Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - nametaken

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Pluto/New Horizons/LORRI/Ralph
« on: October 02, 2016, 04:26:51 AM »
Disclaimer 1: I originally intended this topic to be playful joking around. Then I discovered some stuff I didn't expect to find; I immediately retracted the topic, realizing I made 2 major errors (maybe more on that later). My initial investigations covered 9 basic bullet points (14-16 if I include the topics I didn't even get to due to accidentally stumbling upon said unintentional observation; point 6 bellow). My initial 14-16 points were issues I already anticipated going in (with the exception of #6 and 7) due to my understanding of 'space science', and only took about 25 minutes to gather the data for. I tried my best to include everything I know, and consider everything; some parts of this data I either couldn't find (in the public), or haven't read yet from my provided sources. Examples: list of onboard measurement devices, what data came from their potential measurements, and how they are/were translated into the creation of these 'New Horrizon' images. I will edit these in as I discover them. Understandably, no business shows their whole hand; I give a free pass here for now, though I encourage anyone to correct me. Also, international laws may apply; I make no claim to ownership of any of this data. I am merely compiling all information freely available on the web (and providing sources) herein, such as to illustrate as many possible angles on the following argument:

Argument: I got tired of hearing 'all NASA stuff is fake', so I chose a completely random topic NASA has going on; New Horizons and Pluto. I assume you, on a Flat Earth forum, have heard this before. Moving on.

Notice: I was going to post this in Science and Alternative Science, but for the reasons outlayed in Disclaimer 1 above I placed it in debates instead. Discovery of point #6 bellow significantly changed the way I view this topic. I meant this to be a fun topic, but I stumbled upon #6 by sheer accident (while looking for the image megapixel resolution). I will leave [a modified for context version of the] original intro to this post intact, here:

Original intro:

Pluto/New Horizons/LORRI/Ralph

Okay, I'm just taking it slow with this. I see a lot of flat earthers say 'yo bruh everything from NASA is Fake, CGI, etc yo Cincinnati zoo did 9/11'. Okay maybe that last part is not true. But you get the idea. So I decided, hey, what the hell, it's the weekend, I'll take up this challenge I keep hearing about. I want to take just one random, recent topic NASA has put out, and analyze it with a fine tooth comb. I don't care if it's real or fake. I chose Pluto since it stood out and NDT already has a reputation with it. I'm just taking the data that's available on this topic and condensing it into one location. Whether it all adds up is anyone's guess. I don't know. Feel free to contribute or correct me, I just want to take it easy and brainstorm in this thread. It should have a relaxed, somewhat playful atmosphere here, I hope (accidental pun). When this image first came out, I saw it on livescience or something I got updates on my phone, I have no idea, I saw Pluto's face, and assumed it was a joke by NASA; which maybe it is meant to be? You decide! I'm just the messenger.

Everything here assumes "outer space" is real; I'm just presenting all the data that NASA and other agencies already claim is correct. Where you see a bold (1), (2), (3), (4), etc, that indicates the point comes from the corresponding reference, bellow. Simple, right? Like a game!

Okay, first off, here's Pluto!

And here's the The New Horizons!

And here is the path it took!

So right up front a few things stand out:

1) Atmosphere, Brilliant Lighting, No stars (1)
2) A Disney character - Pluto - on Pluto
3) The sun illuminates Pluto to get such a well-lit high resolution image, apparently; or NH has a really good flash!
3b) Pluto is 7.5 billion km away from Earth, yet the sun illuminates it as well as Earth apparently (7)
4) Does the observation distance NASA claims (280,000 miles/450,000 kilometers (1) away) match up with the apparent size of Pluto (Pluto's diameter (2) is 2374±8 km) in the image?
5) Do we actually have the ability to take such precise images (showing features (1) as small as 1.4 miles/2.2 kilometers) that large from that far away moving at the speed New Horizons is moving at (12,500 km/7,800 mi (1)) with no motion blur ([Ralph is] a 75mm lens at f/8.7 (4) with a 1 Megapixel Camera and 16GB storage using NASA deep space network and 88 years Plutonium-238 talk time (5, page 18)) and transmit over an internet connection between 29.658 AU (4,436.82 Gm) and 49.305 AU (7,375.93 Gm) - Perihelion and Aphelion - respectively back to Earth in practically real-time? The camera on my phone is 16 megapixel, and I can't zoom in and take a detail image very well. NASA claims Horizons only has a 1 Megapixel camera, which took these images.
5b) Update: See ToteNotReptilian's response to this here; I may have presented the wrong camera's data here (though it does have this camera).

6) This is the LARGEST image I could find related to Pluto. It comes in at 2690x3412, and under Details tab says was created by Adobe Photoshop CC 2015. (6)
6b) Update: Not sure why many of these images say they were generated in photoshop. Several images presented on NASA's New Horizon presentation and Pluto top 10 page don't have an 'image taken on' date tag filled out, but rather 'image created with an adobe product'.
6c) I assume these images are compilation of sensory data collected, and assembled into a false color image, rather than litteral pictures taken; as NASA has done in the past (Sounds of the Planets albums, which are quite good and I recommend a listen if you've never heard them).
6d) Failing 6c), maybe the images were just each touched up in adobe photoshop? To make features more visible, or add false color? But then why doesn't a single one say 'image taken on'? That property is missing on every single 'picture'. If I take a picture with my camera, then photoshop it, it will still say 'image taken on x date'. None of these images have 'image taken on' filled in.

7) The funny part about 6) that is unbelievable is that that image is a TINY spot on Pluto. Captured from 280,000 miles/450,000 kilometers away; though downloaded straight from NASA, says it was made in photoshop. ***
8 )  Distance and time traveled to Pluto. I remember the launch and updates, it was somewhat in vogue with youtubers as well on it's journey. Ref #5 should be the official PDF for departure/transit dates, to verify. From wikipedia: "it left Earth at 58,000 kilometres per hour (36,000 mph), faster than any other spacecraft to date." It had 'Gravity assist' from Jupiter.
9) There is extreme radiation 'in space'; just traversing the Van-Alen Radiation belts themselves is intense, but radiation is supposedly 'everywhere in space'. Not to mention extreme near-0 temperatures 'in space' and the solar winds. The shielding is real. Spent 3 years in these conditions and the cameras still work, apparently.
9)b The velocity of acceleration (g force) must put pressure on the sensitive devices, as it approaches 'escape'? Once traveling through space at a constant speed, any impact of minor particles of the supposed 'space debris' would prove fatal.
9)c No random chance accidents colliding with the hypothetical minor space debris (A massive amount of asteroids - particularly those tidally locked to the Jovian orbit - path's are well-known and logged by NASA, but not everything, for sure). Very fortunate and lucky!

10) View angle. The image is a 'frontal shot' it seems; the 'sun' (assuming that is where the image illumination is coming from) is hitting from behind the 'camera'. This means it is either a side-shot flyby (from the hip as it were), or else the approach angle is wrong. The camera is on the front right? Then this image is impossible, as it approached Pluto from behind/beside; not head-on. From wiki: "Part of the reason for the delay between the gathering of and transmission of data is that all of the New Horizons instrumentation is body-mounted. In order for the cameras to record data, the entire probe must turn, and the one-degree-wide beam of the high-gain antenna was not pointing toward Earth." Read more here about the science payload; I'm still working through this myself.
10b) Again, I assume these aren't real pictures, but rather the data compiled from sensors. In photoshop. That would make sense at least.
10b) Pluto is in a highly eccentric orbit compared to other planets. All gravity assists were planned out long prior to launch, obviously, years in advance. IE 'window of opportunity'. This is long since been known and advertised by NASA. Just including it here as it is part of the equation.

In conclusion: Most of this seems to check out; with a few caveats. NASA openly admits to using composites and false color, so I'm passing on criticizing any of that other than what I have already mentioned here. 'It's just the nature of the job', as it were. I can't do it, so I can't prove it myself. Assuming I made no errors (I'm not gonna hold my breath), there are a few glaring inconsistencies. I'm no expert in probability, but I mean we have car crashes constantly. Satellite crashes/impacts are so rare, practically unheard of. God forbid of course. I can't predict if I'll make it to the next town over safely. Let alone to the edge of the solar system. I mean, that's a lot of money and 'groundbreaking science'. I'd hate that to happen. But if you like probability, feel free to tell me off (or supplement me) here. I genuinely want to have fun with this, even realizing these are literally photoshopped, as admitted by NASA. I get so tired of hearing 'everything by NASA is fake', so I went straight for the facts. Though I can smell some bias that crept in to this post, particularly after my re-posting it after finding #6 on accident. Anyway, For Science!


*** above: Original post ended with this point. I got depressed, posted anyway, and then tried to delete the post, but couldn't. So I edited it all out, and began a re-write (what you are seeing now). The origina post went on to my speculation mentioned in points 6b-6d, which were not in the original post; I merely moved my speculation to these points. To quote myself from the original post:

"I honestly was surprised to see the photoshop bit; I accidentally found it while I was looking for the image resolution. I literally didn't go in looking for that. I decided to stop 'probing' when I realized this... literally go look for yourself right now. I downloaded that image here, opened it, right clicked it, hit properties, and details tab. It says: this image generated with Adobe Photoshop [...] this was supposed to be a place where I'd add info as I thought about it but well I really wasn't expecting that. The photoshop fact killed the mood for me... I thought I'd hit a brick wall, not knowing about image resolution potentials; I just didn't think a 1MP camera could take it from that far away. But [this is] plain black and white, it says it was made in photoshop. Any thoughts?"

Flat Earth Theory / Людин Рɣси's "No Forests on the Flat Earth"
« on: August 13, 2016, 03:41:58 AM »
I searched and haven't seen a topic here on it yet. I was here a few months back but quit due to only taking a passing interest in FE, and of course, I was a jerk somewhat. If you haven't seen it, there's a huge new video by a Russian (Rus) everyone is talking about. Literally. It has been mirrored over a dozen times already. My apologies if there is already a topic here about it, I didn't see one.

The original version

Globebuster's mirrior

I recommend the later as the CC (closed caption) picks up some things the original misses; though the GB version has synchronization errors at 2 points.


To summarize the video, without trying to ruin anything... SPOILERS...

He basically puts forth the idea that, for the most part, much of scientific consensus is little more than a badly repeated joke, and that 'planet earth' is little more than a quarry waste zone. There are a lot of other key central points he uses to back this claim, and it is interspersed with just enough humor to make it entertaining at very least. I am still laughing almost 2 weeks later from some of his points (take that for what you will).

Anyway it's kind of hot topic in the FE community right now, surprised there isn't a topic here already for it. If you haven't seen it yet I recommend it.

SPOILERS: He shows silicon life to form distinctive 'columns' on both small and large scale; I consider that 'the world's' tectonic plates take such appearance as well; though, only with the azimuthal equidistant overlay - to a much lesser extent on 'globe'.

That's all I've really got (that I'm willing to share) for now. Just a little curious. Knowledge is power, but power corrupts. Be safe...

Flat Earth Theory / No Stars
« on: March 26, 2016, 06:53:05 PM »
You can skip this; I searched, "No stars" and "any stars" is mentioned several times, but usually only in passing. I think I saw one of FE A-hole's videos 'touch on it', but it didn't go 'deep enough' (bad puns aren't against the rules, are they?). Re-watching the videos from one of my posts (the (1) url is wrong there, I lost the right video for it though), I confirmed my suspicions:

Where are all the stars? The obvious answer; Hollywood! All the NASA pics obviously have no stars, but I've been watching amateur 'near-space' go-pro and balloon videos, and none of them show any stars either. I may be wrong here, and obviously nearly every single video of this type is done during day time. I have only found one video (at about 2:20, when the balloon pops) which *might* show a star, but considering it's spot on the horizon, it may be a 'planet' such as Venus (aka the 'morning star').

Just curious, has this apparent 'anomaly' been addressed by the FE world in any great detail yet? I haven't found much on the topic [in my mere 3-weeks of interest in FE], but I assume it has to do with a few obvious variables;

1) day time (but then why are all NASA pictures, portraying a planet starless? NASA has deep space pictures of stars, but all pictures of ALL planets ~are starless?)
2) atmospheric lensing, optical illusion ~but wouldn't this mean that the stars themselves are illusions, say, reflecting off a dome?
3) fading perspective ~I don't know the term for this, Line of Sight? How things fade where horizons meet at great distances (as seen in this picture, or in some of the 'near space go-pro' videos) ~but fading when you get closer to their apparent position?
4) Light/Photons - back to points 1-3, I assume there is theory that the light from the sun is interfering no matter how 'high' you go; it is like an 'invisible curtain' all around you, blocking out the 'starlight'. Has anyone launched a go-pro to near-space at night?

Anyway that's where I'm coming from. I don't know a lot, other than what I've observed, as in Zetetic Tradition. If anyone has any insight or corrections for me, I'm game. Here are some video examples: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7 (with major city locations) ~see the trend of day-time?

Flat Earth Theory / Polar Orbits
« on: March 20, 2016, 02:22:22 AM »
This is something I mentioned in passing already, but to make it official; how do Polar Orbits work in the Flat Earth Model? Alternatively, couldn't something in polar orbit easily prove flatness/rotundity? Are polar orbits even possible in FE model? The wikipedia page is quite suspiciously sparse, though funnily enough it is by far the largest wikipedia article for Inclination classifications.

I also don't understand the phrase on the wikipedia page "The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth's surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit." Wouldn't that be the same case with all other types of orbits? On a globe, all orbits pass to the 'other side of the globe', right? Why is there specific emphasis here? X and Y axis shouldn't mean anything on globe orbits, right? IE Equatorial orbits would just be flying in circles above the FE, where Polar orbits would have to go 'under' the FE; is that possible? What is under the FE?

Anyway I'm at an impasse on this one.

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Fiction
« on: March 11, 2016, 10:50:49 PM »
Last Edit: March 29, 2016, 01:49:07 AM

Update: Today 31 March 2016 11:56:27 PM by nametaken I am still working on this, but if ZC/Mods want to delete it for now, I can't stop you, go ahead. If you have seen it already, you know it needs a lot of work, and now it's been almost a month since I found FE, so I'm getting settled into the community and don't feel the pressure/drive like I used to to keep it up to date, but I will continue to work on it as I see fit. Enter people calling me a shill etc.

Current Post (Alpha) version: 0.0.034 v2. Currently removed for editing and consideration (P2 got locked). TFES not my personal blog~ when it's closer to completion and containing less personal opinion I'll consider reposting it; and leave the intro for now so it's apparent what the post contains:

Original Intro: "My workshop project is to create a thorough compendium/index of FE talking points (FETP), where others can add to/deconstruct; I don't know the exact extent to which any of these points have been investigated, other than what I present herein. *Disclaimer:* points presented, thus, are *as is*, from sources where cited. I do not modify any data, except where denoted. I neither own nor endorse any content; all belongs to their original agencies, thus all credit goes to them. I admit, I cannot argue many of these points; I present the arguments themselves rather than the facts typically, for now. Obviously, this post will be subject to editing. If I sound ignorant about something, it's probably because I am; I welcome feedback. Some points detract from common FETP; I will denote them with 'non-cFETP'; my biases. I'm working on bleeding these out to keep in the good faith of an index; the post as Guest now reads it, thus, is to be considered a 'work in progress'. Until then - sorry  :-[. *Disclaimer 2* in footnotes -End Intro"


That said, [the following are] the Most Common Talking Point Proofs/Errors I've encountered, in no particular order:

[removed until further notice]: I was not asked by ZC to take this down, but rather have done so out of respect for TFES, and my own considerations.

Pages: [1]