I know it is cliché, but these pictures are faked. They simply don't prove anything; they hardly function as evidence; and, frankly, I've seen better texture rendering in POSTAL 2.But of course they are!
The satellite may or may not be real, however.
I know it is cliché, but these pictures are faked. They simply don't prove anything; they hardly function as evidence; and, frankly, I've seen better texture rendering in POSTAL 2.To the close minded no evidence can ever be ever sufficient. In the meantime people in the real world will use the information from all these satellites.
The satellite may or may not be real, however.
To the close minded no evidence can ever be ever sufficient. In the meantime people in the real world will use the information from all these satellites.I never said these satellites weren't real. I called bluff on the photos, which hardly function as evidence. Even if they were photos of a flat Earth, they should be scrutinized intensely because of how prone photography is to being inauthentic.
It's your loss, not mine.
And just a thought, maybe your "better texture rendering" looks prettier, but is not true to life. Unaltered satellite photos often look dull and lifeless.
To the close minded no evidence can ever be ever sufficient. In the meantime people in the real world will use the information from all these satellites.I never said these satellites weren't real. I called bluff on the photos, which hardly function as evidence.
It's your loss, not mine.
And just a thought, maybe your "better texture rendering" looks prettier, but is not true to life. Unaltered satellite photos often look dull and lifeless.
They should at least make their altered, designed photos look nicer. My BlackBerry takes better photos, and that is saying something. ::)
The aim is not to make "nicer" photos, but real photos of the earth. Simple unmodified RGB photos of earth do not look all that "colourful".To the close minded no evidence can ever be ever sufficient. In the meantime people in the real world will use the information from all these satellites.I never said these satellites weren't real. I called bluff on the photos, which hardly function as evidence. Even if they were photos of a flat Earth, they should be scrutinized intensely because of how prone photography is to being inauthentic.
It's your loss, not mine.
And just a thought, maybe your "better texture rendering" looks prettier, but is not true to life. Unaltered satellite photos often look dull and lifeless.
They should at least make their altered, designed photos look nicer. My BlackBerry takes better photos, and that is saying something. ::)
I very much doubt that they would try to deceive us by producing and publishing fake photos.This is where we differ-- I think that they would try to deceive us!
The aim is not to make "nicer" photos, but real photos of the earth. Simple unmodified RGB photos of earth do not look all that "colourful".I could basically surmise your rebuttal as, "Shut up, you just don't get it! These photos aren't for you, anyway!"
Just get the message, these satellite photos were never meant to convince a few cynics that the earth is a Globe, they are produced to provide a useful service to those want to use it.
None of these Space Agencies cares in the slightest what you might think. None of what they do is to impress you!
I very much doubt that they would try to deceive us by producing and publishing fake photos.This is where we differ-- I think that they would try to deceive us!
My statement was one of your quotes from another thread adapted to this particular topic.Irrelevant.
LOLMy statement was one of your quotes from another thread adapted to this particular topic.Irrelevant.
I can't prove to you that photo XYZ is real and I don't know why I should bother.I very much doubt that they would try to deceive us by producing and publishing fake photos.This is where we differ-- I think that they would try to deceive us!The aim is not to make "nicer" photos, but real photos of the earth. Simple unmodified RGB photos of earth do not look all that "colourful".I could basically surmise your rebuttal as, "Shut up, you just don't get it! These photos aren't for you, anyway!"
Just get the message, these satellite photos were never meant to convince a few cynics that the earth is a Globe, they are produced to provide a useful service to those want to use it.
None of these Space Agencies cares in the slightest what you might think. None of what they do is to impress you!
That's a weak rebuttal, rabinoz. C'mon.
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricatedSince "The Flat Earth is an obvious truth" and satellite photos are "personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET" therefore satellite photos must be "fabricated evidence".
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.
Let's face it.
Satellites are real
Satellite photos are real
The earth is a globe is real
The Flat Earth is an obvious truthIf only it was. Most people probably won't ever consider the shape of Earth beyond their seventh grade science project.
But then again, who and what invented a need to?The Flat Earth is an obvious truthIf only it was. Most people probably won't ever consider the shape of Earth beyond their seventh grade science project.
A new weather-predicting satellite went into operation not long ego:Excuse me! That satellite is in a "circular geosynchronous orbit". So as the earth moves, the satellite moves through the same angle and keeps facing the same part of the earth.
https://webslice.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/marvel-at-these-first-pics-from-a-next-gen-weather-satellite/78519/
The two Earth pictures in the article were taken at different times; the Earth moved but the clouds remained the same
The curvature in the Moon shot and the curvature in the full Earth shot; what a difference
So, maybe you would like to revise your comments.
their diameters would indicate. No problem!
If I missed so many things, maybe you should explain what you mean.So, maybe you would like to revise your comments.
their diameters would indicate No problem!
No, I would not; that was one of my points that, contrary to the claim, either the satellite or the Earth moved (or the hand of the guy who painted the picture shook a little). the other point (which you missed) that the clouds in the two pictures are exactly the same.
As for the curvature (of Earth) in the Moon shot and the curvature (of Earth) in the full globus picture: that zoomed right over your head
(https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/assets/images/abi_full_disk_low_res_jan_15_2017.jpg) Do you mean this image: GOES-16's Full Disk image from the Advanced Baseline Imager, at 1:07 p.m. EST, Jan 15, 2017 | (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/465/32359803111_146c5e2748_b.jpg) and this image Full Disk image from the GOES-13 satellite, which was launched in 2006, and has been serving as the “GOES-East” satellite, returning imagery of the eastern half of North America, the Atlantic Ocean and all of South America, ever since. |
No, I do not see! The earth did not turn between the photos! They were presumably taken at almost the same time
As you may see, the Earth turned.
As you may see, the clouds did not change.
globe one:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/684/32359802361_fe3e84afe2_b.jpg
globe two:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/465/32359803111_146c5e2748_b.jpg
compare curvature of Earth in globe one picture to curvature of Earth in (brown) Moon picture
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/258/32359802911_f7f96ed8c5_o.jpg
After a series of maneuvers, conducted using the satellite's hydrazine bipropellent thrusters (HBTs), GOES-16 has placed itself in its designated 89.5 degree West longitude checkout location where it will undergo an extended checkout and validation phase of approximately one year.
From NOAA, Satellite Information Service (https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES-R-Launch)
Detailed satellite data for GOES 13 74.8°W.
From Detailed satellite data for GOES 13 (http://www.satellite-calculations.com/Satellite/Catalog/catalogID.php?29155)
Are you saying that the two photos were taken by two different sattelites, from different locations, at different times; yet the cloud formations are the same
Those two photos were taken at the same time by two satellites that are 14.5 degrees apart. Goes 16 is at 89.5 West Longitude and the older Goes 13 is at 75 West Longitude. Different satellites, same time, slightly different location.Are you saying that the two photos were taken by two different sattelites, from different locations, at different times; yet the cloud formations are the same
That is worse than the flat-earther ideas about the "blue marble"
==========
If cannon-balls and sniper bullets have to obey coriolis, why water vapour doesn't
=============
today is February second, and ground-hogs seem to be just as accurate as million-dollar predicting weather-sattelites
So "That is worse than the flat-earther ideas about the 'blue marble'" is it, when NASA themselves sayAre you saying that the two photos were taken by two different sattelites, from different locations, at different times; yet the cloud formations are the same
That is worse than the flat-earther ideas about the "blue marble"
EnhancementsAnd you by much detective found that The original Blue Marble was a composite image - :P :P :P such brilliant detective work. :P :P :P
Blue Marble: Next Generation offers greater spatial detail of the surface and spans a longer data collection period than the original. The original Blue Marble was a composite of four months of MODIS observations with a spatial resolution (level of detail) of 1 square kilometer per pixel.
There, has that image got enough detail[1] and is "at the same time on the same day: 1:07 p.m. EST on January 15, 2017" clear enough for even you to understand?(https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/assets/images/goes_16_and_goes_13_comparison_from_the_same_day_Jan_15_2017_high_res.jpg)Jan 15, 2017
GOES-16 and GOES-13 Earth Photo Comparison from Jan 15, 2017.
With five-times greater coverage, four-times the spatial resolution, and three-times the spectral channels than earlier generations of GOES-16's Advanced Baseline Imager can provide more detailed imagery and multi-task in ways that previous GOES imagers could not. For proof of that, consider the following image comparing full-disk images captured by two NOAA satellites -- GOES-16 and GOES-13 -- at the same time on the same day: 1:07 p.m. EST on January 15, 2017.
From NOAA Satellite Information Services, GOES-16 Image Gallery (https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/goes-16-image-gallery)
==========
If cannon-balls and sniper bullets have to obey coriolis, why water vapour doesn't
=============Who said "million-dollar predicting weather-sattelites(sic)" themselves predict any weather?
today is February second, and ground-hogs seem to be just as accurate as million-dollar predicting weather-sattelites