[AATW]

There is no reason for the cloud patterns to be phony in such a hoax because meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which we see when the weather man overlays the clouds on different images.

You know those cloud layers from the meteorological services come from satellites, right?

[Tom Bishop]

... why would they just make up cloud patterns for such a hoax when meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which you have seen when the local weather man overlays the clouds on an image of his choosing?

You're proceeding on the basis that SpaceX have either "used phony clouds" or have "(made) up cloud patterns for such a hoax", without proof of either. Where's your proof of either "phoney" or "making up" ?

I am not saying that anyone used phony clouds.

Did you even watch the video that YOU posted? The author is trying to show that the SpaceX video is legitimate because the cloud patterns from that video are the same as cloud patterns in other sources. The author is assuming that if it was illegitimate the cloud patterns would be phony. There is no reason for the cloud patterns to be phony in such a hoax because meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which we see when the weather man overlays the clouds on different images.

Yes but how does that happen in real time? As stated else where CGI doesn't happen overnight.

At any point in the live stream you can perform the same cloud check and it will be correct. How is that possible?

The NOAA does have real time cloud products. Real time data sources are easily searched online.

We can see what the clouds look like right now over the US here: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/us_comp/small

Overlaying such data over an image in "real time" is trivial. It is overlaid over an image in the above link. The weather man does it. He even often says "this is the cloud coverage right now."

There is no reason for the cloud patterns to be phony in such a hoax because meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which we see when the weather man overlays the clouds on different images.

You know those cloud layers from the meteorological services come from satellites, right?

Allegedly. But the information could come from weather balloons, weather radar stations, weather monitoring buoys, etc, all of which exist in abundance.

[AATW]

Denial ain't just a river...

And this is why "The Conspiracy" isn't just about faking space travel. Or even if it started that way there are now a load of things like this, satellite TV, satellite phones, GPS all of which have to be made to work without satellites to maintain the pretence that satellites really exist.

It's a ludicrous claim, frankly.

[Tumeni]

I am not saying that anyone used phony clouds.

You've got an exceedingly peculiar way of phrasing your posts, then.


Did you even watch the video that YOU posted?

I authored that video I posted.

"The author is trying to show that the SpaceX video is legitimate because the cloud patterns from that video are the same as cloud patterns in other sources."

Yes

"The author is assuming that if it was illegitimate the cloud patterns would be phony."

No, I don't think I'm 'assuming' that at all. My premise is that the SpaceX and Himawari imagery is absolutely legitimate.

I'm not concerned with how, why, or whatever would apply IF it was illegitimate. 

There is no reason for the cloud patterns to be phony in such a hoax because meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which we see when the weather man overlays the clouds on different images.

Again, you've got a weird, backwards, convoluted way of phrasing this. It's not a hoax. The cloud patterns are not phony.

[Tumeni]

the information could come from weather balloons, weather radar stations, weather monitoring buoys, etc, all of which exist in abundance.

It couldn't. These don't get high enough to get the full-face pictures that Himawari gives us.

The SpaceX craft was in an elliptical orbit, and therefore the perspective on the clouds varies according to orbital height and position. The craft moved in relation to the Earth, Himawari didn't. This can all be seen and accounted for by comparison between the two.

[Bobby Shafto]

Again, you've got a weird, backwards, convoluted way of phrasing this. It's not a hoax. The cloud patterns are not phony.

He's saying the clouds would not be phony because they have access to real imagery that could be composited into the video. Thus, the video you provided wouldn't restore credibility.

Pretty good compositing, if so. Got the altered perspective and vantage point just right from what weather imagery could provide.

[Bobby Shafto]

Allegedly. But the information could come from weather balloons, weather radar stations, weather monitoring buoys, etc, all of which exist in abundance.

" 'Possibly,' 'probably,' 'maybe,' 'might' and 'could' are all good markers of ad hoc claims."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

[Tom Bishop]

the information could come from weather balloons, weather radar stations, weather monitoring buoys, etc, all of which exist in abundance.

It couldn't. These don't get high enough to get the full-face pictures that Himawari gives us.

The SpaceX craft was in an elliptical orbit, and therefore the perspective on the clouds varies according to orbital height and position. The craft moved in relation to the Earth, Himawari didn't. This can all be seen and accounted for by comparison between the two.

Over the Horizon Radars can also do vast weather monitoring.

Six OTH radars can cover 90 million square kilometers:

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/OTHR_AN_TPS_71_ROTHR.html

The combined coverage of the six OTH-B radars is about 90 million square kilometers of open ocean where few weather instruments exist.

China has 9.60 million square km, for comparison.

The "Himawari" may just be the point where they finally got their act together, improved their processes, and tied in all the radar data together over an image of the globe for easier visualization and public access.

[jcks]

... why would they just make up cloud patterns for such a hoax when meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which you have seen when the local weather man overlays the clouds on an image of his choosing?

You're proceeding on the basis that SpaceX have either "used phony clouds" or have "(made) up cloud patterns for such a hoax", without proof of either. Where's your proof of either "phoney" or "making up" ?

I am not saying that anyone used phony clouds.

Did you even watch the video that YOU posted? The author is trying to show that the SpaceX video is legitimate because the cloud patterns from that video are the same as cloud patterns in other sources. The author is assuming that if it was illegitimate the cloud patterns would be phony. There is no reason for the cloud patterns to be phony in such a hoax because meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which we see when the weather man overlays the clouds on different images.

Yes but how does that happen in real time? As stated else where CGI doesn't happen overnight.

At any point in the live stream you can perform the same cloud check and it will be correct. How is that possible?

The NOAA does have real time cloud products. Real time data sources are easily searched online.

We can see what the clouds look like right now over the US here: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/us_comp/small

Overlaying such data over an image in "real time" is trivial. It is overlaid over an image in the above link. The weather man does it. He even often says "this is the cloud coverage right now."

Trivial how?

This wasn't overlaid on an image (which making that fit into a preexisting image of earth would be no trivial task at all). It was live footage. The timestamps are there you can go back and watch the video to see if the screens he used are legit or not.

But my original question wasn't about the video posted here. I was asking about the Starman stream itself, how were those clouds faked into a "CGI" stream in real time and yet accurate to what the cloud formations looked like based on data at the time?

[Bobby Shafto]

Over the Horizon Radars can also do vast weather monitoring.

OTH radar doesn't produce photographic imagery.

[Tom Bishop]

Over the Horizon Radars can also do vast weather monitoring.

OTH radar doesn't produce photographic imagery.

Radar passes through the clouds face on. The top down cloud imagery is generated with algorithms. The same way it is done with regular weather radar.

[Tumeni]

Radar passes through the clouds face on. The top down cloud imagery is generated with algorithms. The same way it is done with regular weather radar.

And you have cast-iron proof of this being done, have you?

[Bobby Shafto]

Radar passes through the clouds face on. The top down cloud imagery is generated with algorithms. The same way it is done with regular weather radar.

And you have cast-iron proof of this being done, have you?

He's in my world now. It doesn't work that way. No algorithm turns OTH radar data into photographic imagery.

[Tom Bishop]

Look into how Doppler Radar creates top down images from ground based radar.

[Tumeni]

Look into how Doppler Radar creates top down images from ground based radar.

Can you prove beyond all reasonable doubt that this was used either for the SpaceX Tesla mission, or for the Himawari imagery?

[Bobby Shafto]

Look into how Doppler Radar creates top down images from ground based radar.

I don't need to learn about radar from YouTube or Wikipedia.

Pulse Doppler radars for detecting and mapping rain are terrestrial and operate in the X-Band. They don't produce photographs either. Their product is turned into graphical presentations, overlaid on a map or photo image from another source (satellite).

Here's what the video you linked to me showed was a Doppler weather product. Does it look photo-realistic to you?

Sometimes, weather reports will lay that kind of product over a composited satellite image. Don't confuse that imagery with what the doppler radar is providing.


OTH radar is something entirely different. They are much lower in frequency (longer wavelength) and utilize groundwave or skywave principles to see over the horizon. They don't detect precipitation the way doppler radar does. They see through rain. X-Band doppler radar doesn't, which is why it's used for meteorology. (X-Band doppler also has no over-the-horizon capability).

However OTH radars are used to help data input to meteorology (I don't know how, exactly; I'm only familiar with military uses), but it's an entirely different type of radar from microwave doppler radar.

Besides, neither produces photographic-quality images. No algorithm is used to take radar images (OTH or doppler) and assemble a pseudo-photographic-like product. There are ways for synthetic aperture or ISAR radar to create a visual image with greater detail of an object, but you'd never mistake it for a photograph and it's not used for weather or creating atmospheric images of earth.

[Tom Bishop]

The colors from the radar are vibrant red and blues for visual and scientific purposes. It represents the precipitation in the clouds.

It takes only a little more processing to smooth precipitation out into whites and greys.

[Tumeni]

It takes only a little more processing to smooth precipitation out into whites and greys.

Again, do you have any proof of this being done in the context of the video we're talking about?

Or are you just speculating that it COULD be done?

[Bobby Shafto]

The colors from the radar are vibrant red and blues for visual and scientific purposes. It represents the precipitation in the clouds.

It takes only a little more processing to smooth precipitation out into whites and greys.

Is that all?

Do it. You'll make a mint. Because it's not being done now, and the doppler product isn't a presentation that can be interpretated as visible cloud cover.

You're taking a layman's misunderstanding of weather radar and trying to use it to salvage a possible scenario that can justify a preconceived belief that it could be a valid alternative to satellites for high altitude perspective atmospheric imagery.

It's not even a stretch possibility.

 

[Tom Bishop]

Are you saying that it is impossible to turn a blue cloud into a white cloud?

Were you at any of the locations on the earth in the SpaceX video to verify that the cloud looked exactly like the one in the video?