as data gathering  (via scanning in various light wavelengths) and subsequent data interpretation.

Example: https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg

Nobody should require people to be educated in a certain field to make statements. Bold statements based on ones own interpretation of reality are invalid though. Don't waste my time.

Do not trot out point and shoot comparisons as being valid.

Don't waste anyone's time, specifically yours, with these weak arguments.

[andruszkow]

No.

Regardless of the Composite nature of the image, the distance is still key to understand why the size of the continents differ. This is what happens when looking at a sphere from different distances, regardless of the Composite nature of the image.

This must qualify as the most laughable response ever uttered here on this forum.

Acknowledging the composite nature of the image, the fact they are stitched, and then boldly stating this entire would not impact the nature of perspective shown.

Absolutely total garbage.

I direct your attention to the 2012 image.

There is no possible way North America would take up that amount of a so-called globe of 8000 miles diameter, no matter the reported distance from which the original scans took place.

Is that so?

Mind you, composite can mean a number of things: Mix of RGB channels in digital photography (every single digital camera out there), stitching multiple images into one complete one. Being composite doesn't change the fact that the distance to a sphere changes how many degrees of the sphere you're able to observe.

Exactly my point.

And why do you ignore the process of stitching?

Why do you insist on promoting these images as if they are "point and shoot?"

They are not.

The process by which these images arise is better described as data gathering  (via scanning in various light wavelengths) and subsequent data interpretation.

Example: https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg

Nobody should require people to be educated in a certain field to make statements. Bold statements based on ones own interpretation of reality are invalid though. Don't waste my time.

Do not trot out point and shoot comparisons as being valid.

Don't waste anyone's time, specifically yours, with these weak arguments.

You basically said nothing of value with that reply, as expected. It doesn't matter how many parameters you apply, them being wavelength scans, stitching and so on. You're still trying to argue that distance doesn't change the amount of degrees you're able to observe on a sphere, which is wrong. It's not a debatable matter, it's just how it is. You're simply just wrong.

Life's too short to argue with couch scientists.

[totallackey]

You basically said nothing of value with that reply, as expected. It doesn't matter how many parameters you apply, them being wavelength scans, stitching and so on. You're still trying to argue that distance doesn't change the amount of degrees you're able to observe on a sphere, which is wrong. It's not a debatable matter, it's just how it is. You're simply just wrong.

Life's too short to argue with couch scientists.

No, I am not trying to argue that distance and focal length and other factors do not affect the amount of degrees visible on a sphere as taken with a "point and shoot," camera.

They would.

It is rather apparent the angles on the photos by metabunk, especially the first, is highly eccentric, and the lens used more likely than not, different from the last two images. The last two images are more than likely produced using the same lens and simply increasing the distance between the object and lens.There is no corresponding data relative to focal length, type of camera used, distance from objects, etc., so as to replicate.

However, the same claims these issues are relative to the digital imagery provided by NASA is erroneous.

For one, you must able to represent the image gathering devices utilized by NASA would be capable of gathering the image presented in a single shot (you can't), have the ability to alter focal length (they don't), and are at a significant distance apart to result in such drastic differences.

I am pointing out your comparisons of the images you reference at metabunk and those offered by NASA is horse hockey of the highest level.

If there is a market for horse hockey, then you sir, are its finest sales rep.

[totallackey]

You basically said nothing of value with that reply, as expected. It doesn't matter how many parameters you apply, them being wavelength scans, stitching and so on. You're still trying to argue that distance doesn't change the amount of degrees you're able to observe on a sphere, which is wrong. It's not a debatable matter, it's just how it is. You're simply just wrong.

Life's too short to argue with couch scientists.

One other thing:

If your images offered at metabunk are meant to be utilized as a proof then it should be relatively simple for NASA to perfectly replicate the same types of imagery with a "point and shoot," single snapshot device.

ON DEMAND.

In other words, send up three satellites equipped with "point and shoot," devices, do the corresponding math to scale, make the allowances, and voila!

Images ON DEMAND for anybody.

[andruszkow]

You basically said nothing of value with that reply, as expected. It doesn't matter how many parameters you apply, them being wavelength scans, stitching and so on. You're still trying to argue that distance doesn't change the amount of degrees you're able to observe on a sphere, which is wrong. It's not a debatable matter, it's just how it is. You're simply just wrong.

Life's too short to argue with couch scientists.

One other thing:

If your images offered at metabunk are meant to be utilized as a proof then it should be relatively simple for NASA to perfectly replicate the same types of imagery with a "point and shoot," single snapshot device.

ON DEMAND.

In other words, send up three satellites equipped with "point and shoot," devices, do the corresponding math to scale, make the allowances, and voila!

Images ON DEMAND for anybody.

Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we already know still stands and assure you what you think you know about the shape of the earth is wrong, seems plausible.

Great argument to auto-dismiss every piece of evidence presented to you by default, mate.

[totallackey]

Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we already know BELIEVE still stands and assure you what you BELIEVE about the shape of the earth is wrong CORRECT, seems plausible.

I concede the point you raise about my specious and foolish comparison between single shot, point and shoot images requiring no further processing or artist rendering and that of the digital scanning and imagery presented by NASA. You are correct. Perspective would only change based on the world view of the individual.

FTFY.

No need to thank me!

[andruszkow]

Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we already know BELIEVE still stands and assure you what you BELIEVE about the shape of the earth is wrong CORRECT, seems plausible.

I concede the point you raise about my specious and foolish comparison between single shot, point and shoot images requiring no further processing or artist rendering and that of the digital scanning and imagery presented by NASA. You are correct. Perspective would only change based on the world view of the individual.

FTFY.

No need to thank me!

Very mature indeed. Not even going to bother

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we already know BELIEVE still stands and assure you what you BELIEVE about the shape of the earth is wrong CORRECT, seems plausible.

I concede the point you raise about my specious and foolish comparison between single shot, point and shoot images requiring no further processing or artist rendering and that of the digital scanning and imagery presented by NASA. You are correct. Perspective would only change based on the world view of the individual.

FTFY.

No need to thank me!

Very mature indeed. Not even going to bother

Pretty much sums up this entire exchange accurately.

[totallackey]

Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we already know BELIEVE still stands and assure you what you BELIEVE about the shape of the earth is wrong CORRECT, seems plausible.

I concede the point you raise about my specious and foolish comparison between single shot, point and shoot images requiring no further processing or artist rendering and that of the digital scanning and imagery presented by NASA. You are correct. Perspective would only change based on the world view of the individual.

FTFY.

No need to thank me!

Very mature indeed. Not even going to bother

I know.

You cannot be bothered to provide the data regarding the pics you offered from metabunk.

That data could very easily be utilized to construct an accurate scale so as to replicate the shots in real life.

But it won't.

You know why?

Point and shoot cameras do not exist in outer space.

Therefore, the images we see from NASA are not the same as the ones you present from metabunk.

Therefore, your offering of those images in support of an argument, "The size of North America in the NASA images is different to the perspective of the image taker," is fraudulent.

[andruszkow]

Yup, as per usual a factual debate gets ruined by applying criticism on the semantics allowing you to completely ignore the important part.

It does not matter if the camera utilized is point and shoot. It does not matter that the angle from which the pictures of the globus where taken from differ from the first. You can clearly see that the distance changes the apparent size of the surface features based on the distance alone.

A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Even if the field of view were narrowed by both cameras, taking photos that would later need to be stitched together for a complete full disc image, the result would be the same assuming both cameras is set at neutral zoom. It has nothing to do with types of cameras even though you want to make it to be about cameras or doctoring images. It's about geometry and perspective. Nothing else.

The particular example I provided from metabunk is just an example. I've previously provided the exact same example with a soccer ball because people also dismissed the metabunk example back then. There's nothing magical to it. It's not even a technical challenge. It's just geometry and perspective.

Now stop applying ambiguity to every single argument where there's none to be applied. Let high school students debate in that manner, or the other Internet warriors, and try to act like an adult.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?

[TotesNotReptilian]

A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?

A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR.
A slightly more in depth description.

It uses a CCD sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?

A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR.
A slightly more in depth description.

It uses a CCD sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.

And that was only in use for the most recent photos correct?

[TotesNotReptilian]

A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km  each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.

Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?

A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR.
A slightly more in depth description.

It uses a CCD sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.

And that was only in use for the most recent photos correct?

If these are the photos you are referring to, I haven't looked them all up. Anything since the 90's is likely to be digital. I believe the original blue marble was on film.

Edit: Before CCD/CMOS sensors were in use, you had these things, which I would hesitate to call a "digital camera".

[Pete Svarrior]

Hey, look, another thread hijacked by andruszkow's blatant trolling.

I'll be the first to say it: andruszkow is actually a Flat Earther who's just here for cheap laughs. Between his touching story about how he's just studying extremists because ISIS or whatever and his insistence of discussing nothing of actual significance, it's kinda obvious.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Hey, look, another thread hijacked by andruszkow's blatant trolling.

I'll be the first to say it: andruszkow is actually a Flat Earther who's just here for cheap laughs.

Projection much?