1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to flat Earth theory

« on: February 05, 2016, 10:36:44 AM »

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. 

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to flat Earth theory

« on: February 01, 2016, 08:36:46 PM »

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.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to flat Earth theory

« on: February 01, 2016, 12:44:22 PM »

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.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to flat Earth theory

« on: February 01, 2016, 10:52:02 AM »

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

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to flat Earth theory

« on: February 01, 2016, 08:43:23 AM »

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.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to flat Earth theory

« on: February 01, 2016, 08:41:41 AM »

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?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to flat Earth theory

« on: February 01, 2016, 08:06:50 AM »

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

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to flat Earth theory

« on: February 01, 2016, 07:15:06 AM »

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.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to flat Earth theory

« on: February 01, 2016, 06:43:56 AM »

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.

10

Flat Earth Theory / New to flat Earth theory

« 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