*

Online RazaTD

  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • A rational man
    • View Profile
ISS livestreams
« on: March 23, 2021, 02:26:06 AM »
What do Flat Earthers make of ISS livestream? Or satellites like himawari (not NASA) that are constantly taking pictures and sending them back to Earth?

It is possible to match up a plane trail or cloud formation as observed on the ground to a picture taken by the satellite. How is it possible to fake this? At this point it’s cheaper to actually send something up and take a picture rather than any ground based mass observation or whatever excuse Flat Earthers will definitely come up with.

Here is a link to observing cloud patterns that match up with satellite images https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-to-prove-satellite-images-are-real-ground-truth.8781/

It even contains easy steps for those Flat Earthers that feel brave and adventurous.
A rational man

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2021, 02:45:48 AM »
Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2021, 03:20:36 AM »
Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

I just watched the first few videos, and this guy is missing the plot. He is applying forensic analysis (which is indeed a good way to determine whether a photograph has been altered) on photos that make no claim of not-being composited in the first place. The photo he debunks in his first video describes itself as a produced image, combined from a color photo of earth + a black and white photo from the moon. I mean it's right there on the page in his video, if he took 5 seconds to read the page he would know it was a composite before he even analyzed it.



He does the same thing in the second video. Earth from The Moon is stated to be a mosaic of photos taken by a Narrow Angle Camera, it does not claim to be an un-composited photo of the Earth in the first place. Then he goes on to debunk the photo nobody claimed was an unaltered photograph.




*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2021, 04:38:46 AM »
Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

I just watched the first few videos, and this guy is missing the plot. He is applying forensic analysis (which is indeed a good way to determine whether a photograph has been altered) on photos that make no claim of not-being composited in the first place. The photo he debunks in his first video describes itself as a produced image, combined from a color photo of earth + a black and white photo from the moon. I mean it's right there on the page in his video, if he took 5 seconds to read the page he would know it was a composite before he even analyzed it.

https://i.imgur.com/fLQ2eSQ.png

He does the same thing in the second video. Earth from The Moon is stated to be a mosaic of photos taken by a Narrow Angle Camera, it does not claim to be an un-composited photo of the Earth in the first place. Then he goes on to debunk the photo nobody claimed was an unaltered photograph.

https://i.imgur.com/g7c0PGu.png

What you quoted and highlighted doesn't say 'composite' anywhere. It just says 'special processing' and 'mosaic'. The viewer does not expect a manipulated picture with embellishments that were not actually seen.

Egregious manipulation kind of invalidates this entirely, regardless of whether NASA put a small astrisk with 'special processing' somewhere.

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2021, 06:47:53 AM »
Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

I just watched the first few videos, and this guy is missing the plot. He is applying forensic analysis (which is indeed a good way to determine whether a photograph has been altered) on photos that make no claim of not-being composited in the first place. The photo he debunks in his first video describes itself as a produced image, combined from a color photo of earth + a black and white photo from the moon. I mean it's right there on the page in his video, if he took 5 seconds to read the page he would know it was a composite before he even analyzed it.

https://i.imgur.com /fLQ2eSQ.png

He does the same thing in the second video. Earth from The Moon is stated to be a mosaic of photos taken by a Narrow Angle Camera, it does not claim to be an un-composited photo of the Earth in the first place. Then he goes on to debunk the photo nobody claimed was an unaltered photograph.

https://i.imgur.com /g7c0PGu.png

What you quoted and highlighted doesn't say 'composite' anywhere. It just says 'special processing' and 'mosaic'. The viewer does not expect a manipulated picture with embellishments that were not actually seen.

Egregious manipulation kind of invalidates this entirely, regardless of whether NASA put a small astrisk with 'special processing' somewhere.

What do you think 'special processing' and 'mosaic' means if not for compositing?

Here is the description of the 'updated' 2002 version of the Blue Marble, which is a composite. The 1972 version (down below) is not, I'll get to that later. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20090626055055/http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2429 (10 year old archive link to prove that this has always been the case.)

This spectacular “blue marble” image is the most detailed true-color image of the entire Earth to date. Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet. These images are freely available to educators, scientists, museums, and the public. This record includes preview images and links to full resolution versions up to 21,600 pixels across.

Much of the information contained in this image came from a single remote-sensing device-NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, or MODIS. Flying over 700 km above the Earth onboard the Terra satellite, MODIS provides an integrated tool for observing a variety of terrestrial, oceanic, and atmospheric features of the Earth. The land and coastal ocean portions of these images are based on surface observations collected from June through September 2001 and combined, or composited, every eight days to compensate for clouds that might block the sensor’s view of the surface on any single day. Two different types of ocean data were used in these images: shallow water true color data, and global ocean color (or chlorophyll) data. Topographic shading is based on the GTOPO 30 elevation dataset compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey’s EROS Data Center. MODIS observations of polar sea ice were combined with observations of Antarctica made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s AVHRR sensor—the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer. The cloud image is a composite of two days of imagery collected in visible light wavelengths and a third day of thermal infra-red imagery over the poles. Global city lights, derived from 9 months of observations from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, are superimposed on a darkened land surface map.


This is much more than a small asterisk explaining 'special processing'. They fully disclose all the different ways the image was composited, compiled, mosaic'd, combined, and stitched together, down to the facilities the relevant data was collected from! I don't think it could be more explicit if you tried. If the image was a fraud, and intended to bamboozle a population of idiot sheep, why go to the lengths to describe the way the picture was fabricated? Are they not ruthlessly debunking themselves in this instance?

SURELY you see how ridiculous it is to proclaim that NASA is faking photos when they are giving you explanations like the above. MANY images of space are composites, so what? When your camera can only take 1/50th of the image you want, of course you're going to have to stitch 50 images together to get the final result. That is not dishonesty, that is called producing something presentable and interesting.

This is a photograph, not a composite, image of Earth, taken by the Apollo 17 crew in 1972. It does not claim to be composited, it was shot on a modified Hasselblad 500EL with a Zeiss Planar 80mm f/2.8 lens and a fixed shutter speed of 1/250 sec. and no viewfinder, by Dr. Harrison Schmitt, the Lunar Module Pilot.



In the first video your guy uses Noise Analysis to determine the authenticity of the video. In his own words, clean uninterrupted noise is the mark of an authentic photo.



Here is the same, Noise Analysis being applied to the PHOTOGRAPH of the Earth from 1972.



Based on forensic analysis of this photo, we can conclude, using Paul on the Plane's method, that Blue Marble 1972 is an authentic photograph
« Last Edit: March 23, 2021, 06:51:51 AM by scomato »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2658
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2021, 07:30:43 AM »
What do Flat Earthers make of ISS livestream? Or satellites like himawari (not NASA) that are constantly taking pictures and sending them back to Earth?

It is possible to match up a plane trail or cloud formation as observed on the ground to a picture taken by the satellite. How is it possible to fake this? At this point it’s cheaper to actually send something up and take a picture rather than any ground based mass observation or whatever excuse Flat Earthers will definitely come up with.

Here is a link to observing cloud patterns that match up with satellite images https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-to-prove-satellite-images-are-real-ground-truth.8781/

It even contains easy steps for those Flat Earthers that feel brave and adventurous.

The live stream from the SpaceX Falcon Heavy (the one with the Tesla Roadster making a couple of orbits around the Earth) was matched with the output from the Himawari-8 weather satellite, and found to be consistent.

Did it myself, but the last time I posted a link to my YouTube video with all the screenshots, it was removed by the mods for spamming my own video. I could repeat all the screenshots here, but it's easier to go watch the video. You can search for my user name ...
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2658
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2021, 09:05:14 AM »
Egregious manipulation kind of invalidates this entirely, regardless of whether NASA put a small asterisk with 'special processing' somewhere.

Manipulation does not invalidate the content.

Here's 360gigapixels, and their assembled panoramas of London and other cities;

https://360gigapixels.com/london-80-gigapixel/

"made from 7886 individual images", they say in one example.

It's still London, isn't it?

Despite the fact that it's not a single photograph, it's still the same London that tourists photograph every day with their single-shot cameras? It's just an assembly and manipulation of a number of photographs. Agreed?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Online RazaTD

  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • A rational man
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2021, 11:33:38 AM »
Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

What about the fact that you can match ground observations to those from the satellite?
A rational man

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8512
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2021, 05:09:31 PM »
Here is the description of the 'updated' 2002 version of the Blue Marble, which is a composite.

Well, yes. The Blue Marble image is also generally dismissed as an image of the earth, as it consists of highly manipulated strips and layers of data to create the world, and is not a photograph. When people post the Blue Marble image we point that out.

Is your point that we should throw away the DISCOVR and LROC images as well? The references you find showing that the pictures are not really pictures and really consists of manipulated data tends to work against you rather than for you. Your "nah-uh NASA made some disclaimers to special processing" is irrelevant to that. Those references you found are further evidence that the photos are not really photographs.

Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

What about the fact that you can match ground observations to those from the satellite?

Doppler radar has existed for a long time.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2021, 09:20:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2658
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2021, 05:21:12 PM »
The Blue Marble image is also generally dismissed as an image of the earth, as it consists of highly manipulated strips and layers of data to create the world, and is not a photograph.

Per #6 above, the panoramas of London and other cities are manipulated strips and patches of data assembled to make up the end result. But London still exists, for real. However it is photographed.

The Blue Marble and others may well be manipulated strips of data, but the subject matter of such strips still exists, the same way that London does. Over 60 years of space flight around our Earth shows that.

EDIT afterthought; as more and more imagery of the Earth is supplied by more and more diverse spacecraft, it becomes more and more difficult for you to deny; there's film photography and movie footage from NASA's Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and iSS missions; digital photos from Chinese and Japanese lunar expeditions; weather satellite imagery from European, Japanese, Russian and American satellites, and extensive livestream footage from SpaceX missions, most notably the Falcon Heavy test flight, where the roadster was seen to be passing over areas with cloud formations matching exactly with the stills from the Japanese Himawari-8 satellite.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2021, 05:31:05 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 334
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2021, 05:58:51 PM »

What about the fact that you can match ground observations to those from the satellite?

Doppler radar has existed for a long time.

Which is what makes Doppler radar an excellent, trusted device in authenticating satellite weather imagery.  Thanks for making Raza's point.
Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2021, 08:42:36 PM »
Here is the description of the 'updated' 2002 version of the Blue Marble, which is a composite.

Well, yes. The Blue Marble image is also generally dismissed as an image of the earth, as it consists of highly manipulated strips and layers of data to create the world, and is not a photograph. When people post the Blue Marble image we point that out.

Is your point that we should throw away the DISCOVR and LROC images as well? The more references that you find showing that the pictures are not really pictures and really consists of manipulated data tends to work against you rather than for you. Your "nah-uh NASA made some disclaimers to special processing" is irrelevant to that. Those references you found are further evidence that the photos are not really photographs.

Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

What about the fact that you can match ground observations to those from the satellite?

Doppler radar has existed for a long time.

You have conveniently ignored half of my post regarding the 1972 version of the Blue Marble taken by the Apollo 17 crew, which is indeed an authentic photograph. We know exactly which camera was used with which lens to snap that shot.

*

Online RazaTD

  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • A rational man
    • View Profile
Re: ISS livestreams
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2021, 06:24:41 PM »
Here is the description of the 'updated' 2002 version of the Blue Marble, which is a composite.

Well, yes. The Blue Marble image is also generally dismissed as an image of the earth, as it consists of highly manipulated strips and layers of data to create the world, and is not a photograph. When people post the Blue Marble image we point that out.

Is your point that we should throw away the DISCOVR and LROC images as well? The references you find showing that the pictures are not really pictures and really consists of manipulated data tends to work against you rather than for you. Your "nah-uh NASA made some disclaimers to special processing" is irrelevant to that. Those references you found are further evidence that the photos are not really photographs.

Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

What about the fact that you can match ground observations to those from the satellite?

Doppler radar has existed for a long time.

What does the existence of Doppler radar have anything to do with making observations and confirming them with satellite images? If you are trying to suggest that Doppler radar is used to construct the fake satellite image, what evidence do you have?

Also, what do you have to say about being able to observe ISS from the ground? That is obviously something real.
A rational man