The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Tumeni on June 02, 2018, 05:52:47 AM
-
"Despite a serious cooling problem, the newest U.S. weather satellite has produced a sharp snapshot of Earth. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released the GOES-17 satellite's first image Thursday. It shows the Western Hemisphere in detail from 22,000 miles up, with cloud moving across the planet."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5795841/Ailing-350m-weather-satellite-sends-stunning-blue-marble-video.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5795841/Ailing-350m-weather-satellite-sends-stunning-blue-marble-video.html)
(and Yes, the continents are different sizes from other 'blue marbles' ... )
-
Don't forget Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) has been sending "blue marble" images from L1.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/)
-
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
And Himawari 8 has been taking gorgeous photos every 10 min for a few years.
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/1/2018/06/01/16/3151270-0-This_image_provided_by_NOAA_NASA_on_Thursday_May_31_2018_shows_t-a-4_1527867208162.jpg)
Wow. They made a right mess of that. The Atlantic between South America and Africa appears to be smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. They've also managed to find a way to make sure both the arctic and Antarctica aren't visible. at the same time.
Light blue coral used to be a thing .... now its gone.
(https://mir24.tv/uploaded/images/crops/2016/December/1200x675_1x1_cc521077d0e5adb24c5a786690dce7fd.jpg)
Atmospheres are no longer a thing in 2018
Aurora Borealis is having a day off
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6109/6257079237_73470e9bde_z.jpg)
They managed to pick a day when there wasn't a single storm on the entire one half side of the planet
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/06/640x360/hd-aspect-1455028776-gospacelightning.gif?resize=768:*)
It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ... and the stars
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/internal_resources/673)
The everglades is green again.
Must be warm in the Rockies ... no snow. Same with the Andes.
The presense of cloud over the Atacama desert is a little suspicious.
Storms are out, no little round storms at all now.
Clouds in general now have a new shape and texture from before. A new stipple tool perhaps?
The infrared sensors aren't cooling properly, meaning they won't work when the satellite is on the night side of the Earth and directly exposed to the sun's rays.
This is gibberish but I'll put that down to the journalist.
-
Wow. They made a right mess of that. The Atlantic between South America and Africa appears to be smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. They've also managed to find a way to make sure both the arctic and Antarctica aren't visible. at the same time.
That's what happens when you photograph it from 22k miles out. I'll take a photo of my desktop globe from an equivalent scale distance for you....
They managed to pick a day when there wasn't a single storm on the entire one half side of the planet
Why would you expect to see a storm in a still photo?
It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ...
The satellite is 22k miles out, the Moon at 240k ... so the Moon is farther away.
-
Wow. They made a right mess of that. The Atlantic between South America and Africa appears to be smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. They've also managed to find a way to make sure both the arctic and Antarctica aren't visible. at the same time.
That's what happens when you photograph it from 22k miles out. I'll take a photo of my desktop globe from an equivalent scale distance for you....
They managed to pick a day when there wasn't a single storm on the entire one half side of the planet
Why would you expect to see a storm in a still photo?
It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ...
The satellite is 22k miles out, the Moon at 240k ... so the Moon is farther away.
Yes, I get that but it could be in the background. It never is though. Never ever ever in any of NASAs images unless it is front and centre to show the thing they want to show. Accidental cosmology never occurs. Its almost as though someone composes every shot and makes sure they are perfect.
-
It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ...
The satellite is 22k miles out, the Moon at 240k ... so the Moon is farther away.
Yes, I get that but it could be in the background. It never is though. Never ever ever in any of NASAs images unless it is front and centre to show the thing they want to show. Accidental cosmology never occurs. Its almost as though someone composes every shot and makes sure they are perfect.
That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?
Let's each try to composite what we'd expect it to look like, either from a geostationary satellite or from that DISCOVR satellite parked at the L1 Lagrangian point (which captured that near moon transit pic.)
Start with this:
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/cni54.jpg)
-
Voyager took this photo of the earth and moon
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/voyager-1-takes-the-first-image-of-the-earth-moon-system-in-a-single-frame/
-
Yes, I get that but it could be in the background. It never is though. Never ever ever in any of NASAs images unless it is front and centre to show the thing they want to show. Accidental cosmology never occurs. Its almost as though someone composes every shot and makes sure they are perfect.
You do realise that these craft are sent up there for the purposes of Earth Observation as a science, not to take photographs to fill your photo album of accidental cosmology, don't you? That's why the cameras take pictures primarily in light spectra invisible to the human eye. That's PROBABLY why, even if the Moon were able to be shot in the background, nobody on the project team would be interested in it.
We went to the Moon already, to study it at close range. We can photograph it from Earth. There's no purpose to photographing it from the opposite side of Earth, a further 22k miles away.
-
Voyager took this photo of the earth and moon
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/voyager-1-takes-the-first-image-of-the-earth-moon-system-in-a-single-frame/
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/v1.jpg)
It says on that image on that NASA site ...
Voyager 1 snapped this picture from a distance of 7.25 million miles. It was the first to include both the Earth and the Moon in a single frame taken by a spacecraft.
So what about this image supposedly eight years earlier?
(https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/apollo11return_nasa_big.jpg)
Awkward :-\
-
Hardly. The above photo only has a bit of the moon.
Would you take a photo of your garden and say it was "a photo of the Earth"?
-
It says on that image on that NASA site ...
Voyager 1 snapped this picture from a distance of 7.25 million miles. It was the first to include both the Earth and the Moon in a single frame taken by a spacecraft.
So what about this image supposedly eight years earlier?
IMG
Awkward
Not awkward. Voyager was the first "taken BY a spacecraft".
The Apollo one was taken by an astronaut who was IN a spacecraft.
-
Hardly. The above photo only has a bit of the moon.
I'd wager you can only see a bit of the moon and a bit of the earth in the voyager image.
Would you take a photo of your garden and say it was "a photo of the Earth"?
I certainly wouldn't claim it was taken from a spacecraft.
READ the caption!
... to include
both earth .... check
and moon .... check
in a single frame .... check
by a spacecraft ... check
The Apollo one was taken by an astronaut who was IN a spacecraft.
I think those are semantics we can live without.
How about this one? Lunar Orbiter 1 - 1966
https://explorer1.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/earth-from-space/#gallery-7 (https://explorer1.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/earth-from-space/#gallery-7)
Are you going to tell me a scientific hamster took that one? Also look familiar? It is as if ... NASA were working towards some kind of space money shot. The same photo over and over, just better quality each time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbiter_1
(Unmanned)
-
In fact, lets have a closer look at the original Lunar Orbiter One image from 1958 ...
(http://www.donaldedavis.com/BIGPUB/LOEFROMM.jpg)
Weird how the moon is all segmented, yet the earth (the bit added in the photo below), is perfect.
(https://i1.wp.com/www.aulis.com/jackimages/earthedgeartifacts.jpg)
Same shot, same suspicions.
It is very nice of the moon to make sure it is always in the same place at the time of every survey so the shot can always include both.
-
Ahem.
It was nice of the moon to move out of the way for this latest shot ...
The satellite is 22k miles out, the Moon at 240k ... so the Moon is farther away.
Yes, I get that but it could be in the background. It never is though. Never ever ever in any of NASAs images unless it is front and centre to show the thing they want to show. Accidental cosmology never occurs. Its almost as though someone composes every shot and makes sure they are perfect.
That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?
Let's each try to composite what we'd expect it to look like, either from a geostationary satellite or from that DISCOVR satellite parked at the L1 Lagrangian point (which captured that near moon transit pic.)
-
That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?
Let's each try to composite what we'd expect it to look like, either from a geostationary satellite or from that DISCOVR satellite parked at the L1 Lagrangian point (which captured that near moon transit pic.)
something like this?
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public/thumbnails/image/2018/04/03/09/flatearth.jpg)
*I'm a flat earther. You asked for that. ;)
-
something like this?
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public/thumbnails/image/2018/04/03/09/flatearth.jpg)
*I'm a flat earther. You asked for that. ;)
If that's what you expect to see, and anything else is fake, good one.
-
(https://i1.wp.com/www.aulis.com/jackimages/earthedgeartifacts.jpg)
Same shot, same suspicions.
Misplaced suspicion. Look at the original, in the Apollo 11 Image Library, and there's no pixellation around the Earth at all. Some prankster has added this to mislead you, or their action of cropping the image has introduced the effect.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-44-6642HR.jpg)
It is very nice of the moon to make sure it is always in the same place at the time of every survey so the shot can always include both.
You haven't shown it to be in the same place, merely (roughly) the same distance/angle above the horizon...
-
Are people really still doing the old 'rectangle round the moon' trick?
How 2016.
Try seeing that on a high-res image - the rectangle is gone. It's just artifacts from jpeg compression. Totally googleable.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_GV1nBkWR-Q
-
something like this?
[img] snipped
Can you do geometry with right-angled triangles? Solving for one angle, given two side lengths, one of which is the hypotenuse?
-
something like this?
*snipped
Can you do geometry with right-angled triangles? Solving for one angle, given two side lengths, one of which is the hypotenuse?
No, I also struggle to breath through my nose and I have to read by running my finger under the words and mouthing them. Is there a point to your low-content slurs?
You haven't shown it to be in the same place, merely (roughly) the same distance/angle above the horizon...
When I'm convinced neither shot was taken from above the moon, why is the onus on me to show they are both taken from the same place on the moon? I'd guess both pictures where taken in a place like this ...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/24/article-2237819-162F19E6000005DC-5_634x470.jpg)
-
Using the stated distances of GOES-17 from Earth, and Moon from Earth, along with the radii of Earth and Moon, you can work out, from first principles, the angular size of each.
This will yield the comparative sizes of Earth and Moon as seen by GOES-17, and is intended as a follow-up to Bobby Shafto's question.
Do you want to work them out for yourself, or shall I outline the calcs for you?
-
Using the stated distances of GOES-17 from Earth, and Moon from Earth, along with the radii of Earth and Moon, you can work out, from first principles, the angular size of each.
This will yield the comparative sizes of Earth and Moon as seen by GOES-17, and is intended as a follow-up to Bobby Shafto's question.
Do you want to work them out for yourself, or shall I outline the calcs for you?
I've been a flat earther on forums like this for a decade. I don't need to work out the numbers. I know them by heart. You aren't the first person in 10 years to ever bring this up.
However I don't agree with the theory from which you deduce the numbers in the first place. The earth is flat. Your starting numbers are all wrong. So the result is junk. Telling me the moon must be this size because YOUR theory states it is, isn't going to wow me when I get the numbers YOU expect.
-
When I'm convinced neither shot was taken from above the moon, why is the onus on me to show they are both taken from the same place on the moon?
Because you explicitly said the Moon was "in the same place" in each...
-
When I'm convinced neither shot was taken from above the moon, why is the onus on me to show they are both taken from the same place on the moon?
Because you explicitly said the Moon was "in the same place" in each...
The relative position of the two bodies is always the same in the shot. Does that clarification help?
-
Let's each try to composite what we'd expect it to look like, either from a geostationary satellite or from that DISCOVR satellite parked at the L1 Lagrangian point (which captured that near moon transit pic.)
Start with this:
(http://snipped[/quote]
To rough scale, the relative positions of each;
[img]https://i.imgur.com/Yr5ZEaD.jpg)
Basic geometry - hypotenuse = radius of body plus distance from body, one side = radius r, right-angle at surface where r meets it
(https://i.imgur.com/qY9ELpD.jpg)
Work out A for Earth and Moon
(https://i.imgur.com/G9ZovpG.jpg)
and ...
Angular size of Earth - 8.77 * 2 = 17.54 degrees
Angular size of Moon - 0.235 * 2 = 0.47 degrees
(EDIT - both mislabelled in the picture below)
Roughly, would look like;
(https://i.imgur.com/mrOBZSh.jpg)
-
The relative position of the two bodies is always the same in the shot. Does that clarification help?
No, it is not. You've quoted one picture, AS11-44-6642, but there's also frames 6547-64, 6601-05, and 6633-6643, as well as 5439 - 5442 on magazine 37. All different.
However, they will all have Earth close to the lunar horizon, because they are all 'Earthrise' photos. The ones where Earth was seen significantly above the horizon are just 'Earth' photos.
-
The relative position of the two bodies is always the same in the shot. Does that clarification help?
No, it is not. You've quoted one picture, AS11-44-6642, but there's also frames 6547-64, 6601-05, and 6633-6643, as well as 5439 - 5442 on magazine 37. All different.
However, they will all have Earth close to the lunar horizon, because they are all 'Earthrise' photos. The ones where Earth was seen significantly above the horizon are just 'Earth' photos.
I think we can agree that NASA has spent a lot of time and effort concocting the perfect earth rise photo over the years. I think photo manipulation is the cheaper and easier option (Occam's razor), but hell, you can believe tales of heroes and adventures to the moon if you like.
-
Basic geometry - hypotenuse = radius of body plus distance from body, one side = radius r, right-angle at surface where r meets it ...
In your calculations, you used diameters in place of radii
I got 9.46° for earth's angular diameter and 0.234° for the moon, when viewed from GOES-17 when the moon is in a far side transit of earth from GOES (using your rounded distance figures).
Tumeni is correct
-
That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?
View 930,000 miles from earth
Lunar transit (left) 691,000 miles from moon
Lunar occlusion (right) 1,169,000 miles from moon
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/9r69ec.jpg)
-
That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?
Gif also available:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/26tPcC41jbOVqCmXe/giphy.gif)
https://mashable.com/2015/12/14/earth-photobombs-moon-nasa-gif
-
You can't honestly think that either of these images is real. Do they look real to you? Do you turn off any critical thinking ability when you see the word NASA?
Even this looks more realistic
(https://www.ukinsurancenet.com/media/1648/death-star.jpg)
-
What does "looks real" even mean?
I mean, clearly my old 8-bit Spectrum games didn't exactly look photo-realistic.
Since ILM got going films like Jurassic Park do "look real" but aren't.
Whether something "looks real" is highly subjective
Do you actually have any solid evidence to show that these images/videos are Photoshop or computer generated?
Or is it more "the earth is flat so it can't be real so it isn't"?
-
What does "looks real" even mean?
I mean, clearly my old 8-bit Spectrum games didn't exactly look photo-realistic.
Since ILM got going films like Jurassic Park do "look real" but aren't.
Whether something "looks real" is highly subjective
Do you actually have any solid evidence to show that these images/videos are Photoshop or computer generated?
Or is it more "the earth is flat so it can't be real so it isn't"?
Even if the earth was round, those images are not real. They look utterly drawn and not photographed.
-
What about this picture? Does it look real or fake?
(https://www.ara.cat/2012/03/09/premium/any-despres-del-tsunami_660544191_17784389_1500x1000.jpg)
-
Even if the earth was round, those images are not real. They look utterly drawn and not photographed.
That's not an answer, it's just a completely subjective opinion.
What evidence or analysis have you have to show that the images are faked.
It is increasingly hard to tell the difference:
https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/rendering-or-real-can-you-spot-the-cgi-spaces-213400
-
In your calculations, you used diameters in place of radii
Um, no... I solved for angle A, then doubled that angle, since the hypotenuse of the right-angle triangle runs to the centre of the Earth, with the right angle at the surface.
The diameter cannot be used, as an observer cannot 'see' the full diameter.
-
... those images are not real. They look utterly drawn and not photographed.
Again, do you have any solid evidence that they were not obtained by a digital imaging device in Earth orbit?
Yes, I/we know that they don't use a traditional photographic process, of film, negative processing and printing, but nothing taken with a digital camera on Earth does this anyway....
But they were taken with a device equivalent to an earth-bound camera, just a more sophisticated one, which takes imagery over multiple light spectra. We can browse the equivalent infra-red and other imagery in comparison to the published visible spectra like those above.
-
In your calculations, you used diameters in place of radii
Um, no...
My mistake. Don't know why I thought 3959 and 1079 were diameter numbers. I retract.
-
Even if the earth was round, those images are not real. They look utterly drawn and not photographed.
I've never been outside of earth's atmosphere to know what looks realistic.
I've never seen the moon from 600k-1M miles away, with earth as a backdrop to know what such a vista should look like.
EPIC doesn't take photos like a DLSR, so unless you're familiar with its product, how can you deduce fakery?
"A [person] sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."
-
Even if the earth was round, those images are not real.
Why?
They look utterly drawn and not photographed.
Why? What makes you an expert on how things are supposed to look?
-
Even if the earth was round, those images are not real.
Why? What makes you an expert on how things are supposed to look?
Or...
What makes you an expert on how things are supposed to look in space?
-
Who is an expert on what things look like in space? You ask a dozen astronauts what stars look like in space and you get a dozen different answers.
Some say you can't see any stars, some say you see far more stars than you could on earth, some say its a 'velvet effect of stars', some say you can see stars all the time, some say you can see stars only looking away from the sun, some say the zodiac stars are brighter ... they make it up. So how am I supposed to know what things look like in space? I only have conflicting views to go on (all of which are lies).
Below is a video with astronauts giving accounts of what space looks like. In the same video is a man telling you what models look like and how to tell them from machines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF18XlSGZZc
Enjoy.
-
You can't honestly think that either of these images is real.
I do.
Do they look real to you?
Other than images like this, I don't know what a real image of moon/earth from a million miles away looks like. So, unless I can be shown what such an image should look like, I think they look real. Strange, but real.
Do you turn off any critical thinking ability when you see the word NASA?
I do not. Do you?
-
Who is an expert on what things look like in space?
One thing I'll wager is it's none of us here.
-
Some say you can't see any stars, some say you see far more stars than you could on earth, some say its a 'velvet effect of stars', some say you can see stars all the time, some say you can see stars only looking away from the sun, some say the zodiac stars are brighter ... they make it up. So how am I supposed to know what things look like in space? I only have conflicting views to go on (all of which are lies).
Some flat-earthers cite instances where astronauts were talking about different or varying circumstances (in sunlight or not/in the shadow of a planet/moon or not, etc.). For instance, when the Apollo 11 crew were asked if they saw stars when observing the solar corona FROM THE SURFACE, Collins chipped in with "I didn't see any", and this is often cited as a serious comment on his part, but it's clearly a joke, because he was the only one who was not on the surface, and the only one who wasn't doing these observations.....
Below is a video with astronauts giving accounts of what space looks like. In the same video is a man telling you what models look like and how to tell them from machines.
VIDEO
Yes, but we weren't talking about space. We were talking about Earth.
-
I got about 13 minutes into Jeran's video.
So far it's been him saying a load of stuff is fake because reasons.
No analysis of any video or photographs, just "this is fake, if you think it's real you're stupid".
Is it worth watching any more?
-
I got about 13 minutes into Jeran's video. So far it's been him saying a load of stuff is fake because reasons. No analysis of any video or photographs, just "this is fake, if you think it's real you're stupid".
Is it worth watching any more?
A video by Jeran, you say? I shouldn't think so.
-
I got about 13 minutes into Jeran's video.
So far it's been him saying a load of stuff is fake because reasons.
No analysis of any video or photographs, just "this is fake, if you think it's real you're stupid".
Is it worth watching any more?
A video by Jeran, you say? I shouldn't think so.
So now Jeran Campanella knows that the ISS is real - I didn't bother watching how he wriggled out of it.
Is that Jeran of the "I can't understand xxxxx[1] and the proves yyyyy[2]" fame?
[1] Replace "xxxxx" by any of "physics", "astronomy", "how satellites orbit", "hidden height" etc, etc.
[2] Replace "yyyyy" by any of "the earth is stationary", "seasons don't work", "the earth is flat", "NASA lies" etc, etc.
-
Who is an expert on what things look like in space? You ask a dozen astronauts what stars look like in space and you get a dozen different answers.
Some say you can't see any stars, some say you see far more stars than you could on earth, some say its a 'velvet effect of stars', some say you can see stars all the time, some say you can see stars only looking away from the sun, some say the zodiac stars are brighter ... they make it up.
No, they're all taken out of context. When saying if they can see stars, they also usually talk about if they're in the sunlight or not. If they're not in the shadow of the Earth or Moon, it's likely they won't see stars unless they're looking at nothing but the black of space. If they are in the shadow, then they can see stars. I've never heard an astronaut say you can see stars all the time.
So how am I supposed to know what things look like in space? I only have conflicting views to go on (all of which are lies).
They're only conflicting because you don't put them into context. How do you know they're ALL lying. How is NASA and other agencies able to keep more than 500 people silent about their space travels?
Below is a video with astronauts giving accounts of what space looks like. In the same video is a man telling you what models look like and how to tell them from machines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF18XlSGZZc
Enjoy.
I'm not watching a 32 minute video. Timestamp the important parts or sum it up for me please.
-
Below is a video with astronauts giving accounts of what space looks like. In the same video is a man telling you what models look like and how to tell them from machines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF18XlSGZZc
Enjoy.
I'm not watching a 32 minute video. Timestamp the important parts or sum it up for me please.
TL;DW: Jeranism saw something that's definitely the same shape as the ISS, but he can neither explain what it is nor how whatever it is up there works. He then babbles on about all sorts of reasons he personally doesn't believe anything, and why he thinks everything involved with it is "A complete and total joke" with his entire argument essentially being an argument from incredulity. Par for the course of those who subscribe to the space conspiracy hypothesis.
-
TL;DW: Jeranism saw something that's definitely the same shape as the ISS, but he can neither explain what it is nor how whatever it is up there works.
It looks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it quacks like a duck, so it probably is a duck.
It looks like the ISS, moves like the ISS, and turns in the sky relative to the observer like the ISS, so it probably is the ISS.
He then babbles on about all sorts of reasons he personally doesn't believe anything, and why he thinks everything involved with it is "A complete and total joke" with his entire argument essentially being an argument from incredulity. Par for the course of those who subscribe to the space conspiracy hypothesis.
Typical. Jeranism resorts to blatant denial. Why does he keep refusing reality? Don't flat earthers, especially him, love to go on about "personal experience and first-hand observation" as evidence? Well, he observed the ISS himself, with his own eyes. What's his deal?