The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: MrDebunk on March 31, 2016, 01:47:39 AM

Title: CGI?
Post by: MrDebunk on March 31, 2016, 01:47:39 AM
In 1946, the first images of Earth were taken from space with a camera on a V2 rocket.

(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/V2-panorama.jpg)

There is no way this is CGI because computers barely existed at this time.

Get your calculators out and verify this.
Title: Re: CGI?
Post by: juner on March 31, 2016, 02:25:40 AM
Is the blurry, stitched together image in your post supposed to prove something?

Not sure what calculators have to do with any of it, either. I would suggest you finish formulating your thoughts before incoherently mashing together a post that literally doesn't prove anything.
Title: Re: CGI?
Post by: Pongo on March 31, 2016, 12:45:24 PM
Pictures can be fabricated with little or no assistance from computers. This picture shows faeries and was created decades before computers. Must it be real?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Cottingley_Fairies_1.jpg)
Title: Re: CGI?
Post by: nametaken on March 31, 2016, 11:35:00 PM
Quote from: Pongo on March 31, 2016, 12:45:24 PM
Image

Wow nostalgia. hfs smh that made me lawl.

OP's image is beautiful... no doubt, especially the stitch-marks, tell-tale signs of composite imagery. I really admire people coming here to disprove FE; that's what I came here to observe, after all - but it is amusing seeing so many fall short.
Title: Re: CGI?
Post by: MrDebunk on April 01, 2016, 04:45:35 AM
Quote from: nametaken on March 31, 2016, 11:35:00 PM
Quote from: Pongo on March 31, 2016, 12:45:24 PM
Image

Wow nostalgia. hfs smh that made me lawl.

OP's image is beautiful... no doubt, especially the stitch-marks, tell-tale signs of composite imagery. I really admire people coming here to disprove FE; that's what I came here to observe, after all - but it is amusing seeing so many fall short.

Panoramas are composite images. The camera likely look either many images or was recording video, which I think happened because they hadn't recovered the craft until a bit after. This is as composite as a panorama of New York from the Empire State Building taken on an iPhone.
Title: Re: CGI?
Post by: rabinoz on April 01, 2016, 05:02:40 AM
Quote from: nametaken on March 31, 2016, 11:35:00 PM
Quote from: Pongo on March 31, 2016, 12:45:24 PM
Image

Wow nostalgia. hfs smh that made me lawl.

OP's image is beautiful... no doubt, especially the stitch-marks, tell-tale signs of composite imagery. I really admire people coming here to disprove FE; that's what I came here to observe, after all - but it is amusing seeing so many fall short.
Of course it's a composite picture! No-one is denying it.

As for failing to disprove the flat earth! That was done millennia ago, you just haven't caught up yet.
Since the distance from the equator to the north pole is 10,000 km and the circumference of the equator is 40,000 km, please tell me how the earth can possibly be flat.
If you don't like those figures, just tell me your figures for those measurements - after all they have been known for many centuries.
Title: Re: CGI?
Post by: nametaken on April 01, 2016, 05:11:44 AM
Quote from: rabinoz on April 01, 2016, 05:02:40 AM
Since the distance from the equator to the north pole is 10,000 km and the circumference of the equator is 40,000 km, please tell me how the earth can possibly be flat.
If you don't like those figures, just tell me your figures for those measurements - after all they have been known for many centuries.

I have seen those figures and understand the implications. Hell, I even helped explain how Napoleon played his part in the creation of the metric system, after all; I'm just not so sure about equatorial circumference, but have no reason not to believe the 40k (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000).
Title: Re: CGI?
Post by: rabinoz on April 01, 2016, 12:24:17 PM
Quote from: nametaken on April 01, 2016, 05:11:44 AM
Quote from: rabinoz on April 01, 2016, 05:02:40 AM
Since the distance from the equator to the north pole is 10,000 km and the circumference of the equator is 40,000 km, please tell me how the earth can possibly be flat.
If you don't like those figures, just tell me your figures for those measurements - after all they have been known for many centuries.

I have seen those figures and understand the implications. Hell, I even helped explain how Napoleon played his part in the creation of the metric system, after all; I'm just not so sure about equatorial circumference, but have no reason not to believe the 40k (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000).

Pity, I was hoping someone would claim the Equatorial Circumference was about 62,800 km (as we can deduce from "the Ice Wall Map on the right).
The diameter can be taken from
Quote from: the Wiki
The Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects. Along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150 foot Ice Wall. The 150 foot Ice Wall is on the coast of Antarctica. The Ice Wall is a massive wall of ice that surrounds Antarctica. The shelf of ice is several hundred meters thick. This nearly vertical ice front to the open sea is more than 50 meters high above the water's surface.

This 24,900 miles is 40073 km, making the Equator to North Pole distance close enough to 10,000 km and the
Equatorial Circumference 2 x π x 10,000 km = 62,800 km - which is not the same as the accepted 40,000 km Equatorial Circumference.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth.