The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: mikkelno on January 31, 2016, 11:32:53 PM
-
Hi, so with all of the media attention to the flat Earth theory, I've decided to go out and seek some answers myself. I always enjoy a good read and this has been one of the best stories I've gotten my hands on for quite some time.
First of all, are you all religious? Especially thinking about creationism here. This theory is very much in tune with what the creationists believe and I want to know if all of you are following that belief.
Secondly, what do you make of all of the satellitte photoes that has been released? Is that what you would consider a government cover up, and in that case, what would the government gain from releasing that kind of pics?
And finally, how do you explain the rise in temperatures at the equator compared to the poles for example? What I've been taught is that sunrays that hit an object (Earth) straight, like at the equator, is more effecient at heating the object compared to sunrays that hit an object from an angel, like with the poles. The flat Earth theory would not give that same effect.
Sorry for mispellings and the like. English is not my first language.
Looking forward to your replies :)
Mikkelno
-
Very few are religious. Most Atheist. Deism always polls very high here when we ask. It is a society based on observation and reason, it isn't a spiritual organisation, although members are very welcome to hold those beliefs.
What satellite photo? The 2015 one with 'SEX' written in the clouds?
http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/
The sun travels over the equatorial regions, and so those are hotter. See the FAQ/wiki for that one.
-
Nasa's website is littered with photoes of a spherical Earth. A single photo depicting clouds spelling out "sex" is not a base for disbelieving in anything Nasa throws out to the public. It could very well be random chance or it could be edited for funsies by random internet users.
I was always taught the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa. I have a very hard time believing anything else.
-
So what proof is there that NASA edits all of their photoes? Sure I can pull out an edited picture that is claimed to be from NASA. Thing is, the interwebz is full of people who will do these kind of things to troll everyone else. Sure, NASA has been editing colours on some of their pics, but that is something completely else than editing a flat Earth to appear spherical.
Again, what are the proof that what we are being taught is part of some big conspiracy? What is there for the "elite" to gain from us believing the Earth is round and not flat?
I am not trying to be on the attack here, I am just looking for evidence to back up claims.
-
Nasa's website is littered with photoes of a spherical Earth. A single photo depicting clouds spelling out "sex" is not a base for disbelieving in anything Nasa throws out to the public. It could very well be random chance or it could be edited for funsies by random internet users.
I was always taught the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa. I have a very hard time believing anything else.
I'll try...
When viewing images from NASA you must consider that most are all composites.
NASA claims to only have about 5 actual photos.
When you look at a computer screen all you see it light in the form of pixels on your screen.
Same goes with what most people think and consider are real photos from NASA.
They are not real photos. They are combined pixels called composites.
As you find yourself researching this, and conclude NASA only provides 5 supposed images, you must ask why?
We here on earth take countless of real photos everyday of the bodies above. Yet NASA only provides us with a handful of supposed real images.
Anyone with rational thinking must question this...
-
So what proof is there that NASA edits all of their photoes? Sure I can pull out an edited picture that is claimed to be from NASA. Thing is, the interwebz is full of people who will do these kind of things to troll everyone else. Sure, NASA has been editing colours on some of their pics, but that is something completely else than editing a flat Earth to appear spherical.
Again, what are the proof that what we are being taught is part of some big conspiracy? What is there for the "elite" to gain from us believing the Earth is round and not flat?
I am not trying to be on the attack here, I am just looking for evidence to back up claims.
Nearly every single "photo" from NASA is a composite. Every image will have a brief description. If you read that, you will see they are composites and not real photos.
-
Do you even know what a composite image is?
-
Well I've now looked through multitudes of pics and I have yet to find one claiming the pic is a composite, CGI or photoshop. Especially this picture, which is very beautiful, is clearly showing the Earth is curving and it does not state anywhere that it is a doctered photo.
I've looked through the FAQ and Wiki but they did not answer my questions :)
One question, that I've asked a few times now but people seem to avoid it, is what the elite will gain from making us believe the Earth is round and not flat. What are your answers to that?
Just trying to expand my horizon here, haha
-
Well I've now looked through multitudes of pics and I have yet to find one claiming the pic is a composite,
No you have not. You have not looked through multitudes of pics. You spent just a few minutes.
Did you even visit the NASA website?
I know you didn't. If you looked through multitudes of pics then please post the link here.
From NASA website. Not any other source...
We will await these multiple photos that are not composites...
-
Nasa's website is littered with photoes of a spherical Earth. A single photo depicting clouds spelling out "sex" is not a base for disbelieving in anything Nasa throws out to the public. It could very well be random chance or it could be edited for funsies by random internet users.
I was always taught the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa. I have a very hard time believing anything else.
I'll try...
When viewing images from NASA you must consider that most are all composites.
NASA claims to only have about 5 actual photos.
When you look at a computer screen all you see it light in the form of pixels on your screen.
Same goes with what most people think and consider are real photos from NASA.
They are not real photos. They are combined pixels called composites.
As you find yourself researching this, and conclude NASA only provides 5 supposed images, you must ask why?
We here on earth take countless of real photos everyday of the bodies above. Yet NASA only provides us with a handful of supposed real images.
Anyone with rational thinking must question this...
Uhm, I think you get the wrong idea about composite images. A composite image is a picture that has some of the imagery removed and replaced with other things, like this image here: http://www.breyer-composites.com/uploads/tx_imagecycle/Composite-Leitmotiv-Header_11.jpg
Combined pixels is exactly what a picture is. The pixels tell us something about the resolution of the image and not if it is composed or not. In that case, every picture ever taken would be composite when viewed on a screen where it becomes pixaleted.
This is according to my understanding.
Also, I have searched the net but haven't found anything about NASA only having 5 real pictures. Where is your source so I can have a look at it?
-
Well I've now looked through multitudes of pics and I have yet to find one claiming the pic is a composite,
No you have not. You have not looked through multitudes of pics. You spent just a few minutes.
Did you even visit the NASA website?
I know you didn't. If you looked through multitudes of pics then please post the link here.
From NASA website. Not any other source...
We will await these multiple photos that are not composites...
Woops, my mistake, forgot to add the link: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html?id=378104
I've spent a lot of time on the NASA website prior to me coming to this site, and I have looked through a lot of photos in my time, not just in these few minutes after my post.
-
Well I've now looked through multitudes of pics and I have yet to find one claiming the pic is a composite,
No you have not. You have not looked through multitudes of pics. You spent just a few minutes.
Did you even visit the NASA website?
I know you didn't. If you looked through multitudes of pics then please post the link here.
From NASA website. Not any other source...
We will await these multiple photos that are not composites...
Woops, my mistake, forgot to add the link: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html?id=378104
I've spent a lot of time on the NASA website prior to me coming to this site, and I have looked through a lot of photos in my time, not just in these few minutes after my post.
Here are some quotes that appear in that gallery you linked to. And if you look further into each of the supposed satellites you will read that they ALL take composites...
"have assembled this highest-resolution color view"
"The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on the Suomi NPP satellite acquired this image of the storm system at 2:15 a.m. EST on Jan. 23. It was composed through the use of the VIIRS “day-night band,”
"created through computer analysis and modeling of new satellite data from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 and from the NASA-CNES Jason-1, as well as older data from missions flown in the 1980s"
"Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this false-color image"
"This image was produced by the New Horizons composition team, using a pair of Ralph/LEISA instrument scans"
"New Horizons scientists made this false color image of Pluto using a technique called principal component analysis"
"This image was presented by Will Grundy of the New Horizons’ surface composition team"
All the above quotes were taking directly from the link you provided. Shall I go on, or would you like an opportunity to read for yourself?
-
Well I've now looked through multitudes of pics and I have yet to find one claiming the pic is a composite,
No you have not. You have not looked through multitudes of pics. You spent just a few minutes.
Did you even visit the NASA website?
I know you didn't. If you looked through multitudes of pics then please post the link here.
From NASA website. Not any other source...
We will await these multiple photos that are not composites...
Woops, my mistake, forgot to add the link: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html?id=378104
I've spent a lot of time on the NASA website prior to me coming to this site, and I have looked through a lot of photos in my time, not just in these few minutes after my post.
Here are some quotes that appear in that gallery you linked to. And if you look further into each of the supposed satellites you will read that they ALL take composites...
"have assembled this highest-resolution color view"
"The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on the Suomi NPP satellite acquired this image of the storm system at 2:15 a.m. EST on Jan. 23. It was composed through the use of the VIIRS “day-night band,”
"created through computer analysis and modeling of new satellite data from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 and from the NASA-CNES Jason-1, as well as older data from missions flown in the 1980s"
"Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this false-color image"
"This image was produced by the New Horizons composition team, using a pair of Ralph/LEISA instrument scans"
"New Horizons scientists made this false color image of Pluto using a technique called principal component analysis"
"This image was presented by Will Grundy of the New Horizons’ surface composition team"
All the above quotes were taking directly from the link you provided. Shall I go on, or would you like an opportunity to read for yourself?
I see where you are getting at, but reading those quotes without having seen the images they are related to, I would assume it would be images in the likes of these two:
Composite image: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/712130main_8246931247_e60f3c09fb_o.jpg
False colour image: https://www.nasa.gov/content/false-color-image-of-earth-highlights-plant-growth
The composite image is a collection of pictures used to make the full and final image, like the one you see in my example. This would only be feasable to do if the Earth was indeed round and not flat. If it was flat, you could just send out a satellite far enough to capture the entire image in one shot.
The false colour image is something they've done a lot. This is to highlight certain features of the surface being shown.
I'd imagine they would do the same if not enough light was present to get an image of the surface, for example of planets in a far away orbit around their stars.
Just my two cents, looking forward to hear yours
-
NASA themselves claim there are only two unaltered pictures of earth. Every other picture they freely admit is a composite.
One in 1972 "the blue marble" and a second blue marble in 2015 which they posted to great fanfare ... before people noticed a bored photoshop artist had written "SEX" in the clouds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble
That is it. NASA claim to only have 2 photos of earth from space. You'd have thought they'd have turned the Hubble telescope around for a quick selfie, but no. Way to unimportant when there are tiny dots in the sky to look at.
-
Well I've now looked through multitudes of pics and I have yet to find one claiming the pic is a composite,
No you have not. You have not looked through multitudes of pics. You spent just a few minutes.
Did you even visit the NASA website?
I know you didn't. If you looked through multitudes of pics then please post the link here.
From NASA website. Not any other source...
We will await these multiple photos that are not composites...
Woops, my mistake, forgot to add the link: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html?id=378104
I've spent a lot of time on the NASA website prior to me coming to this site, and I have looked through a lot of photos in my time, not just in these few minutes after my post.
Here are some quotes that appear in that gallery you linked to. And if you look further into each of the supposed satellites you will read that they ALL take composites...
"have assembled this highest-resolution color view"
"The Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) on the Suomi NPP satellite acquired this image of the storm system at 2:15 a.m. EST on Jan. 23. It was composed through the use of the VIIRS “day-night band,”
"created through computer analysis and modeling of new satellite data from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 and from the NASA-CNES Jason-1, as well as older data from missions flown in the 1980s"
"Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this false-color image"
"This image was produced by the New Horizons composition team, using a pair of Ralph/LEISA instrument scans"
"New Horizons scientists made this false color image of Pluto using a technique called principal component analysis"
"This image was presented by Will Grundy of the New Horizons’ surface composition team"
All the above quotes were taking directly from the link you provided. Shall I go on, or would you like an opportunity to read for yourself?
I see where you are getting at, but reading those quotes without having seen the images they are related to, I would assume it would be images in the likes of these two:
Composite image: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/712130main_8246931247_e60f3c09fb_o.jpg
False colour image: https://www.nasa.gov/content/false-color-image-of-earth-highlights-plant-growth
The composite image is a collection of pictures used to make the full and final image, like the one you see in my example. This would only be feasable to do if the Earth was indeed round and not flat. If it was flat, you could just send out a satellite far enough to capture the entire image in one shot.
The false colour image is something they've done a lot. This is to highlight certain features of the surface being shown.
I'd imagine they would do the same if not enough light was present to get an image of the surface, for example of planets in a far away orbit around their stars.
Just my two cents, looking forward to hear yours
All of those quotes come directly from the link that YOU provided.
You provided a link and said that NO MENTION of COMPOSITE was noted.
I viewed the link and every quote came directly from that page on the NASA website.
It's that simple.
You came into this discussion that all the images you have seen are actual photos. You have now been shown by me and through NASA's own website that are not actual photos.
Now that we have that cleared up, I hope, let's discuss the COMPOSITES That you are seeing...
NASA claims they are taken in space from a satellite. I claim they are not. I claim NASA has never sent a rocket, a man, or anything into space. Nor has any other space agency in the world.
99% of everyone's first reaction to flat earth is "no way it could be flat, we have photos".
And that statement cannot be further from the truth.
What we have are fake images created here on earth and distributed worldwide as fact. And most people just swallow it without question.
-
So, I am either blind or you have found those quotes from other pages other than the one I linked to, because I simply cannot see them. Could you point them out to me please? Or send me the link, because I simply cannot see those quotes.
I think we've misunderstood eachother from the beginning, well atleast I have. I was not aware that you don't believe that NASA has sent up any rockets into space. That explains why you have a problem with me saying that composite images, in this case, are real images that are formed by combining a lot of smaller images.
So, why don't you believe they've sent rockets away? You don't think they have the technology or?
A reply to Dr. David Thork:
So what's the problem with composite images? I've already clearly stated, that composite images can be used to form a much larger image simply by combining the images. I don't really see a problem with NASA stating the images are composite.
And also, why are you so sure the image with "sex" written in the sky is photoshopped? You don't believe that could happen by chance? Just like that big "fist of God" image that's been taking in Portugal and is cruising around the net?
Clouds are wonderful things and you get to see some amazing shapes at times, all by random. That's my opinion anyways.
-
So, I am either blind or you have found those quotes from other pages other than the one I linked to, because I simply cannot see them. Could you point them out to me please? Or send me the link, because I simply cannot see those quotes.
I think we've misunderstood eachother from the beginning, well atleast I have. I was not aware that you don't believe that NASA has sent up any rockets into space. That explains why you have a problem with me saying that composite images, in this case, are real images that are formed by combining a lot of smaller images.
So, why don't you believe they've sent rockets away? You don't think they have the technology or?
Go to the link you provided. Scroll through and when you find an image taken from a satellite click on it. When you click on it, you will find a detailed description about what satellite and what process was used to obtain that image.
And why hasn't man been space? It's my personal belief we live in an inescapable dome.
Man has tried and failed.
In case you didn't know, civilians should have been going to space more than 30 years ago.
We were promised yet again by Virgin not long ago, but nope, the test ship exploded. Too bad...
Now NASA is giving Virgin contracts to ship things into space.
Don't you find that a little odd? Virgin cannot get a ship into space yet NASA wants them to ship supplies into space. How does that work?
-
So it doesn't say that at the image I provided then? Good, so let's not discuss what is written at other images.
Not that those words "composite" and "fake colour" are bad or gives any reason to distrust NASA IMO.
So you believe we live in an inescapable dome? How come? Why is it inescapable?
The Virgin crash was caused by a human error: http://www.space.com/30073-virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-crash-pilot-error.html
The cargo rockets are not controlled by humans inside the cockpit but are basically robotic rockets who follow a programmed route and course of actions, which is all monitored by humans. It is a big difference and it does not seem weird to me at all that the autonomous rockets would be less unsafe due to the relative safety from their programming, which they would be able to test before actually launching the craft.
-
A reply to Dr. David Thork:
So what's the problem with composite images? I've already clearly stated, that composite images can be used to form a much larger image simply by combining the images. I don't really see a problem with NASA stating the images are composite.
Because the instant you start stitching them together, you can stitch them into any shape you like. A ball or a disc. It is no proof that earth is a ball. So I can disregard all composites, that is an admission the photoshop guys have been creating an image based on an ideal.
-
A reply to Dr. David Thork:
So what's the problem with composite images? I've already clearly stated, that composite images can be used to form a much larger image simply by combining the images. I don't really see a problem with NASA stating the images are composite.
Because the instant you start stitching them together, you can stitch them into any shape you like. A ball or a disc. It is no proof that earth is a ball. So I can disregard all composites, that is an admission the photoshop guys have been creating an image based on an ideal.
The problem is Nasa are suppose to be working toward a scientific understanding. If I want to see drawn images i'll look at some art thanks.
-
You can go to the live stream of the International Space station (http://www.n2yo.com/space-station/). When it's not showing them bobbing around inside it shows HD of the world passing by underneath.
-
So it doesn't say that at the image I provided then? Good, so let's not discuss what is written at other images.
Not that those words "composite"
You should read this slowly. I have tried to explain to you numerous times about YOUR link, YOUR source.
It's very simple!
Go to the link you provided. Instead of just scrolling and looking at all the pretty pictures:
CLICK ON THEM!!!!!
AM I MAKING MYSELF CLEAR NOW?
Now, once you achieve that.....
Are you ready???????
READ!!!!!
All of the quotes I provided are on the website that you gave me!
Get this one bit figured out, then come back, change your tune, and we can talk.
-
I'll try...
When viewing images from NASA you must consider that most are all composites.
NASA claims to only have about 5 actual photos.
When you look at a computer screen all you see it light in the form of pixels on your screen.
Same goes with what most people think and consider are real photos from NASA.
They are not real photos. They are combined pixels called composites.
As you find yourself researching this, and conclude NASA only provides 5 supposed images, you must ask why?
We here on earth take countless of real photos everyday of the bodies above. Yet NASA only provides us with a handful of supposed real images.
Anyone with rational thinking must question this...
Ok, first of all, as i saw you have been told already, the pixels are a medium for you to see the captured light of the photo, if we're getting technical, that does not make them composites, but actual pictures taken from satellites, while the composites are just many pictures accurately assemble together when what they are trying to capture something too big for the lens, but that does not make them fake. As for the fact that we don't have as many pictures of earth, why don't you ask yourself this? We have hundreds of satellites orbiting the earth, finding out what we need to know. Terrain maps, GPS routes, images too. Why the FUCK would we need to point our deep space telescopes toward Earth when we could be finding out valuable information about the universe, like the Hubble deep field, or looking for exoplanets? Pointing those telescopes toward earth is completely counter intuitive and counter productive. They did it a few times with Hubble to get high-res images the satellites couldn't provide at the time. So there is no reason to question the amount of pictures NASA has of earth. Anyone with rational thinking would know that looking out into space is much more important and intelligent than pointing the Hubble at the Earth to prove something that was proved by the Ancient Greeks, but for some reason, your rare breed of stupidity tries to disprove it with made up facts and massively flawed logic.
-
Save your breath bud, you're being trolled :)
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
Save your breath bud, you're being trolled :)
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
I'm sorry. But do those warnings not go for directly belittling fellow debate participants?
I thought it was fair enough to point out before the discussion got out of hands, especially when I know for a fact that even some of the administrative members of this site don't believe the earth is flat.
-
Why the FUCK would we need to point our deep space telescopes toward Earth when we could be finding out valuable information about the universe,
That's an excellent point!
Let's ask them shall we?
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
That link takes you to the EPIC (DSCVRY) SATELLITE.
It supposedly captures an image of earth every 2 hours and sends it back.
If you take a moment and look at this thread link, it will show you this satellite and all images provided are fraudulent.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4499.60
-
That link takes you to the EPIC (DSCVRY) SATELLITE.
Dude, that's not a deep space telescope. It's a kind of satellite that capture images of the earth, nothing very special about it. I was referring to the hubble
-
Correction: DSCOVR is a Space Weather observatory, monitoring things like Solar storms.
EPIC is the instrument providing 10-band imaging of the Earth.
-
Correction: DSCOVR is a Space Weather observatory, monitoring things like Solar storms.
EPIC is the instrument providing 10-band imaging of the Earth.
my point still stands, they are not deep space telescopes, but thanks for the clarification.
-
Alright, I came here to have a sensible conversation with people trying to explain their theory of the flat Earth but instead I found out that as soon as start asking certain question, like "why would the elite make all of this up?", members seem to ignore my questions, which seems to me that you only want to answer questions that does not outright disprove your theory. That is very telling to me in the sense that many of you are deep conspiracy theorists who denies all information the governments of Earth and governmental agencies put out simply because it is from the government. You should be critical, ofcourse you should, but to deny everything seems like ignorance and naivety.
Well thanks for the giggle, because this topic did make me giggle. A lot more than it should have.
-
Alright, I came here to have a sensible conversation with people trying to explain their theory of the flat Earth but instead I found out that as soon as start asking certain question, like "why would the elite make all of this up?", members seem to ignore my questions, which seems to me that you only want to answer questions that does not outright disprove your theory. That is very telling to me in the sense that many of you are deep conspiracy theorists who denies all information the governments of Earth and governmental agencies put out simply because it is from the government. You should be critical, ofcourse you should, but to deny everything seems like ignorance and naivety.
Well thanks for the giggle, because this topic did make me giggle. A lot more than it should have.
Most flat earth believers have been at this for years, so I imagine many of them are tired of answering the same question for hundredth time (hence why they haven't bothered posting in this thread). Besides, your question isn't anything new, and I think it's answered on the wiki.
But, I'll answer it anyway: the suspects of greed, money, and power are likely at play.
-
I found out that as soon as start asking certain question, like "why would the elite make all of this up?", members seem to ignore my questions, which seems to me that you only want to answer questions that does not outright disprove your theory.
That question has been answered countless times as it has been asked countless times.
Your specific question may not have been answered here in this thread, but if you did a search on this forum, you'd see that question has been asked and answered multiple times.
Now, those answers may not be good enough for you. But that question has definitely been answered.
If you did a search on Google, you'd find many other answers to this question also.
Furthermore, you are asking a question that only the "elite" would know. Perhaps you should ask them...
It's impossible to know what or how the "elite" think and what thier motives are. We can only speculate.
And from what I have seen, anytime that question is answered, the RE'er asking always replies with, "yea but".
So if no hypothetical answer is good enough, then why even ask?
So, when you decide to ask that again, just insert an answer you want, and reply to yourself, "yea but".
It will save everyone some time.
Here's an example:
Why would NASA faked space travel? :
"Because a purple monster in the sky has gobbled up all the space craft that attempted to leave earth. Once NASA figured out what was happening, they decided to fake space for the safety of the general public."
Point is, you are going to find any answer given to be ridiculous, so why even ask?
It's a loaded question, And with no intention of even contemplating the answers given.