Good question from Elon Musk:Someone already did: http://z4.invisionfree.com/Theflatmarssociety/index.php?act=idx
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/935572279693516800
Shall we start a Flat Mars Society?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DP0KdgCXUAUL_rZ.jpg)
I'm about to talk to a journalist right now on this very conversation. Can you guess what I'm going to say?
I'm about to talk to a journalist right now on this very conversation. Can you guess what I'm going to say?(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71NrROgheSL._SX522_.jpg)
I'm about to talk to a journalist right now on this very conversation. Can you guess what I'm going to say?That the journalist should have his hip waders handy?
I'm about to talk to a journalist right now on this very conversation. Can you guess what I'm going to say?That you're unveiling the founding of the exciting new Flat Mars Society to help people understand that Mars only looks round because the space around it is curved and using non-Euclidean geometry and fairy dust you can speculate that Mars is flat too?
I'm about to talk to a journalist right now on this very conversation. Can you guess what I'm going to say?That you're unveiling the founding of the exciting new Flat Mars Society to help people understand that Mars only looks round because the space around it is curved and using non-Euclidean geometry and fairy dust you can speculate that Mars is flat too?
And a huge shovel?I'm about to talk to a journalist right now on this very conversation. Can you guess what I'm going to say?That the journalist should have his hip waders handy?
On the other hand, good job tfes.org for pointing out why Elon is a tool.
Good question from Elon Musk:No need, it would only work for martians
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/935572279693516800
Shall we start a Flat Mars Society?
No, I just said they were a pain in our ass.No, they were a pain in your ass. Most of the rest of us were just fine with them.
You are mistaking the Society for the forums.Any discussion on the Flat Mars Society is highly premature.
On examining that Mars horizon photo more closely, I suspect that Mars might be "curved" just like Earth.You are mistaking the Society for the forums.Any discussion on the Flat Mars Society is highly premature.
How can any Zetetic evidence about the flatness of Mars be gathered till someone lacking that 3-D gene is actually there?
Then they look with their own eyes and claim "Mars looks flat, so Mars must be flat".
Mind you, the photos NASA send back look pretty flat to me!(http://www.winecommonsewer.com/.a/6a00d8341cbb0453ef01676919fad9970b-500wi)
It's just a perspective effect.On examining that Mars horizon photo more closely, I suspect that Mars might be "curved" just like Earth.You are mistaking the Society for the forums.Any discussion on the Flat Mars Society is highly premature.
How can any Zetetic evidence about the flatness of Mars be gathered till someone lacking that 3-D gene is actually there?
Then they look with their own eyes and claim "Mars looks flat, so Mars must be flat".
Mind you, the photos NASA send back look pretty flat to me!(http://www.winecommonsewer.com/.a/6a00d8341cbb0453ef01676919fad9970b-500wi)
That (https://mcdonalds.com.au/sites/all/themes/mcdonalds/images/logo.png) stand seems partly hidden.
Probably.On examining that Mars horizon photo more closely, I suspect that Mars might be "curved" just like Earth.It's just a perspective effect.
That (https://mcdonalds.com.au/sites/all/themes/mcdonalds/images/logo.png) stand seems partly hidden.
It's just a perspective effect.On examining that Mars horizon photo more closely, I suspect that Mars might be "curved" just like Earth.You are mistaking the Society for the forums.Any discussion on the Flat Mars Society is highly premature.
How can any Zetetic evidence about the flatness of Mars be gathered till someone lacking that 3-D gene is actually there?
Then they look with their own eyes and claim "Mars looks flat, so Mars must be flat".
Mind you, the photos NASA send back look pretty flat to me!(http://www.winecommonsewer.com/.a/6a00d8341cbb0453ef01676919fad9970b-500wi)
That (https://mcdonalds.com.au/sites/all/themes/mcdonalds/images/logo.png) stand seems partly hidden.
Obviously a Flat Mars Photoshop, conspiracy. Cut paste, get real people, if you can't see that, there is no hope for you.Get a quote from Elon Musk on the cost/kg of transporting hamburger makings to Mars. Refrigeration should not be a problem.
And McDonald's getting to Mars before anybody else, and what is the price of a hamburger on Mars?
Obviously a Flat Mars Photoshop, conspiracy. Cut paste, get real people, if you can't see that, there is no hope for you.Get a quote from Elon Musk on the cost/kg of transporting hamburger makings to Mars. Refrigeration should not be a problem.
And McDonald's getting to Mars before anybody else, and what is the price of a hamburger on Mars?
Payload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
Why take the risk? Just dump it outside my door, I won't tell anyone it's not on Mars.Quote from: https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/936782477502246912Payload will be my midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. Destination is Mars orbit. Will be in deep space for a billion years or so if it doesn’t blow up on ascent.
I'm about to talk to a journalist right now on this very conversation. Can you guess what I'm going to say?
I remember when kids from here started the flat mars society.Reported for pedophelia.
The pictures from mars are pure nonsense. Does anybody else remember the gopher they found in one of the shots?No, it's a case of how ignorant people interpret the pictures from Mars that is pure nonsense.
'Virgin Mary' toast fetches $28,000
A piece of cheese on toast purportedly showing the Virgin Mary
A decade-old toasted cheese sandwich said to bear an image of the Virgin Mary has sold on the eBay auction website for $28,000.
From: 'Virgin Mary' toast fetches $28,000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4034787.stm)(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40534000/jpg/_40534689_toastie-afp203.jpg)
The pictures from mars are pure nonsense. Does anybody else remember the gopher they found in one of the shots?
How about when they found life.... ten different times?
How about when they found life.... ten different times?
When did they "find" life? Can you cite any actual unequivocal declarations?
Tom Bishop, on a related note, had a wonderful thread where he debunked the mars photos.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dt9ZdJbSt90/Vmv9km6EVmI/AAAAAAAAb6w/zhLkfwWA6nE/s1600/fake%2Bmars%2Bpicture%2B%25E2%2580%2594%2BIreland%2Bturned%2Binto%2BMars.png)Right, because no one would ever fake the second image in order to make NASA look bad or troll conspiracy theorists. ::)
No, but it demonstrates a good point. That is, not to believe anything you see.Now I'm confused. Should I trust my 5 senses or not believe anything I see?
Flat mars society means "Flat Canada Society!"Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
Mars seems always flat. Because, NASA is taking the Mars photos from Devon Island, Canada and Canada is flat. So Mars seem as flat.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SYBrh1T8mSA/Vmr-VqZjssI/AAAAAAAAb5Y/Hw5X1gGE8kA/s1600/devon-island-canada-rovers.jpg)
Devon Island, Canada. (called Mars)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dt9ZdJbSt90/Vmv9km6EVmI/AAAAAAAAb6w/zhLkfwWA6nE/s1600/fake%2Bmars%2Bpicture%2B%25E2%2580%2594%2BIreland%2Bturned%2Binto%2BMars.png)
Surely, Mars (Canada) is flat!
So;
Flat mars society means "Flat Canada Society!"
I don't use the twitter but I hope somebody show him this photo and suggest "The Flat Canada Society" is the better idea than flat Mars society! (somebody should do that to this s.o.w.)
No, but it demonstrates a good point. That is, not to believe anything you see. Had I not been shown the original, I could have easily been conned to thinking this was a photo from 'a rover 361 million km away'
How about when they found life.... ten different times?
Tom Bishop, on a related note, had a wonderful thread where he debunked the mars photos.If Tom Bishop's wonderful thread debunking the Mars photos was any good, surely you would have posted a link to it!
Look at the computer screens behind this NASA scientist. The martian skies are blue!Now that is so wonderfully informative. I guess the first video is this one:
The Real Mars Sky? (http://#ws)
Here is a video showing how NASA faked the shots of its most recent rover missions (excuse the bad music):
NASA Mars expedition fraud (http://#)
I believe the above evidence is particularly damning and demonstrates that the shots are fake and were really shot on earth in a desert somewhere.
Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.Or the Earth image is real, and the "NASA picture" isn't a NASA picture at all. Like the article I linked explains.
No, but it demonstrates a good point. That is, not to believe anything you see. Had I not been shown the original, I could have easily been conned to thinking this was a photo from 'a rover 361 million km away'It should also demonstrate the importance of knowing the source of the image in question before passing judgement. If you can't trace the image's origin back to a known NASA source, then you should be wary of any claims of deception.
No, but it demonstrates a good point. That is, not to believe anything you see. Had I not been shown the original, I could have easily been conned to thinking this was a photo from 'a rover 361 million km away'It should also demonstrate the importance of knowing the source of the image in question before passing judgement. If you can't trace the image's origin back to a known NASA source, then you should be wary of any claims of deception.
And read this to see what ignorant and biased conspiritards can be conned into believing:No, but it demonstrates a good point. That is, not to believe anything you see. Had I not been shown the original, I could have easily been conned to thinking this was a photo from 'a rover 361 million km away'It should also demonstrate the importance of knowing the source of the image in question before passing judgement. If you can't trace the image's origin back to a known NASA source, then you should be wary of any claims of deception.
But for those that believe in conspiracies, having NASA as a source is all the evidence they need to believe it has been faked
| (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/images/largesize/PIA19400_hires.jpg) NASA's Curiosity Mars rover recorded this view of the sun setting at the close of the mission's 956th Martian day, or sol (April 15, 2015), from the rover's location in Gale Crater. This was the first sunset observed in color by Curiosity. The image comes from the left-eye camera of the rover's Mast Camera (Mastcam). The color has been calibrated and white-balanced to remove camera artifacts. Mastcam sees color very similarly to what human eyes see, although it is actually a little less sensitive to blue than people are. |
Oh, I know full well that conspiracy theorists think that all NASA images are faked. All I'm saying is that you need to be able to prove that it's NASA doing the faking and not someone trolling the conspiracy theorists.No, but it demonstrates a good point. That is, not to believe anything you see. Had I not been shown the original, I could have easily been conned to thinking this was a photo from 'a rover 361 million km away'It should also demonstrate the importance of knowing the source of the image in question before passing judgement. If you can't trace the image's origin back to a known NASA source, then you should be wary of any claims of deception.
But for those that believe in conspiracies, having NASA as a source is all the evidence they need to believe it has been faked
Perhaps FE'ers should send their own lander to mars to see how those real pictures compare to those alleged fakes from NASA. It's the only way to be sure.
Perhaps FE'ers should send their own lander to mars to see how those real pictures compare to those alleged fakes from NASA. It's the only way to be sure.Unfortunately, we don't have equal access to the funds they siphon off the working class from their ivory tower.
Perhaps FE'ers should send their own lander to mars to see how those real pictures compare to those alleged fakes from NASA. It's the only way to be sure.Unfortunately, we don't have equal access to the funds they siphon off the working class from their ivory tower.
So that means that you can't honestly say that NASA's pictures of mars are fake because you don't know what real pictures from mars should look like.Perhaps FE'ers should send their own lander to mars to see how those real pictures compare to those alleged fakes from NASA. It's the only way to be sure.Unfortunately, we don't have equal access to the funds they siphon off the working class from their ivory tower.
The filming sites are well known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_analogue_sitesIt should be pretty easy for an enterprising conspiracy buster to just go to the sites and recreate all of the Martian shots to demonstrate the forgeries. If NASA's "Mars" pictures were all taken at those sites, then other pictures taken there should match the terrain features of the Martian photos. I believe that would be the nail in the coffin of the NASA conspiracy.
Why would we? That work has been done.*citation needed.
Why would we? That work has been done. We all know where the sites are, what they look like, and so on.But have you compared the known sites to the original pictures on NASA's site that they claim are from mars (or anywhere else)?
If it pleases you, then next time I am within distance to one I'll be happy to compare. Either way, as noted earlier, we can't trust hte photographic evidence so the entire point is moot.So you're saying that you can't trust the photos because you haven't verified that they were taken on earth?
Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
Here you go again, markjo.QuoteNice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
All I'm saying is that you need to be able to prove that it's NASA doing the faking and not someone trolling the conspiracy theorists.
Nice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
Here you go again, markjo.Markjo'dQuoteNice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
I did consider that possibility.You set up a false equivalence with an either/or that isn't comprehensive. You've listed only two possibilities, and neither one covers the actual facts.
Here, I'll help you read:QuoteNice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
I did consider that possibility.And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source. It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.
Here, I'll help you read:QuoteNice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
Its irrelevant if the earth image is faked or if the nasa image is faked. Either way, we know we can't accept photographic evidence. Of course you know this, from being a member of this site for about a decade .I did consider that possibility.And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source. It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.
Here, I'll help you read:QuoteNice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
So you're saying that since one photo of mars with a questionable origin has been shown to be fake, then no picture of mars can ever be trusted regardless of origin?Its irrelevant if the earth image is faked or if the nasa image is faked. Either way, we know we can't accept photographic evidence. Of course you know this, from being a member of this site for about a decade .I did consider that possibility.And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source. It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.
Here, I'll help you read:QuoteNice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
Can we all acknowledge that there IS no picture of Mars being discussed? It's a picture of Earth photo shopped to look generally like Mars, and the person who altered the Earth photo never said it was anything but a photo of Earth. Don't let John argue as though this photo in any way compromises the integrity of the Martian photo library.So you're saying that since one photo of mars with a questionable origin has been shown to be fake, then no picture of mars can ever be trusted regardless of origin?Its irrelevant if the earth image is faked or if the nasa image is faked. Either way, we know we can't accept photographic evidence. Of course you know this, from being a member of this site for about a decade .I did consider that possibility.And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source. It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.
Here, I'll help you read:QuoteNice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
I'm saying that you can't trust photographic evidence.Then what evidence can you trust?
I know we can agree to that, for the purposes of discussion. The sad fact is the organization that we pay our taxes to so they can show us what the world is through use of their discipline have made it impossible to verify any picture of mars, or any of the moon-landing footage. Its a disgrace. Might as well be buying snakeskin oil.Can we all acknowledge that there IS no picture of Mars being discussed? It's a picture of Earth photo shopped to look generally like Mars, and the person who altered the Earth photo never said it was anything but a photo of Earth. Don't let John argue as though this photo in any way compromises the integrity of the Martian photo library.So you're saying that since one photo of mars with a questionable origin has been shown to be fake, then no picture of mars can ever be trusted regardless of origin?Its irrelevant if the earth image is faked or if the nasa image is faked. Either way, we know we can't accept photographic evidence. Of course you know this, from being a member of this site for about a decade .I did consider that possibility.And I'm saying that you should try to figure out whether or not the earth image was faked by rabble rousers before you declare NASA to be an untrustworthy source. It seems to me that you wouldn't be willing to accept any photos of the surface of mars to be trustworthy, even if you went there and took them yourself.
Here, I'll help you read:QuoteNice job. Either the earth image is fake as these rabble rousers would have us believe and we can't trust photographic evidence, or the NASA picture is fake and we can't trust photographic evidence; especially from untrustworthy sources like the cocaine fiends at NASA.
The sad fact is the organization that we pay our taxes to so they can show us what the world is through use of their discipline have made it impossible to verify any picture of mars, or any of the moon-landing footage.How would you suggest that NASA make it possible for you to verify pictures of mars or the moon-landing footage?
What they did save has been torn apart for the better half a century by the conspiracy camp, which has shown beyond any doubt that all that we've been shown has been complete jabberwocky. I don't realize there was any moon-landing, because its all a farce.Really?
At least JD has a reason to be here on the Flat Earth Society. What is your reason rab?What they did save has been torn apart for the better half a century by the conspiracy camp, which has shown beyond any doubt that all that we've been shown has been complete jabberwocky. I don't realize there was any moon-landing, because its all a farce.Really?
Have you ever looked objectively into the other side of this issue? You might start with, Clavius Moon Base (http://www.clavius.org/).
Then if you are into YouTube videos you might look at debunking the moon hoaxes on the following YouTube channels:
Astrobrant2, Yes, We did! (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgWXC-yoy3fcaDYW_5Sh8kg)
Phil Webb, MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6E14DF880C26441F)
And still, there are many more, though some are a bit scathing in their attacks on the FE.
And a discussion by Scott Sutherland:
Celebrate the Moon landing with 10 debunked ‘Moon Hoax’ arguments (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/celebrate-moon-landing-10-debunked-moon-hoax-arguments-211040304.html)
Still, I won't hold my breath, your whole life is so wrapped if the idea of a flat earth, that you would never look at the other side.
At least JD has a reason to be here on the Flat Earth Society. What is your reason rab?To do my best to stop those not yet fully infected with the Flat Earth Delusion that there is another side to your silly claims.
You are the only one lying, as there is no reason we could not simply be mistaken about the shape of the earth. The popularity of error is almost universal.
I'm saying that you can't trust photographic evidence.
The pictures from mars are pure nonsense. Does anybody else remember the gopher they found in one of the shots?Could you provide a link.
How about when they found life.... ten different times?Not true.
Yes, that was the point. Complete fabrications every time, starting with the one that came back with the moon landings.How about when they found life.... ten different times?Not true.
http://bfy.tw/FUmnThe pictures from mars are pure nonsense. Does anybody else remember the gopher they found in one of the shots?Could you provide a link.
When I see an actual picture of a globe earth, maybe then photographic evidence will be admissible. Why can't we be supplied with at least that?
When I see an actual picture of a globe earth, maybe then photographic evidence will be admissible. Why can't we be supplied with at least that?
When I see an actual picture of a globe earth, maybe then photographic evidence will be admissible. Why can't we be supplied with at least that?
http://bfy.tw/FUmnThe pictures from mars are pure nonsense. Does anybody else remember the gopher they found in one of the shots?Could you provide a link.
Aside from the post modern arguments regarding down hyperrealism, the only person or people the evidence could possibly be valid to are those that were among those that took the photograph. Even then, the way the mind works, it would be impossible to verify that photograph was in actuality representative of the reality. You'd be surprised how often people just believe what they want to. I further evidenced it above, and you can also do a search here for tomes of results on photographic evidence that will collaborate this belief.Yes, that was the point. Complete fabrications every time, starting with the one that came back with the moon landings.How about when they found life.... ten different times?Not true.http://bfy.tw/FUmnThe pictures from mars are pure nonsense. Does anybody else remember the gopher they found in one of the shots?Could you provide a link.
When I see an actual picture of a globe earth, maybe then photographic evidence will be admissible. Why can't we be supplied with at least that?And who will decide if this is an "actual picture of a globe earth" - You?
| (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/images/135918main_bm1_high.jpg?itok=2I8-uSUB) View of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew -- astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, commander; astronaut Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot; and scientist-astronaut Harrison H. Schmitt, lunar module pilot -- traveling toward the moon. This translunar coast photograph extends from the Mediterranean Sea area to the Antarctica South polar ice cap. This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph the South polar ice cap. Note the heavy cloud cover in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost the entire coastline of Africa is clearly visible. The Arabian Peninsula can be seen at the Northeastern edge of Africa. The large island off the coast of Africa is the Malagasy Republic. The Asian mainland is on the horizon toward the Northeast. Image Credit: NASA |
That looks legitimate to you? Let alone not stitched together? I'm glad to see imagination is live and well.When I see an actual picture of a globe earth, maybe then photographic evidence will be admissible. Why can't we be supplied with at least that?
Here is one taken from the Himwari 8 satellite. Don't worry. It's not from NASA
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/02/01/30CB49D100000578-3427475-image-a-21_1454376012067.jpg)
Ok, so now that the picture of the globe earth for you is out of the way.....
Don Quixote.At least JD has a reason to be here on the Flat Earth Society. What is your reason rab?To do my best to stop those not yet fully infected with the Flat Earth Delusion that there is another side to your silly claims.
To support your fantasy,Let us examine this claim made by number one RE-tard Geoff, for just a sec.
you have to claim the many many ordinary people have to be lying about the shape of the earth and have been for millenia.
If that's the sort of person that you, John Davis and others are, fine by me, but I'll do my best to show that there is a better, more honest way.So, you, despite your delusions of grandeur:
Thank you for this opportunity to state my thoughts.
John, that is one single image, not a composite.Horse shit.
What makes it look not legitimate to you?
Are you saying that every single digital image from your phone's camera is a composite image? Well, I suppose that's true if you're pedantic enough to assert that all digital images are composites of many individual pixel sized images scanned from CCD or CMOS imaging sensors.John, that is one single image, not a composite.Horse shit.
What makes it look not legitimate to you?
Every single "whole Earth," image supplied from space (except those purported from Apollo) have been supplied from a digital scanning/imaging device, even Himawari.
Himawari cannot even take a single "point and shoot," encapsulating the entirety of the Japanes Islands, let alone the whole Earth.Why do you say that?
John, that is one single image, not a composite.Horse shit.
What makes it look not legitimate to you?
Every single "whole Earth," image supplied from space (except those purported from Apollo) have been supplied from a digital scanning/imaging device, even Himawari.
Himawari cannot even take a single "point and shoot," encapsulating the entirety of the Japanes Islands, let alone the whole Earth.
Are you saying that every single digital image from your phone's camera is a composite image? Well, I suppose that's true if you're pedantic enough to assert that all digital images are composites of many individual pixel sized images scanned from CCD or CMOS imaging sensors.John, that is one single image, not a composite.Horse shit.
What makes it look not legitimate to you?
Every single "whole Earth," image supplied from space (except those purported from Apollo) have been supplied from a digital scanning/imaging device, even Himawari.Himawari cannot even take a single "point and shoot," encapsulating the entirety of the Japanes Islands, let alone the whole Earth.Why do you say that?
Sorry, but AT&T's Bell Labs started developing CCD imaging sensors in the late 1960s, long before NASA started working on CMOS imaging sensors in the 1990s.Are you saying that every single digital image from your phone's camera is a composite image? Well, I suppose that's true if you're pedantic enough to assert that all digital images are composites of many individual pixel sized images scanned from CCD or CMOS imaging sensors.John, that is one single image, not a composite.Horse shit.
What makes it look not legitimate to you?
Every single "whole Earth," image supplied from space (except those purported from Apollo) have been supplied from a digital scanning/imaging device, even Himawari.Himawari cannot even take a single "point and shoot," encapsulating the entirety of the Japanes Islands, let alone the whole Earth.Why do you say that?
And who designed that imaging sensor????
NASA!! :P https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/40-years-of-nasa-spinoff/digital-image-sensors
The plot thickens....
Are you saying that every single digital image from your phone's camera is a composite image? Well, I suppose that's true if you're pedantic enough to assert that all digital images are composites of many individual pixel sized images scanned from CCD or CMOS imaging sensors.John, that is one single image, not a composite.Horse shit.
What makes it look not legitimate to you?
Every single "whole Earth," image supplied from space (except those purported from Apollo) have been supplied from a digital scanning/imaging device, even Himawari.Himawari cannot even take a single "point and shoot," encapsulating the entirety of the Japanes Islands, let alone the whole Earth.Why do you say that?
And who designed that imaging sensor????
NASA!! :P <irrelevant link>
The plot thickens....
Sorry, but AT&T's Bell Labs started developing CCD imaging sensors in the late 1960s, long before NASA started working on CMOS imaging sensors in the 1990s.Are you saying that every single digital image from your phone's camera is a composite image? Well, I suppose that's true if you're pedantic enough to assert that all digital images are composites of many individual pixel sized images scanned from CCD or CMOS imaging sensors.John, that is one single image, not a composite.Horse shit.
What makes it look not legitimate to you?
Every single "whole Earth," image supplied from space (except those purported from Apollo) have been supplied from a digital scanning/imaging device, even Himawari.Himawari cannot even take a single "point and shoot," encapsulating the entirety of the Japanes Islands, let alone the whole Earth.Why do you say that?
And who designed that imaging sensor????
NASA!! :P https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/40-years-of-nasa-spinoff/digital-image-sensors
The plot thickens....
http://www.forzasilicon.com/history-of-digital-imaging/
Well, probably because its true.Are you saying that every single digital image from your phone's camera is a composite image? Well, I suppose that's true if you're pedantic enough to assert that all digital images are composites of many individual pixel sized images scanned from CCD or CMOS imaging sensors.John, that is one single image, not a composite.Horse shit.
What makes it look not legitimate to you?
Every single "whole Earth," image supplied from space (except those purported from Apollo) have been supplied from a digital scanning/imaging device, even Himawari.Himawari cannot even take a single "point and shoot," encapsulating the entirety of the Japanes Islands, let alone the whole Earth.Why do you say that?
Photographic images purported to be from Apollo...John, that is one single image, not a composite.Horse shit.
What makes it look not legitimate to you?
Every single "whole Earth," image supplied from space (except those purported from Apollo) have been supplied from a digital scanning/imaging device, even Himawari.
Even if this were true, so what?
Until recently, all video images were scanned. Were video images not to be trusted simply because they're scanned? Are they more believable now?
And, there still are all those pictures from Apollo on film. *Click*QuoteHimawari cannot even take a single "point and shoot," encapsulating the entirety of the Japanes Islands, let alone the whole Earth.
Again, so what?
Every full image claimed to be released from Himawari or any other "satellite," is a composite of scans.So what if they are? Composite is not the same as fake.