The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2008, 05:57:38 PM
-
All images are from http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/group_page/ER.html
Take a look at the gallery, specifically the Apollo images. It may come as surprising to see that NASA only took an average of one photograph of the earth per Apollo mission. This lack of photographic evidence for a Round Earth is a curiosity because there is no reason to take only one or two pictures of the earth over the course of a two week long mission considering that the crew had plenty of time to spend in earth orbit and during the long voyage between the earth and moon. It couldn't be that the extra film was too heavy to carry either, since we are led to believe that the Apollo capsules could easily carry a car and hundreds of pounds of rocks between the earth and moon. So why do so few photographs exist of a Round Earth?
None the less, lets move on and take a look at the photos we do have.
According to the Round Earth Theory the earth is a near perfect sphere except for a very slight flatness at the North and South. The diameter from the North Pole to the South Pole (the shortest diameter) is listed as 12,714 km. The equatorial diameter (the longest diameter) is listed as 12,756 km. This creates a near perfect globe which curves in three dimensions. This considered, the earth must create an arc of a circle no matter the angle it is observed at.
Image A from Apollo 16
From NASA's website: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_h_118_18873.gif
Highlighted: http://i28.tinypic.com/dwpgsi.gif
Notice here that the earth does not create an arc of a circle, but rather exists as more of an egg shape The roundest parts are up north while the flattest parts are nearest the equator. Even if the deformity of the earth were visible (it shouldn't be), this image shows the opposite of what we're told. Why is the earth shaped like an egg?
Image with adjusted levels: http://i1.tinypic.com/6jdtwlz.jpg
When we adjust the levels to bring out the green on the image we see that someone has sloppily hidden away a number of features. What is NASA hiding from us? What don't they want us to see?
Lets do some more searching and find out: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg
It seems that they slipped up, because on another part of their website they have access to an unedited version. It appears that NASA has deliberately blotted out the stars, thereby giving us a false representation of the earth.
(Note: NASA blots out the stars in its earth images because an amateur astronomer could easily see that the stars do not match up to known constellations. Since the image of the earth is warped through a Fish-Eye lens or other warping technique to create its rotundity the stars in the scene are also warped - essentially creating entirely new constellations.)
Despite these obvious edits and warpings, lets move on
Image B from Apollo 12
From NASA's website:: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a12_h_50_7326.gif
Highlighted: http://i31.tinypic.com/vg1ilh.gif
The image of the earth from Apollo 12 seems equally curious as the earth is not an arc of a circle. I thought it was supposed to be a near perfect sphere. Why is the earth so malformed?
Image C from Apollo 16
From NASA's Website: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_h_118_18885.gif
Image with adjusted levels: http://i16.tinypic.com/6x1322x.jpg
When we adjust the levels and bring out the green it appears as if the image has been deliberately warped by some means to force it into a circular shape. Such a scene could not occur in nature, as the green should come out evenly in pictures. Why is NASA deliberately modifying these pictures?
Image D from Apollo 15
From NASA's Website: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a15_h_91_12343.gif
Image with adjusted levels: http://i25.tinypic.com/2cdttdu.jpg
Again we see deliberate image editing. Why can't the color green exist in a conspicuous oval around the earth?
Image E from Apollo 17
From NASA's Website: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a17_h_148_22742.gif
Image with adjusted levels: http://i32.tinypic.com/2090l68.jpg
It almost seems as if NASA is artificially creating the rotundity of the earth, doesn't it?
Conclusion
In conclusion, it's obvious to everyone that NASA's few Apollo images of the earth have been tampered with to create the illusion of looking at a spherical earth. If the earth were truly spherical, NASA wouldn't need to edit their pictures.
-
We've covered this.
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb1/op/champ/media_CHAMP/champ_gps_halfgeo.gif
This is one of many images of the actual shape of the earth. It's actualyl fairly egg shaped when you add in the water. Search the Geodessy plab for more information.
-
Perhaps you weren't following along. The Round Earth model holds that the earth is a near perfect sphere, with very slight flatness at the North and South. In Image A from Apollo 16 it appears as if the flattest parts are at the equator and the roundest parts are at the North Pole, completely contradictory to what we are told.
Even in your image, it appears as if the flattest parts are still at the equator, when we're told that the flattest parts are at the North and South.
-
What's a phorogtaph?
-
Perhaps you weren't following along. The Round Earth model holds that the earth is a near perfect sphere, with very slight flatness at the North and South. In the images it appears as if the flattest parts are at the equator, completely contradictory to what we are told.
Perhaps you didn't see my post regarding Geodesy, the study of the geoid that is the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy
-
What's a phorogtaph?
lol.
-
Perhaps you didn't see my post regarding Geodesy, the study of the geoid that is the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy
So you admit that your model is mistaken about where the flattest parts of the earth are?
-
OK, so you fixed it. What's a photogtaph?
-
Perhaps you didn't see my post regarding Geodesy, the study of the geoid that is the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy
So you admit that your model is mistaken about where the flattest parts of the earth are?
How is my model mistaken? I am following what Geodesy is. Christ, NASA has a whole LAB for it. Surely they believe in it to some degree :).
-
OK, so you fixed it. What's a photogtaph?
OK, you fixed it again. Was PHOTOGRAPH too hard to spell?
-
How is my model mistaken? I am following what Geodesy is. Christ, NASA has a whole LAB for it. Surely they believe in it to some degree
I was told that the flattest parts of the earth are at the North and South. Not at the equator.
-
Out of intrest, what where the photos taken through?
-
How is my model mistaken? I am following what Geodesy is. Christ, NASA has a whole LAB for it. Surely they believe in it to some degree
I was told that the flattest parts of the earth are at the North and South. Not at the equator.
You lose.
Oh, you were told that eh? Who told you, NASA? Or your neighbour? I think I win this one, especially since what I showed you matches what you were saying. Its egg shaped..
-
Out of intrest, what where the photos taken through?
They were taken with Hasselblad cameras.
Oh, you were told that eh? Who told you, NASA? Or your neighbour? I think I win this one, especially since what I showed you matches what you were saying. Its egg shaped..
Uh, did you even look at NASA's other images? All full images of the earth are perfect circles. In the full shot images of the earth all curvature takes the form of an arc of a circle.
How can the earth appear to be egg shaped in one image and a circle in the next?
How is that possible? Please explain.
-
Hey I bet if we pull a shitload of pictures from the cesspool of bullshit that is the internet, we can find one of the earth with a skewed perspective that doesn't prove anything at all!
-
Out of intrest, what where the photos taken through?
They were taken with Hasselblad cameras.
Oh, you were told that eh? Who told you, NASA? Or your neighbour? I think I win this one, especially since what I showed you matches what you were saying. Its egg shaped..
Uh, did you even look at NASA's other images? All full images of the earth are perfect circles. In the full shot images of the earth all curvature takes the form of an arc of a circle.
How can the earth appear to be egg shaped in one image and a circle in the next?
How is that possible? Please explain.
Perspective? Angle? You're telling me pictures are proof now? lol. Pictures can certainly convey a false positive.
-
You're telling me pictures are proof now?
You guys keep claiming that these pictures are proof. In response I've conclusively demonstrated that these images have been tampered with.
Hey I bet if we pull a shitload of pictures from the cesspool of bullshit that is the internet, we can find one of the earth with a skewed perspective that doesn't prove anything at all!
Oh right, NASA just looked at the spherical earth at a wrong angle in order to get it to look like an egg. ::)
-
You're telling me pictures are proof now?
You guys keep claiming that these pictures are proof. In response I've conclusively demonstrated that these images have been tampered with.
Conclusively, yes... right. I think you need a few lessons in photo anipulation. You put all this faith in NASA with all this bullshit conspiracy but they hire a fourth-grader for their photoshoping? Good to know.
You're the one claiming that photos aren't proof, so I no longer rely on them for proof. If you don't believe ours, why would be believe yours?
-
Tom, why is it that these "Enhanced" photos look like you just used the fill option from Microsoft Pain and dumped green all over the background?
-
Another worthless argument brought to you by the letter Tom.
-
You know what a likely explanation for the black area around the Earth is? The layers of the atmosphere. They bend the light so it doesn't reach the camera in exactly the same way, but with everything in the background as featureless black space it's hard to see the difference unless you sharpen the image to its maxiumum value and zoom in really close.
-
Out of intrest, what where the photos taken through?
They were taken with Hasselblad cameras.
Oh, you were told that eh? Who told you, NASA? Or your neighbour? I think I win this one, especially since what I showed you matches what you were saying. Its egg shaped..
Uh, did you even look at NASA's other images? All full images of the earth are perfect circles. In the full shot images of the earth all curvature takes the form of an arc of a circle.
How can the earth appear to be egg shaped in one image and a circle in the next?
How is that possible? Please explain.
Hey Tom. Did you hear about a neat little device that NASA uses on their space craft. It allows the astronauts to see out side the craft with out all of the air leaking out. It's called a window. They come in all shapes and sizes. The Apollo craft had some round ones. And did you ever notice that sometimes when you look at a round window from an angle, it looks like an oval? Maybe, just maybe some of those pictures were through a round window at an angle.
Oh, by the way, windows are notorious for collecting dust which can show up on pictures taken through said windows.
One more thing. On a round earth, the side facing the sun is nice and bright, while the other is dark and hard to see (let alone photograph). Perhaps some of those photos that show the nice and bright part of the earth also a bit of the unlit, dark and hard to photograph side as well. You know, phases of the earth, just like phases of the moon.
-
Another worthless argument brought to you by the letter Tom.
lol. its explained in the first post. But apparently the earth is a perfect sphere, so I guess we're ALL wrong. I mean, its obvious that earth is the only perfect sphere in the universe we're aware of. Why didn't I see it before?
-
You put all this faith in NASA with all this bullshit conspiracy but they hire a fourth-grader for their photoshoping? Good to know.
Right, you'd think that with the trillions of dollars which have been invested into NASA and with all of their self-claimed experts they could come up with something better than these obvious frauds.
Tom, why is it that these "Enhanced" photos look like you just used the fill option from Microsoft Pain and dumped green all over the background?
The only thing I did to those images was adjust the color levels to bring out the color green. That's all I did. It seems that either the earth has been warped or something man-made is wrapped around the earth in order to give it its rotundity. Combined with the obvious editing out of the stars, anyone can see that NASA has tampered their images.
You are welcome to reproduce my methods on the original NASA hosted images if you'd like.
And did you ever notice that sometimes when you look at a round window from an angle, it looks like an oval? Maybe, just maybe some of those pictures were through a round window at an angle.
Really? What angle do you have to look at a sphere to turn it into an egg? ::)
Oh, by the way, windows are notorious for collecting dust which can show up on pictures taken through said windows.
That 'dust' doesn't overlap the earth. Sorry.
lol. its explained in the first post. But apparently the earth is a perfect sphere, so I guess we're ALL wrong. I mean, its obvious that earth is the only perfect sphere in the universe we're aware of. Why didn't I see it before?
The earth can't both be both an arc of a circle and egg shaped. It kind of needs to be one or the other.
You know what a likely explanation for the black area around the Earth is? The layers of the atmosphere. They bend the light so it doesn't reach the camera in exactly the same way, but with everything in the background as featureless black space it's hard to see the difference unless you sharpen the image to its maxiumum value and zoom in really close.
Yeah right. When we adjusted the levels and brought out the green in Image A there wasn't a mysterious solid black ring of nothingness wrapped around the earth. Image A was taken with the exact same Hasselblad Apollo 16 camera as Image C. If this is a natural phenomenon, why didn't it appear there?
-
They were taken with Hasselblad cameras.
I was asking what they were taken though, not with. I was wondering if there was a chance that they were taken though the windows of the spacecraft.
You may also want top bear in mind that the screen you are using it view it may have an effect. A 4:3 screen may display it a little squashed, whereas a widescreen will show it as a lot flatter. A number of screens, especially CRT and projector screens, also allow you to freely adjust settings such as the width, hight and keystone of an image, which means that there's all manner of displays that the image will seem slightly skewed on.
-
Oh, by the way, windows are notorious for collecting dust which can show up on pictures taken through said windows.
That 'dust' doesn't overlap the earth. Sorry.
Look closer. I see some dark specks on Mexico and on the water. I also see some scratches near Baja and near the upper right corner of the picture.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg
The earth can't both be both an arc of a circle and egg shaped. It kind of needs to be one or the other.
You're right, it can't be both at the same time. But, under the right conditions, it can APPEAR to be almost anything.
-
Images liek these have already been proved real. They matched the weather to them. Everything matched up. Doing some kind of fake analysis does not prove anything.
-
You're right, it can't be both at the same time. But, under the right conditions, it can APPEAR to be almost anything.
Right conditions? What conditions does it take for a sphere to look like an egg?
Oh right, NASA was just looking at a sphere at the wrong angle. ::)
Images liek these have already been proved real. They matched the weather to them. Everything matched up. Doing some kind of fake analysis does not prove anything.
Of course the weather patterns would match up to the NOAA's publications. They're Flat Earth images warped into a Round Earth.
Didn't you see the solid black ring of nothingness wrapped around the earth? How do you guys explain that?
Look closer. I see some dark specks on Mexico and on the water. I also see some scratches near Baja and near the upper right corner of the picture.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg
Dark specks? What are you talking about? These specs are white. They don't overlap the earth. There's even one which is sitting partially obscured by the earth.
The main purpose of this wasn't to prove that they were stars, or that the earth is flat, or any of that. The main purpose of this thread was to conclusively demonstrate that NASA is deliberately tampering with the images. Do you still deny that they are?
-
I must admit that most of the images just seem to be a picture of the Earth that's been cut out and placed on a blank background for the sake of aesthetics. I can't see any obvious traces of manipulation, such as the continents or clouds being stretched or squashed out of proportion.
-
So you're saying that NASA used the round selection tool to paste the earth from one black background to another black background? Why would they tamper with the images like that? Was the original pitch black background of space not black enough for them or something?
Why should we trust images which have been tampered with?
-
Perhaps the previous image contained things such as parts of the craft surrounding the camera, or some kind of camera reference number. Perhaps the original images didn't have the Earth perfectly centered and filling up most of the image. They do look a lot like presentational images, not things used for scientific study, so I imagine that they tidied them up a bit so that when they were uploaded to the visitors section of the site, it didn't look all messy.
I expect it's been tampered with, but I don't see why I shouldn't trust it as an image of the planet. It's still based off of the original image, just in a cleaner version. If I wanted to some deeper investigations from it, I would probably look for the original. The continents, cloud cover and such are there, and there's no evidence of heavy manipulation on the planet itself, so I expect that NASA did the easy thing and just took a photo of the Earth.
-
Tom, if the pictures were fake to start with, why would they need to alter them?
-
Okay, two little questons Tom:
1. What did you do to bring out the green in the picture?
2. Was there a particular reason you used the color green?
If I'm to repeat this little photo-test experiment of yours then I'm going to need to know how to do it.
-
Perhaps the previous image contained things such as parts of the craft surrounding the camera, or some kind of camera reference number. Perhaps the original images didn't have the Earth perfectly centered and filling up most of the image. They do look a lot like presentational images, not things used for scientific study, so I imagine that they tidied them up a bit so that when they were uploaded to the visitors section of the site, it didn't look all messy.
Firstly, the images were allegedly taken by the astronauts putting their camera right up against the window of their Apollo capsule (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=apollo+capsule&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi). If you look at the capsule you'd see that there are no parts of the craft which could obscure the view.
I expect it's been tampered with, but I don't see why I shouldn't trust it as an image of the planet. It's still based off of the original image, just in a cleaner version. If I wanted to some deeper investigations from it, I would probably look for the original.
These are the only images NASA has for us. The originals are allegedly held in NASA's special specially built multi-million dollar vacuum storage chamber.
The continents, cloud cover and such are there, and there's no evidence of heavy manipulation on the planet itself,
The continents and cloud cover all curve with the earth's rotundity. How are you to know what they really look like when the fish-eye lens filter isn't used? All we know of the earth's true form has been taken with a fish eye lens.
so I expect that NASA did the easy thing and just took a photo of the Earth.
You really think it would cost as much to make it look like they went to space as to actually go into space?
Somebody call George Lucas! He wasted all his money on those CGI effects!
-
om, if the pictures were fake to start with, why would they need to alter them?
What NASA likely did was use one of its rocket props to go to the edge of space and take a picture of the earth's horizon. With that print in hand it would be trivial to use 1960's technology to find the correct fish-eye lens camera attachment and take a picture of a picture to turn a flat plane into a sphere.
Here's an example of a Fish-Eye Lens:
(http://www.therror.com/uImg/post967_fisheye.jpg)
This fish-eye image was taken from the Eiffel Tower at the earth's horizon. Now the outer edges of such an image would be a dead give away that the image was taken with a fish-eye lens, as anything in the sky (clouds in this image, perhaps stars in NASA's) is wrapped around the image. In order to counteract this side effect it would be necessary to cut out the sphere and paste it onto a tailored plain background - and wa-la, Paris planet.
-
Okay, two little questons Tom:
1. What did you do to bring out the green in the picture?
2. Was there a particular reason you used the color green?
If I'm to repeat this little photo-test experiment of yours then I'm going to need to know how to do it.
To bring out the color green I just adjusted the levels of the image. To do this I used the free image Windows editing program called Paint.net (http://www.getpaint.net/).
Just download the program, open the image, and go to Adjustments / Levels on the top navigation menu. Play with the colors for a bit; deselect Red and Blue, adjust the intensity controls, and you will see the green come out with the obvious edits.
Here are the precise settings I used:
(http://i27.tinypic.com/2dqvtkh.gif)
As for why I only chose green, it's because the background wasn't entirely black. It was a slight green-black. There is no red or blue component to it, which is why adjusting those levels doesn't make the background stand out.
-
You put all this faith in NASA with all this bullshit conspiracy but they hire a fourth-grader for their photoshoping? Good to know.
Right, you'd think that with the trillions of dollars which have been invested into NASA and with all of their self-claimed experts they could come up with something better than these obvious frauds.
Right. So these guys with trillions of dollars make fake pictures, then photo shop them? Kinda retarded and a waste of money don't you think? Perhaps an esier explanation is that, oh I dunno, you're wrong? :).
You got your answer on the first page. No reason for this thread to continue.. especially if you're making stupid claims, and using evidence that you say doesn't count as evidence...
-
Tom has a good point here.
It's exciting to have today's technology. Now we have the advantage. I would expect those pictures are re-modified or become unavailable soon.
-
Tom has a good point here.
It's exciting to have today's technology. Now we have the advantage. I would expect those pictures are re-modified or become unavailable soon.
Maybe they'll fire Jimmy the 4th grader and hire a high school student ::)
-
Tom has a good point here.
It's exciting to have today's technology. Now we have the advantage. I would expect those pictures are re-modified or become unavailable soon.
Maybe they'll fire Jimmy the 4th grader and hire a high school student ::)
::)
See how I rolled my eyes at you? That basically means I win.
-
Tom has a good point here.
It's exciting to have today's technology. Now we have the advantage. I would expect those pictures are re-modified or become unavailable soon.
Maybe they'll fire Jimmy the 4th grader and hire a high school student ::)
::)
See how I rolled my eyes at you? That basically means I win.
???
See how I'm confused? That basically means I'm not sure why you haven't been hit by a bus yet.
-
Firstly, the images were allegedly taken by the astronauts putting their camera right up against the window of their Apollo capsule. If you look at the capsule you'd see that there are no parts of the craft which could obscure the view.
That still wouldn't mean the planet was dead center and filling up the whole image. I expect that NASA has simply cut the planet out and put it on a blank background, so they can put it up on their site as a photo of earth, not a photo of Earth shifted off center slightly.
These are the only images NASA has for us. The originals are allegedly held in NASA's special specially built multi-million dollar vacuum storage chamber.
I think you'll find there are a number of photos. I expect there there's only the one where you are looking, as it looks like a presentational image, and most visitors don't want to see tens of images that are all almost identical. And where do you think NASA is going to store the negatives? They aren't going to pin them to a noticeboard somewhere or leave them in a box in some forgotten storage cupboard. They are going to take as good care of them as possible.
The continents and cloud cover all curve with the earth's rotundity. How are you to know what they really look like when the fish-eye lens filter isn't used? All we know of the earth's true form has been taken with a fish eye lens.
But you don't have any evidence that it's been taken with a fish-eye lens. You are just saying that a fish eye-lens makes flat objects look round, and the Earth looks round, thus the Earth must be flat and taken though a fish eye lens. You have to remember that the conclusion that in the image the Earth is round and not taken through a fish eye lens is equally valid. As far as I can see, the clouds don't become more stretched the closer to the edge of the earth they get, so I don't see any evidence that the image has been taken through a fish eye lens.
You really think it would cost as much to make it look like they went to space as to actually go into space?
Somebody call George Lucas! He wasted all his money on those CGI effects!
Well, they certainly sent something up into the sky, so I think it would probably be easiest just to get and use the photos taken from there then try and produce a huge number of images of the planet from scratch.
-
You're telling me pictures are proof now?
You guys keep claiming that these pictures are proof. In response I've conclusively demonstrated that these images have been tampered with.
Hey I bet if we pull a shitload of pictures from the cesspool of bullshit that is the internet, we can find one of the earth with a skewed perspective that doesn't prove anything at all!
Oh right, NASA just looked at the spherical earth at a wrong angle in order to get it to look like an egg. ::)
Anyone can post pictures on a site and say they're from NASA.
-
Take a look at the gallery, specifically the Apollo images. It may come as surprising to see that NASA only took an average of one photograph of the earth per Apollo mission [Citation needed - There may be more, but not on that web page]. -- Rest deleted
In conclusion, it's obvious to everyone that NASA's few Apollo images of the earth have been tampered with to create the illusion of looking at a spherical earth.
No its not obvious to everyone that this is the reason. This is a lie.
If the earth were truly spherical, NASA wouldn't need to edit their pictures.
Yes they may need to edit. Thirty year old colour emulsion may well require retouching.
The blotted out stars you refer to cannot possibly be stars - A camera set on daylight exposure (e.g. 1/250s @ f8) will not show them. Try it yourself, tom. It's the same facile argument the moon shot conspiracy theorist use.
These specks are more likely to be scratches (for transparency film) or dust (negative film) which have been retouched. Cutting a large mask out of the earth image is the easiest way to do this, as the background (on film) should be entirely black.
-
All NASA did was take the cut out of the earth in the photos and place it on a background... probably to get rid of the edges of the space craft window in the pictures...
Besides, no one has a picture of the flat earth so pictures aren't any proof or disproof on this site... I'm sure could get a picture with your own rocket if you wanted to prove it too yourself... (I used to do model rocketry)... if you go above the legal armature height, I'm sure you could do it...
My suggestion is that a Flat earther makes a rocket and sends it 50-100 miles up to prove the earth is flat...
hehe... it might be a fun project for one of you FEers
-
Tom, obviously the picture is going to need to be edited in some form or another to retain presentability. They're at least 25 years old, and photos generally do not age well. It's like the same as restoring an old rickety building. Also, I'm not sure how many people want to look at an off-center shot with a bunch of camera info on it.
-
http://i31.tinypic.com/vg1ilh.gif (http://i31.tinypic.com/vg1ilh.gif)
http://i31.tinypic.com/vg1ilh.gif (http://i31.tinypic.com/vg1ilh.gif)
These two pictures that you claim are not "Arcs of cirlces", in fact, are. Take the first one for example. If you copy the image three times (giving you four total pieces), rotate one of your copies 90 degrees, another 180 degrees, and another 270 degress and then paste the four pieces on top of each other, they form a perfect circle (or to the degree that the earth is a perfect sphere). I did it, I just have nowhere to upload the image.
Just because an arc doesn't appear to be a circular arc to you, doesn't prove that it isn't indeed a circular arc. By reconstructing the whole circle, it is obvious that the arc is circular. http://
-
Tom, obviously the picture is going to need to be edited in some form or another to retain presentability. They're at least 25 years old, and photos generally do not age well.
Yeah right. The very few pictures we have of the earth from the Apollo missions (one per multi-billion dollar mission) were all "edited to retain presentability."
Like anyone believes that.
These two pictures that you claim are not "Arcs of cirlces", in fact, are. Take the first one for example. If you copy the image three times (giving you four total pieces), rotate one of your copies 90 degrees, another 180 degrees, and another 270 degress and then paste the four pieces on top of each other, they form a perfect circle (or to the degree that the earth is a perfect sphere). I did it, I just have nowhere to upload the image.
Just because an arc doesn't appear to be a circular arc to you, doesn't prove that it isn't indeed a circular arc. By reconstructing the whole circle, it is obvious that the arc is circular.
Really? Can you show me an example with each piece individually colored? I've been trying for an hour now, and I haven't been able to get four pieces to fit into a circle. They're obviously not arcs of a circle.
-
Why not do what I did with the circle picture and post it on Flickr? It's free and easy to set up.
-
Tom, obviously the picture is going to need to be edited in some form or another to retain presentability. They're at least 25 years old, and photos generally do not age well.
Yeah right. The very few pictures we have of the earth from the Apollo missions (one per multi-billion dollar mission) were all "edited to retain presentability."
Like anyone believes that.
I think it's plausible. Have you ever worked for the government? Fuck,they're the worst bunch of idiots on this round earth.
Btw, they do touch up photos for presentation reasons. An example is the hubble pictures; they come in as black and white, and then are coloured in the lab.
-
Why not do what I did with the circle picture and post it on Flickr? It's free and easy to set up.
I've already tried to overlap the images into a circle. I wasn't able to.
I think it's plausible. Have you ever worked for the government? Fuck,they're the worst bunch of idiots on this round earth.
If everyone who works at NASA is a "bunch of idiots" as you say, how were they able to send rocket ships into space and land man on the moon?
That seems contradictory.
Btw, they do touch up photos for presentation reasons. An example is the hubble pictures; they come in as black and white, and then are coloured in the lab.
I've indisputably demonstrated in this thread that NASA has deliberately removed and edited features out of their Round Earth pictures for reasons unknown. It doesn't matter whether you believe that NASA did the "good" kind of editing. An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.
-
Yeah right. The very few pictures we have of the earth from the Apollo missions (one per multi-billion dollar mission) were all "edited to retain presentability."
Like anyone believes that.
There are plenty of photos. I just expect you aren't looking in the right places.
Really? Can you show me an example with each piece individually colored? I've been trying for an hour now, and I haven't been able to get four pieces to fit into a circle. They're obviously not arcs of a circle.
Firstly, trying to measure anything on those photos is very difficult, as they don't provide a very large portion of the arc. Secondly, I expect they were taken though the curved windows of the Apollo capsule, so some deformation is to be expected.
-
An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.
"« Last Edit: Today at 04:07:48 PM by Tom Bishop » "
-
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=1731409&albumID=0&imageID=26826746 (http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=1731409&albumID=0&imageID=26826746)
Apologies for the Myspace link but it is the only place I could post it. The black background is a circle that I placed behind the four pieces for reference. The Blue piece is the actual picture you provided with the other pieces being rotated copies. This is just the first picture, but it works for the second as well.
-
An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.
"« Last Edit: Today at 04:07:48 PM by Tom Bishop » "
Lol.
-
An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.
"« Last Edit: Today at 04:07:48 PM by Tom Bishop » "
The irony is baffling.
-
Fikealox wins. :D
-
If everyone who works at NASA is a "bunch of idiots" as you say, how were they able to send rocket ships into space and land man on the moon?
That seems contradictory.
You think they're capable of this gigantic conspiracy to make trillions of dollars and they can't even hire a good photoshopper..? I mean this is bullshit! you're clearly taking this from that shitty Fox special about the moon being a hoax. How the fuck is that a valid argument!
I've indisputably demonstrated in this thread that NASA has deliberately removed and edited features out of their Round Earth pictures for reasons unknown. It doesn't matter whether you believe that NASA did the "good" kind of editing. An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.
Indisputably? Tom, you aren't a photo manipulation expert just because you watched an episode of CSI once.
And NOW you're saying that these pictures can't be trusted?! THATS WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING YOU SAY ALL ALONG! Every picture we bring up isn't evidence, and then you bring us some photos.. just so you can show us that they're not proof? Can you PLEASE stop wasting our time?
-
Fikealox wins. :D
Another win for Fikealox!
-
you're clearly taking this from that shitty Fox special about the moon being a hoax.
Teh mun iz a haxxorz!!1!!one!
-
you're clearly taking this from that shitty Fox special about the moon being a hoax.
Teh mun iz a haxxorz!!1!!one!
oh noes!
-
You know those funny camera lenses that make earth look round from a plane?
Yeah, maybe NASA has failure cameras.
-
How is that even an argument? You come on say these pictures prove that the earth is flat then you say that these photos can't be trusted?
Kepp on talking i am basking in your foolishness.
But let's not get away from the main point here why would the world's governments do this? What possible reason do they have by making the world as a Globe? Let me tell you there is none. If you were claiming the moon landing was a hoax then yes, flag waving, cold war, it can be argued. But this it is beyond unbelievable. Do you think there is a little man in a box saying what crap should we feed them today George? Come on! Sort it out!
-
How is that even an argument? You come on say these pictures prove that the earth is flat then you say that these photos can't be trusted?
Funny, i don't remember being on the FE's side.
What i said in the last post was completely sarcastic.
-
no no i was backing up what you said saying exactly the same thing i'm not laying in to you im laying in to that Tom Bishop bloke who first said these photos are proof the earth is flat then said the photos can't be trusted.
Sorry about that
I could tell that your not an FE supporter by your signiture picture.
-
If the NASA pictures lie, my sig would too.
-
Tom,
What is your reply to my construction of a circle from a picture of an arc that you say is obviously not an arc of a circle? I provided a link to my work a long time ago and have yet to see a reply. I will once again post the link...
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=1731409&albumID=0&imageID=26826746
-
Tom,
What is your reply to my construction of a circle from a picture of an arc that you say is obviously not an arc of a circle? I provided a link to my work a long time ago and have yet to see a reply. I will once again post the link...
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=1731409&albumID=0&imageID=26826746
Do you mean you want me to reply to that construction with a 15 pixel boarder to hide that the sections don't form an arc of a circle?
-
Do you mean you want me to reply to that construction with a 15 pixel boarder to hide that the sections don't form an arc of a circle?
I spent a couple of minutes fitting together the pieces and came up with this:
(http://www.dragon-above.com/images/earthcircle.png)
The green circle is perfect. The deviation is likely down to human error and the spheroidal shape of the Earth, but I think everyone can agree that it's close enough.
I've left the image of the Earth on the pieces so you can verify it yourself at a glance.
-
Notice inside the whit circles how the stars were lust painted over with black without any blending at all and then post the original later on and just have it be rotated but no other work done to hide the fact
(http://i43.tinypic.com/vy60ja.gif)
and the "original"
(http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg)
and the original rotated
(http://i41.tinypic.com/106x9bs.jpg)
Why would nasa just use black to paint over the stars Tom? And why can I never find your NASA images by visiting their site only through your links? I call bunk on all your photographic evidence!
-
Do you mean you want me to reply to that construction with a 15 pixel boarder to hide that the sections don't form an arc of a circle?
I spent a couple of minutes fitting together the pieces and came up with this:
(http://www.dragon-above.com/images/earthcircle.png)
The green circle is perfect. The deviation is likely down to human error and the spheroidal shape of the Earth, but I think everyone can agree that it's close enough.
I've left the image of the Earth on the pieces so you can verify it yourself at a glance.
looks like a sphere to me
-
I agree completly.
-
I spent a couple of minutes fitting together the pieces and came up with this:
(http://www.dragon-above.com/images/earthcircle.png)
The green circle is perfect. The deviation is likely down to human error and the spheroidal shape of the Earth, but I think everyone can agree that it's close enough.
I've left the image of the Earth on the pieces so you can verify it yourself at a glance.
Please post the source pics to complete your post.
-
I spent a couple of minutes fitting together the pieces and came up with this:
(http://www.dragon-above.com/images/earthcircle.png)
The green circle is perfect. The deviation is likely down to human error and the spheroidal shape of the Earth, but I think everyone can agree that it's close enough.
I've left the image of the Earth on the pieces so you can verify it yourself at a glance.
Please post the source pics to complete your post.
He just used toms pics
-
He just used toms pics
Which one? ← Lazy, I know.
-
This one:
(http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_h_118_18873.gif)
and he just rotated it around so it formed a sphere. Not to boast but I think I brought up a much better point of why Toms pictures cannot be found by navigating to the website ourselves and why the first picture had the stars just "smeared" over with black paint
-
(http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/SpazzyMcGee/Lolz.png)