The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: donalgodon on November 16, 2015, 07:38:16 PM

Title: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on November 16, 2015, 07:38:16 PM
A standard 35mm camera has a full-frame size of about 24mm x 36mm.   Thus, to take a picture of the ENTIRE earth from space, the diameter of the earth (some 8,000 miles) would have to fit into a 24mm x 24mm circle.

A "standard" lens on such a camera is somewhere between 35mm and 50mm, depending on who you talk to.   We'll take the larger one, since the 50mm lens is a lot easier to produce with very few geometric distortions in it.

Using a 50mm lens on a 35mm full-frame camera would require the camera to be a distance of 17,000 miles to put a circle of 8,000 miles diameter into a 24mm x 24mm circle on the 24mm x 36mm film size.
So, if you want to get a FULL image of earth using such a system  (35mm full-frame camera using 50mm lens), you'll need to be at least 17,000 miles away.   Maybe you should be 21,000 miles, though, to get you the 17,000 miles to the closet point and then back to the widest point of the earth (4,000 miles further away . . half the diameter of the earth).

It turns that a geosynchronous orbit is 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth (compared to the 21,000 miles calculated above).

Bottom line:  anything in geosynchronous orbit should, in theory, be capable of taking an image of the earth that shows it as a full disc when using a 35mm full-frame camera and 50mm standard lens.

Yet, Satellites aren't high enough to get one? Curious.

The guy who created the iPhone’s Earth image explains why he needed to fake it.

qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/


According to NASA, the famous Blue Marble from December, 1972 was "taken from 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles). It is one of the most iconic, and among the most widely distributed images in human history."

NASA is saying that the 2002 “Blue Marble II” is not a photo. Instead, the image is a COMBINATION and COMPOSITE of many “satellite-based observations” (whatever that means), which were “stitched together” (whatever that means) by scientists and “visualizers” (whatever that means).

In other words, Blue Marble II is a fake — which would explain the duplicate clouds.

Here’s an admission by Robert Simmon, one of the “visualizers” who “stitched together” Blue Marble II, as related by David Yanofsky in his March 27, 2014 article for Quartz, “The guy who created the iPhone’s Earth image explains why he needed to fake it.

(I posted the link above)

"As it turns out, much of what one might assume about this beautiful image is not true…. It isn’t actually a photograph of earth. And that blackness surrounding it? That’s not space, either…."

Simmon, a data-visualizer and designer at NASA’s Earth Observatory, created the image in 2002. He told Quartz it’s not a photograph, but a sophisticated visualization.

Images of the earth may seem commonplace, but there are actually very few pictures of the entire planet. The problem, Simmon said, is all the NASA earth-observing satellites are in low-earth or geostationary orbit, meaning none of them are far enough away to see a full hemisphere. The most familiar pictures of the entire Earth are from the 1960s and 1970s Apollo missions to the moon.

As realistic as it looks, the image is a composite of four months of light data collected in 2,300 km (1,429 mi) wide bands as NASA’s Terra satellite orbited from pole to pole, and the earth rotated beneath it.

That data was then stitched together and applied to the surface of a digital ball, then modified in Photoshop.

Simmon readily admits there are numerous fakeries in his image. The atmosphere is Photoshop blur. Some of the clouds are collaged together using Photoshop’s clone tool to cover gaps in the satellite’s coverage. The black area around the earth is not the void of space. It is simply a background of black color that Simmon placed the earth on top of. (This is standard practice, Simmon says: most actual “photographs” of the earth—including the Apollo images—present the planet on a black background).

Without these alterations, the image wouldn’t look very earth-like. Simmon said he based his manipulations on reality, “in the sense that I’ve looked at a lot of imagery to see how thick should that be, how blue should that be.” But, he later added, “It’s more hyper-realistic than realistic.”

“Without these alterations, the image wouldn’t look very earth-like.”

That’s a doozy of a sentence, because our visual images of earth all came from NASA in the first place as none of us has flown into space to actually see the entire Earth.

fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/10/06/nasas-blue-marble-earth-is-a-fake/

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: mikeman7918 on November 16, 2015, 09:41:03 PM
Why do you call those "confessions"?  That definition doesn't really fit what's going on because all composite images of Earth have always been said to be composite images by NASA.  Saying that this somehow proves that all images of Earth are fake us like saying this: "Cats have 4 legs, so therefore all animals with 4 legs are cats.".

You seem to be confused about what a geostationary orbit is and how it differs from a low orbit.  Most satellites are in low orbit, it's a lot easier to get to then geostationary orbit but it's so close to the Earth that images from low orbiting satellites look like this:

(http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Earth-630x418.jpg)

Satellites in low orbit go around the Earth once every 90 minutes.

Geostationary orbit is much different.  A geostationary orbit is an orbit that is about a quarter of the distance to the Moon away from Earth.  If a satellite orbits at the perfect altitude then it will take exactally 24 hours for it to orbit once and since Earth rotates once every 24 hours the satellite will always stay above the same spot on Earth.  TV satellites do this so your TV dish doesn't have to track it and it ensured you always have a signal.  Weather satellites also do this.  Geostationary orbit is a lot harder to get to then low orbit, so less satellites orbit there.  Not many of these satellites send back pictures because they all have better things to do.  There are many weather satellites which are designed to do little else then take pictures of Earth from geostationary orbit to monitor weather and I could show you images from them if you want.  I would love to hear how you think fake images could be used to predict the weather.  Either all weather stations are in on a conspiracy or Earth is round.

There is one satellite called DSCOVR which orbits between the Earth and Sun in a Lagrange point (I will not bother explaining what that means because it will take too long) and it actually sends back photos of Earth at regular intervals.  There are thousands of genuine non-composite inages out there if you care to dig about and look for them.  I could spam you with them if you want.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
Thanks for the reply.

I'm not "confused" about anything. If these satellites really are at that altitude, given the dimension of the presumed sphere (spheroid?) then, this should be possible.

I saw this one when it was released. I have some basic questions about it.

Doesn't it make you wonder why the Earth is exactly the same size from 1 million miles away as it is from only twenty thousand?

And, more obviously where's that "pear shape" that Tyson's always telling us about? These images are literally always perfect spheres.

As you can imagine, this particular image has been hotly debated since it's timely release. NASA apologists even go so far as to claim that objects photographed always look the same size from multiple distances. They even take a picture of presumably the same classroom globe from presumably three distances where each shows the dimensions of the continents in different scale.

That's a phenomenon I've never experienced in any of my photographs. Have you?

If you compare the dozen or so "Earth photos" that NASA has released since Blue Marble 1.0, none of them depict the continents the same way, ever. Do the continents drastically changes size, shape, proportion every few years?

Maybe that's an even more serious problem than global warming/cooling (which is it again?) :D
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: oeN on November 17, 2015, 04:22:45 AM
What about this article and picture, are this ones fake as well?

http://time.com/3964653/nasa-earth-photo/ (http://time.com/3964653/nasa-earth-photo/)
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:36:38 AM
Quote from: oeN on November 17, 2015, 04:22:45 AM
What about this article and picture, are this ones fake as well?

http://time.com/3964653/nasa-earth-photo/ (http://time.com/3964653/nasa-earth-photo/)

Probably, but can we deal with the premise in the OP and subsequent follow up?

If the sphere (spheroid, Tyson, et al.) has these dimensions, then given what we know about the basics of lens photography (outlined in the OP) is a valid criticism.

If not, why not?
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 17, 2015, 04:39:19 AM
Apparently you can get a entire global Earth from only 200 miles up, with a wide angled camera lens, so I've been told. So what's all this fuss about?

(http://s2.postimg.org/rhnj4ncp5/ISS_cupula_view_Soichi_2.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)

Apparently; as I was told by some of  the so called scientific space geniuses on here is that a wide angled camera can easily get the entire globe in a shot from inside this so called cupola of the so called ISS.

Apparently, we also get told that this ISS, if you were to scale it down against a beach ball, would sit about half an inch from the ball and yet this camera shot supposedly gets the entire Earth from 200 miles up, apparently.

Judging by this, we  should have magazines full of Earth pictures from every distance and yet we seem to have only one from 1972 that was supposedly taken from 28,000 miles out.

Of course there's something odd about it all. It's all clear and utter bullshit that any normal person should be able to see.
Anyone who argues in favour of this all being real is a dishonest person or at best so naive, as to live entirely in a fantasy world, where reality and common sense is discarded because it's not exciting.

You see these people at star trek conventions, etc. The classic big bang type of crew living in comic book store  fantasy.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: andruszkow on November 17, 2015, 05:20:18 AM
We're trekkies? Oh no, what an insult.

What is the source of your image, and how much do I have to teach you about optics?

You're not able to snap the entire planet Earth from 200 miles, obviously, and I'm not sure what's wrong with your practical experience with, well, anything scientific, if you look at that picture and can't analyze your way through what's wrong with it. Clearly, this is not an original ISS photo.

Oh, check this out: I snapped this image of ISS, from Earth, during it's last evening passage by chance. I happened to be in my garden smoking a cigarette, when I saw the dot in the sky and remembered. After snapping ~10 pictures of it, I zoomed in afterwards and found the images to display this:

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11825687_10153458748469774_8835233758887572813_n.jpg?oh=9d930916dede8294c182bf3eb8b4876f&oe=56F0088A)

Oh, I snapped this with my Nokia Lumia 820 smartphone. Explain that, please.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: markjo on November 17, 2015, 06:24:24 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 16, 2015, 07:38:16 PM
Bottom line:  anything in geosynchronous orbit should, in theory, be capable of taking an image of the earth that shows it as a full disc when using a 35mm full-frame camera and 50mm standard lens.

Yet, Satellites aren't high enough to get one? Curious.
Perhaps one reason might be that satellites don't use 35 mm cameras.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 17, 2015, 07:07:19 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 17, 2015, 05:20:18 AM
We're trekkies? Oh no, what an insult.

What is the source of your image, and how much do I have to teach you about optics?

You're not able to snap the entire planet Earth from 200 miles, obviously, and I'm not sure what's wrong with your practical experience with, well, anything scientific, if you look at that picture and can't analyze your way through what's wrong with it. Clearly, this is not an original ISS photo.

Oh, check this out: I snapped this image of ISS, from Earth, during it's last evening passage by chance. I happened to be in my garden smoking a cigarette, when I saw the dot in the sky and remembered. After snapping ~10 pictures of it, I zoomed in afterwards and found the images to display this:

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11825687_10153458748469774_8835233758887572813_n.jpg?oh=9d930916dede8294c182bf3eb8b4876f&oe=56F0088A)

Oh, I snapped this with my Nokia Lumia 820 smartphone. Explain that, please.
Shutter stock. Is it fake?

http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055 (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055)
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 07:15:26 AM
Quote from: markjo on November 17, 2015, 06:24:24 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 16, 2015, 07:38:16 PM
Bottom line:  anything in geosynchronous orbit should, in theory, be capable of taking an image of the earth that shows it as a full disc when using a 35mm full-frame camera and 50mm standard lens.

Yet, Satellites aren't high enough to get one? Curious.
Perhaps one reason might be that satellites don't use 35 mm cameras.

Lenses. Not talking about cameras or sensors here.

Are you REALLY trying to argue that NASA can't fit a small 35 mm (or even a 50 mm) lens onto a satellite?

I have one they can purchase for the next "mission."  I'll let them have it for a cool 600 million tax dollars. (Small, unmarked bills please)
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Papa Legba on November 17, 2015, 08:19:20 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 17, 2015, 05:20:18 AM
Explain that, please.

Easy; you're a Liar.

Next!
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: ronxyz on November 17, 2015, 09:17:31 AM
The realization that there is no space program is disheartening of course, but there are other things to explore. They should just give up the deception and come clean. There would be some really mad like the tax payers knowing billions were scammed form them for who knows what. The fakes are so easy to expose it seems they are not even trying. The Halloween 'space rock' looked like a skull and the Pluto image had the outline of the cartoon Pluto on it. Goofy stuff is put on the fake Mars pictures. Beautiful pictures of far off 'planets' and 'moons' but no zero none of the Earth. You have been scammed people.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: markjo on November 17, 2015, 08:53:04 PM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 07:15:26 AM
Quote from: markjo on November 17, 2015, 06:24:24 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 16, 2015, 07:38:16 PM
Bottom line:  anything in geosynchronous orbit should, in theory, be capable of taking an image of the earth that shows it as a full disc when using a 35mm full-frame camera and 50mm standard lens.

Yet, Satellites aren't high enough to get one? Curious.
Perhaps one reason might be that satellites don't use 35 mm cameras.

Lenses. Not talking about cameras or sensors here.

Are you REALLY trying to argue that NASA can't fit a small 35 mm (or even a 50 mm) lens onto a satellite?

I have one they can purchase for the next "mission."  I'll let them have it for a cool 600 million tax dollars. (Small, unmarked bills please)
I hate to break it to you, but most 35 mm cameras are not scientific instruments.  NASA generally uses cameras with monochromatic sensors and a variety of filters to optimize resolution and scientific value.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Kirk Johnson on November 17, 2015, 09:20:13 PM
Quote from: ronxyz on November 17, 2015, 09:17:31 AM
The realization that there is no space program is disheartening of course, but there are other things to explore. They should just give up the deception and come clean. There would be some really mad like the tax payers knowing billions were scammed form them for who knows what. The fakes are so easy to expose it seems they are not even trying. The Halloween 'space rock' looked like a skull and the Pluto image had the outline of the cartoon Pluto on it. Goofy stufft is put on the fake Mars picures. Beautiful pictures of far off 'planets' and 'moons' but no zero none of the Earth. You have been scammed people.

I said that somewhere on this board and I'll say again: Graduate at any STEM field, and go join an aerospace company. Then, you talk about conspiracy, when you can see for yourself.


Quote
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

I disagree. It does NOT work that way. Repeating lies is not enough - Not even CLOSE to enough. See, there's this member here, JRowe, who keeps repeating about his "Dual earth" model, which is complete bullshit, and people only became more and more aware that the model is completely stupid and useless. Despite his insistence, all he got was discredit... Why? Simple: He ran away EVERY TIME he was asked for evidences, scientific ones, that supported his model.

So, repeating lies simply won't cut it. You need much, much more than that, to even begin trying to deceive everyone.

NASA does NOT own the space: There's aerospace companies in, well, every continent. Countries won't toss away money to believe one model of the earth over the other: That's simply stupid.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Son of Orospu on November 17, 2015, 11:18:29 PM
Are you claiming that Brainwashing does not exist, or that the US government has never Brainwashed anyone?  Which is it? 
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 12:44:01 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on November 17, 2015, 08:19:20 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 17, 2015, 05:20:18 AM
Explain that, please.

Easy; you're a Liar.

Next!

Oh, but that's very mature indeed. How about, instead, you point your own smartphone camera at the night sky next time ISS passes as a dot, and afterwards zoom in on the picture? You'll get even better results with a regular camera.

What indicates that I'm lying about this? Honestly, FE'ers claim ISS is a hoax, and the dot we see in the sky is a hologram or just a regular airplane. Now, I snapped a picture of ISS with a smartphone and show you the picture. Instead of dismissing it as a hologram, you call me a liar. That indicates, that the hologram theory of ISS isn't firmly accepted and perhaps, just perhaps, you don't actually know what to believe when it comes to ISS.

Instead of dismissing it with "You just took a picture of a hologram", you call me a liar. That makes no sense.

Fact of the matter is, I snapped that image with my Nokia Lumia 820 - Even if it's a hologram, that's what happened.

Here's the Facebook update I did  (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153458748469774&set=a.478629014773.264977.660534773&type=3&permPage=1)after the passing. Notice the date and time of day, and look up public reports or even eye-witness reports of the passing, you'll see I'm not lying.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Kirk Johnson on November 18, 2015, 12:50:23 AM
Quote from: jroa on November 17, 2015, 11:18:29 PM
Are you claiming that Brainwashing does not exist, or that the US government has never Brainwashed anyone?  Which is it?

This has no place here: Even if true, contradicts nothing I stated.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 12:54:59 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2015, 07:07:19 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 17, 2015, 05:20:18 AM
We're trekkies? Oh no, what an insult.

What is the source of your image, and how much do I have to teach you about optics?

You're not able to snap the entire planet Earth from 200 miles, obviously, and I'm not sure what's wrong with your practical experience with, well, anything scientific, if you look at that picture and can't analyze your way through what's wrong with it. Clearly, this is not an original ISS photo.

Oh, check this out: I snapped this image of ISS, from Earth, during it's last evening passage by chance. I happened to be in my garden smoking a cigarette, when I saw the dot in the sky and remembered. After snapping ~10 pictures of it, I zoomed in afterwards and found the images to display this:

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11825687_10153458748469774_8835233758887572813_n.jpg?oh=9d930916dede8294c182bf3eb8b4876f&oe=56F0088A)

Oh, I snapped this with my Nokia Lumia 820 smartphone. Explain that, please.
Shutter stock. Is it fake?

http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055 (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055)

There's no way to confirm the authenticity of that image/clip. The link from Shutterstock to the NASA source is incorrect. As said, it's obviously an edit, there's no chance you'll be able to see Earth in it's entirety from the ISS, and nobody with even questionable scientific merits has ever claimed for that to be possible.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 12:59:01 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2015, 07:07:19 AM
Shutter stock. Is it fake?
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055 (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055)

Also, please notice that the Copyright holder for this clip is MadMonkeys, not NASA. MadMonkeys is a movie production company. You do the math.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: sceptimatic on November 18, 2015, 01:22:08 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 12:59:01 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2015, 07:07:19 AM
Shutter stock. Is it fake?
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055 (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055)

Also, please notice that the Copyright holder for this clip is MadMonkeys, not NASA. MadMonkeys is a movie production company. You do the math.
No math needed. You say it's a fake and fair enough. I actually accept that. However, if this is fake then it brings into question all the other so called cupola efforts that people like you pass off as real.

Anyway, here's a NASA site with a full picture of the cupola showing a apparent full Earth. Is this fake as well?

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/)

It scares me - amuses me - baffles me - all at the same time as to how easily so called intelligent  people , can be brainwashed to the extent that the most absurd pictures/videos/explanations given out by these so called scientific establishments that are clearly laughing...no...giggling like little kids at how gullible certain people are and how easily it is to make up and story - put up any picture or video, no matter how in your face stupid it is, and get people arguing for its authenticity to the point of frenzy.

The most shocking part is, those who are deliberately pushing this crap must be devoid of emotion or are simply inhuman - or are merely just people with so much contempt for the ordinary human being that they feel it's best to merely mock them and feed them a daily dose of utter bullshit, so ridiculous that a deaf and blind person should be able to smell it, yet people with all their apparent faculties will adorn their own walls with posters of fantasy and champion it as real, unconditionally.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Soulblood on November 18, 2015, 01:38:26 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2015, 01:22:08 AM
It scares me - amuses me - baffles me - all at the same time as to how easily so called intelligent  people , can be brainwashed to the extent that the most absurd pictures/videos/explanations given out by these so called scientific establishments that are clearly laughing...no...giggling like little kids at how gullible certain people are and how easily it is to make up and story - put up any picture or video, no matter how in your face stupid it is, and get people arguing for its authenticity to the point of frenzy.

The most shocking part is, those who are deliberately pushing this crap must be devoid of emotion or are simply inhuman - or are merely just people with so much contempt for the ordinary human being that they feel it's best to merely mock them and feed them a daily dose of utter bullshit, so ridiculous that a deaf and blind person should be able to smell it, yet people with all their apparent faculties will adorn their own walls with posters of fantasy and champion it as real, unconditionally.
So we are talking scary world-view, not science, right? Well, I guess its a way to approach things ...
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 01:44:55 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 18, 2015, 01:22:08 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 12:59:01 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2015, 07:07:19 AM
Shutter stock. Is it fake?
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055 (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-7821055)

Also, please notice that the Copyright holder for this clip is MadMonkeys, not NASA. MadMonkeys is a movie production company. You do the math.
No math needed. You say it's a fake and fair enough. I actually accept that. However, if this is fake then it brings into question all the other so called cupola efforts that people like you pass off as real.

Anyway, here's a NASA site with a full picture of the cupola showing a apparent full Earth. Is this fake as well?

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/)

It scares me - amuses me - baffles me - all at the same time as to how easily so called intelligent  people , can be brainwashed to the extent that the most absurd pictures/videos/explanations given out by these so called scientific establishments that are clearly laughing...no...giggling like little kids at how gullible certain people are and how easily it is to make up and story - put up any picture or video, no matter how in your face stupid it is, and get people arguing for its authenticity to the point of frenzy.

The most shocking part is, those who are deliberately pushing this crap must be devoid of emotion or are simply inhuman - or are merely just people with so much contempt for the ordinary human being that they feel it's best to merely mock them and feed them a daily dose of utter bullshit, so ridiculous that a deaf and blind person should be able to smell it, yet people with all their apparent faculties will adorn their own walls with posters of fantasy and champion it as real, unconditionally.

First of all, it doesn't. Besides, that site host imagery in general, not only ISS photo's.

What baffles me, is the constant argumentations ad hominem used as soon as material is delivered that pokes your belly for an answer.

From that single post of yours, I can conclude:


- And all of these labels comes from people dismissing any given scientific fact with supporting data, fully peer-reviewed, 100% reproducable results as hoax, while at the same time calling me brainwashed and inhuman, with no apparent scientific, mathematical or psychological merits, or any documented practical experience with any of the mentioned fields?

These labels comes from people, who for the most part has the Holy Bible or the works of Eric Dubay as their source of knowledge. I don't think it's necessary to outline the irony in that.

I think it's time for people to do a bit of self-searching.

In other convenient news, nobody has tried to explain what I took a picture of, and how it's possible. Simply saying "You're a liar" doesn't cut it. I posted a single image, and now I'm the target of insults instead. Why is it so hard to get answers from you people without being called an idiot?

If you as Flat Earthers have the truth as a target, why do you spend most of your valuable time offending people, instead of:

- Showing the the truth as the fellow human beings they are
- Collaborating as fellow human beings on searching for the answers
- Portray that you're militant about Flat Earth Theory for the sake of everybody's well-being

You guys are so far the most hostile group of people I've ever debated with. You don't have the greater good as your goal. You're militant about your beliefs just as religious people are, because you're mostly concerned about yourself.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 18, 2015, 04:22:51 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 07:15:26 AM
Quote from: markjo on November 17, 2015, 06:24:24 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 16, 2015, 07:38:16 PM
Bottom line:  anything in geosynchronous orbit should, in theory, be capable of taking an image of the earth that shows it as a full disc when using a 35mm full-frame camera and 50mm standard lens.

Yet, Satellites aren't high enough to get one? Curious.
Perhaps one reason might be that satellites don't use 35 mm cameras.

Lenses. Not talking about cameras or sensors here.

Are you REALLY trying to argue that NASA can't fit a small 35 mm (or even a 50 mm) lens onto a satellite?

I have one they can purchase for the next "mission."  I'll let them have it for a cool 600 million tax dollars. (Small, unmarked bills please)
Why do you keep going on about NASA and "missions"?  Most satellite launches aren't even done by the USA, let alone NASA.  Fourteen countries have launch capabilities now, and many, many private companies are involved.  It's a $200 billion a year industry.

Look here for the many launches are coming up in the next few months:

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/)

See how many countries are doing it?  See any mention of NASA?

And the Russian weather satellite, Elektro-L, is already taking pictures of the earth every day - it has been doing so for years:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/elektro.html (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/elektro.html)

Quote
The main payload of the satellite would be a special scanner with a 20-degree angle of view, designated MSU-GS, capable of obtaining images in the visible and infrared ranges of the spectrum. From the height of its geostationary orbit, its angle of view would be enough to watch the entire disk of the Earth. Visible and infrared components of the imager were promised to have a resolution of one and four kilometers respectively and be capable of producing images every 30 minutes. For support in emergency situations, images could be snapped as fast as one in 10-15 minutes.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: mikeman7918 on November 18, 2015, 09:31:17 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
Thanks for the reply.

I'm not "confused" about anything. If these satellites really are at that altitude, given the dimension of the presumed sphere (spheroid?) then, this should be possible.

No, it shouldn't be possible.  This diagram shows the distance f verious satellites to scale.  Just immagine the perspective of the ISS and other low orbiting satellites:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg)

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
I saw this one when it was released. I have some basic questions about it.

Doesn't it make you wonder why the Earth is exactly the same size from 1 million miles away as it is from only twenty thousand?

More magnification is used to see Earth fro further away.  What's so suspicious about that?

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
And, more obviously where's that "pear shape" that Tyson's always telling us about? These images are literally always perfect spheres.

I have calculated that Earth's oblateness will make the equator 2-3 pixels further from the center of the image then the poles.  That's too small of a difference to notice.  Same goes for Earth's slightly pear like shape and imperfections like mountains, they are too small to notice.

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
As you can imagine, this particular image has been hotly debated since it's timely release. NASA apologists even go so far as to claim that objects photographed always look the same size from multiple distances. They even take a picture of presumably the same classroom globe from presumably three distances where each shows the dimensions of the continents in different scale.

That's a phenomenon I've never experienced in any of my photographs. Have you?

Where has NASA ever claimed that?

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
If you compare the dozen or so "Earth photos" that NASA has released since Blue Marble 1.0, none of them depict the continents the same way, ever. Do the continents drastically changes size, shape, proportion every few years?

Here is the blue marble image:

(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/55000/55418/AS17-148-22727_lrg.jpg)

And here is a screenshot I took on Google Earth:

(http://imgur.com/49NjEJJ.jpg)

Please point out which continents you think have moved.

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
Maybe that's an even more serious problem than global warming/cooling (which is it again?) :D

Oh great, another climate change denyer who thinks that we can pump as much gas as we want into the atmosphere and anyone suggesting that anything at all will happen because if it is just spreading givernment propoganda.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Papa Legba on November 18, 2015, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 12:44:01 AM
Fact of the matter is, I snapped that image with my Nokia Lumia 820

Yeah; still Lying.

As well as product-placing for Nokia, multi-tasking Troll-entity.

And 'fact of the matter is', debating the Lies of a Liar with the Liar who Lied them is pretty much the definition of Futility...

So goodbye, Psycho!
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: ronxyz on November 18, 2015, 04:02:21 PM
There are no picture of Earth because?
1. No one has camera in space to do it.
2. There are pictures of Earth from space, but they do not want to show you.

All other excuses is like saying the dog eat my home work.

Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 11:20:01 PM
Quote from: Papa Legba on November 18, 2015, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 12:44:01 AM
Fact of the matter is, I snapped that image with my Nokia Lumia 820

Yeah; still Lying.

As well as product-placing for Nokia, multi-tasking Troll-entity.

And 'fact of the matter is', debating the Lies of a Liar with the Liar who Lied them is pretty much the definition of Futility...

So goodbye, Psycho!

That is just embarrassing. How juvenline. You're a real FE asset.

Quote from: ronxyz on November 18, 2015, 04:02:21 PM
There are no picture of Earth because?
1. No one has camera in space to do it.
2. There are pictures of Earth from space, but they do not want to show you.

All other excuses is like saying the dog eat my home work.

Plenty of pictures of Earth, every day. As disgraced linked you earlier, Elektro-L is just one satellite doing this.

Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: rabinoz on November 19, 2015, 12:48:37 AM
Quote from: ronxyz on November 18, 2015, 04:02:21 PM
There are no picture of Earth because?
1. No one has camera in space to do it.
2. There are pictures of Earth from space, but they do not want to show you.
All other excuses is like saying the dog eat my home work.
If the earth is a Globe, it is a Three Dimensional object, so NO image from one location can give show the whole object.  The earth is Big.  Hence to even show ALL of one hemisphere the camera would ideally need be at an infinite distance - a bit impractical!
A Geostationary satellite at an altitude of around 22,300 miles will show almost all of one hemisphere.
There are a number of Geostationary Satellite and some images have already been shown.
This one taken about 40 minutes ago (08:00 UTC on 19th Nov 2015) of the "Eastern Hemisphere".  As you can see it is just after sunset in Eastern Australia (I can see that looking out the window!)
(http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs_c/6/visible/1/201511190800-00.png)
The site: http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/ (http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/) lets you get your own, with animation of up to the previous 24 hours.  Others are available from Russian and European Space agencies.
Of course if you don't "believe in" satellites none of this is of any use to you!
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Papa Legba on November 19, 2015, 12:59:52 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 11:20:01 PM
That is just embarrassing. How juvenline.

Not as embarrassing as being a Nokia-pushing Liar who spends all his time Lying to people on the Internet about things that do not exist.

& can't spell the word 'juvenile'.

& doesn't know I'm not a flat earther, even though every man & his dog here does.

& describes things as 'assets' like a spook.

Yeah; good work, Mr. Fail-Troll; no bonus for you!
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: andruszkow on November 19, 2015, 02:10:23 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on November 19, 2015, 12:59:52 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 18, 2015, 11:20:01 PM
That is just embarrassing. How juvenline.

Not as embarrassing as being a Nokia-pushing Liar who spends all his time Lying to people on the Internet about things that do not exist.

& can't spell the word 'juvenile'.

& doesn't know I'm not a flat earther, even though every man & his dog here does.

& describes things as 'assets' like a spook.

Yeah; good work, Mr. Fail-Troll; no bonus for you!

Oh, typo-hunting now, that's a great level of debate to aim for indeed.

Look at my post-count; I'm fairly new here. I don't necessarily need to know where you stand. You do, however, need to give a fairly transparent impression of your standpoints, when your only input to the discussion was insulting me from the first post.

I mentioned my brand of phone explicitly because people here don't settle with "I took this picture" - It's always followed by "With what camera? What lens? How this and how that?".

If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, could you please go do something else instead?
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Papa Legba on November 19, 2015, 03:39:35 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 19, 2015, 02:10:23 AM
You do, however, need to give a fairly transparent impression of your standpoints

What is 'un-transparent' about 'you are a Lying Troll & your Nokia-pimping photo is Fake'?

Quote from: andruszkow on November 19, 2015, 02:10:23 AM
could you please go do something else instead?

Nah - I'm good with pointing out your Lying & Trolling & Nokia-pimping Fakery for the moment.

Oooh! Just a thought - do you have any Imaginary Qualifications in welding by any chance?

If so, nip over to Flat Earth General & spam a few Troll-Lies about that, please; your Troll-buddy mainframes is in big trouble & needs backup...

Raown Derfer Borg-Clan to the rescue!!!
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: andruszkow on November 19, 2015, 04:18:49 AM
Some things are just not worth dignifying with an answer, so here's a bunny with a pancake on it's head.

(http://cdn.cutestpaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/est-picture-of-a-bunny-with-a-pancake-on-its-head.png)
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: rabinoz on November 19, 2015, 04:34:26 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on November 19, 2015, 03:39:35 AM
Nah - I'm good with pointing out your Lying & Trolling & Nokia-pimping Fakery for the moment.
Oooh! Just a thought - do you have any Imaginary Qualifications in welding by any chance?
If so, nip over to Flat Earth General & spam a few Troll-Lies about that, please; your Troll-buddy mainframes is in big trouble & needs backup...
Raown Derfer Borg-Clan to the rescue!!!
Wouldn't it be a change if our dear Papa could add something to the debate?  Even a comment as to how these "CGI images" are produced would be something!  But, that would be bit much to ask! 
They contain the correct cloud formations - at those here match what I see and I suspect there would be lots of adverse comments if users of the data found the satellite images did not match what they see in their region.
Nevertheless, Papa knows that satellites cannot exist, so they must all be CGI -  and he talks about everyone else "lying and trolling".
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Papa Legba on November 19, 2015, 05:30:16 AM
Quote from: andruszkow on November 19, 2015, 04:18:49 AM
Some things are just not worth dignifying with an answer, so here's a bunny with a pancake on it's head.

Very nice.

In return, here is a fake photo of a fake spayze-stayshun posted by a fake person:

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11825687_10153458748469774_8835233758887572813_n.jpg?oh=9d930916dede8294c182bf3eb8b4876f&oe=56F0088A)

Wow! That masterpiece must've took you all of five painstaking, sweaty-browed minutes to cobble up on photoshop.

Did you get a free Nokia for your shameless plug btw?


Quote from: rabinoz on November 19, 2015, 04:34:26 AM
Papa knows that satellites cannot exist, so they must all be CGI -  and he talks about everyone else "lying and trolling".

I never said that they're all CGI & you cannot provide any proof that I did; because there is none.

Thus, I am absolutely correct & entirely justified when I call you a Liar & a Troll.

As I also am by concluding: LOL!!!
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: mikeman7918 on November 19, 2015, 07:53:14 AM
Rabinoz, just ignore PapaLegba.  He is a troll who believes none of what he spews and he's just trying to mess with you and push your buttons.  He is the single most hateful person I have ever encountered.

A while back I posted a video of myself talking to a camera to prove that I am who I say I am (because conspiracy nuts are very paranoid and they think that a lot of round earthers are government shills) and after reporting PapaLegba for being an a**hole he said this:

Quote from: Papa Legba on September 12, 2015, 02:01:46 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on September 12, 2015, 10:31:56 AM
I am going to report you for personal insults.

LOL!!!

What 'person' am I insulting, retard?

The obese geek-thing in the video, or the one that got caught red-handed as Markjo's sock-puppet then ran away & hid from the evidence?

YOU DO NOT EXIST IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY, FATTY; SO REPORT AWAY, TROLL.

Online persona management software; google it, neutrals & wise yourselves up a bit.

Shortly later I added him to my ignore list, as I suggest you do.  Even if he were not a troll a person that hateful does not deserve your attention.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Papa Legba on November 19, 2015, 08:33:21 AM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on November 19, 2015, 07:53:14 AM
He is the single most hateful person I have ever encountered.

I only Hate things that are deserving of Hatred, mikeman.nasa.gov...

And, if I am on your 'ignore' list, then how did you come to read my posts here?

Do you not see something of a contradiction in that?

Whatever; you are still a Nothing to me... I had to remind you it was your own 18th birthday ffs!

Speaking of which, here is a belated gift for you; a lovely Fake photo of a lovely Fake shpayze-shtayshun, bobbing & floating away in lovely Fake 'shpaaayzhe'...

Enjoy!

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11825687_10153458748469774_8835233758887572813_n.jpg?oh=9d930916dede8294c182bf3eb8b4876f&oe=56F0088A)

Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: 29silhouette on November 21, 2015, 08:00:36 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on November 17, 2015, 04:39:19 AM
Apparently you can get a entire global Earth from only 200 miles up, with a wide angled camera lens, so I've been told. So what's all this fuss about?

(http://s2.postimg.org/rhnj4ncp5/ISS_cupula_view_Soichi_2.jpg)

Apparently; as I was told by some of  the so called scientific space geniuses on here is that a wide angled camera can easily get the entire globe in a shot from inside this so called cupola of the so called ISS.

Apparently, we also get told that this ISS, if you were to scale it down against a beach ball, would sit about half an inch from the ball and yet this camera shot supposedly gets the entire Earth from 200 miles up, apparently.
No, you can get the entire visible view of Earth from horizon to horizon into frame with a fish-eye lens.  Seeing the 'entire' globe would require viewing from more than one direction.  If you have a ball in front of you, can you see the 'entire' ball, or just the side facing you?

It should also be obvious that being further away and zooming in will allow one to see more of that side of the globe than being close up and using a fish-eye lens. 

Odd that you still don't know how wide-angle and fish-eye lenses work, considering you supposedly own several thousand in cameras.  Have you even learned how camera exposure works yet? 
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on November 23, 2015, 06:03:48 AM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on November 18, 2015, 09:31:17 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
Thanks for the reply.

I'm not "confused" about anything. If these satellites really are at that altitude, given the dimension of the presumed sphere (spheroid?) then, this should be possible.

No, it shouldn't be possible.  This diagram shows the distance f verious satellites to scale.  Just immagine the perspective of the ISS and other low orbiting satellites:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg)

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
I saw this one when it was released. I have some basic questions about it.

Doesn't it make you wonder why the Earth is exactly the same size from 1 million miles away as it is from only twenty thousand?

More magnification is used to see Earth fro further away.  What's so suspicious about that?

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
And, more obviously where's that "pear shape" that Tyson's always telling us about? These images are literally always perfect spheres.

I have calculated that Earth's oblateness will make the equator 2-3 pixels further from the center of the image then the poles.  That's too small of a difference to notice.  Same goes for Earth's slightly pear like shape and imperfections like mountains, they are too small to notice.

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
As you can imagine, this particular image has been hotly debated since it's timely release. NASA apologists even go so far as to claim that objects photographed always look the same size from multiple distances. They even take a picture of presumably the same classroom globe from presumably three distances where each shows the dimensions of the continents in different scale.

That's a phenomenon I've never experienced in any of my photographs. Have you?

Where has NASA ever claimed that?

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
If you compare the dozen or so "Earth photos" that NASA has released since Blue Marble 1.0, none of them depict the continents the same way, ever. Do the continents drastically changes size, shape, proportion every few years?

Here is the blue marble image:

(http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/55000/55418/AS17-148-22727_lrg.jpg)

And here is a screenshot I took on Google Earth:

(http://imgur.com/49NjEJJ.jpg)

Please point out which continents you think have moved.

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
Maybe that's an even more serious problem than global warming/cooling (which is it again?) :D

Oh great, another climate change denyer who thinks that we can pump as much gas as we want into the atmosphere and anyone suggesting that anything at all will happen because if it is just spreading givernment propoganda.

Thanks for the response, but you are simply ignoring the stated premise in the OP entirely. Given what we know that a camera lens can actually do, and given the proposed diameter of the globular Earth, this should be possible.

You are arguing that NASA lacked the capacity to take such images, but the math doesn't add up, given what we know.

If my mother is too fat to fit into the frame, I might have to back up a few feet to get a clear shot of the whole family, but I don't back up to another state over two thousand miles away and then zoom and crop the image to get it.

Also, I'm asking you to compare the various "Blue Marble" composites since 1.0 to EACH OTHER, rather than compare them to Google Earth. You'll find obvious and quite enormous discrepancies in both the relative size and position of the continents, including those which would be most recognizable to you as (presumably) a North American resident.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on November 23, 2015, 07:21:34 AM
Per the OP, my thoughts on this are:
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: mikeman7918 on November 23, 2015, 11:50:24 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 23, 2015, 06:03:48 AM
Thanks for the response, but you are simply ignoring the stated premise in the OP entirely. Given what we know that a camera lens can actually do, and given the proposed diameter of the globular Earth, this should be possible.

It is possible, but it takes a wide field of view and you can't see nearly half of the Earth like higher altitude satellites can.  The images come out looking like this:

(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/755812main_iss_view_full_full.jpg)

Quote from: donalgodon on November 23, 2015, 06:03:48 AM
You are arguing that NASA lacked the capacity to take such images, but the math doesn't add up, given what we know.

I have done the calculations myself and the math does add up.

Quote from: donalgodon on November 23, 2015, 06:03:48 AM
If my mother is too fat to fit into the frame, I might have to back up a few feet to get a clear shot of the whole family, but I don't back up to another state over two thousand miles away and then zoom and crop the image to get it.

If the Earth were the size of your mother then images taken from low orbiting satellites would be like holding the camera an inch from your mother's face while geostationary satellite images are like taking the photo from across the room.

Quote from: donalgodon on November 23, 2015, 06:03:48 AM
Also, I'm asking you to compare the various "Blue Marble" composites since 1.0 to EACH OTHER, rather than compare them to Google Earth. You'll find obvious and quite enormous discrepancies in both the relative size and position of the continents, including those which would be most recognizable to you as (presumably) a North American resident.

So you are asking me to compare composites to real images and if the composites have slightly distorted continents then that's supposed to prove...  What?  The composite images are fake and have been known as such since they were released.  If they didn't match the real images then that would only prove that whoever made the composite didn't do a good job.

The reason I am comparing images to Google Earth is because I can look at the virtual model of Earth from any angle.  If A=C and B=C then A=B and by that same logic of all images of Earth are consistant with Google Earth then they are consistant with each other.

In any case, here is an actual photo of Earth where North America is visible (I do in fact live there):

(http://i.space.com/images/i/000/048/945/original/earth-from-space-dscovr.jpg?1437407337)

And here it is replicated in Google Earth (Sorry, the IOS Google Earth app kind of sucks and I couldn't figure out how to get rid of my location marker):

(http://i.imgur.com/Flk9u4m.jpg)

Give me an example of two photos (not composites) of Earth which have inconsistency in the continent configuration.  I will compare them to Google Earth.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on December 01, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
To get a full-size shot of the Earth, we need either a) 28,000 miles (in 1972, Blue Marble 1.0) or b) 1 million miles (in 2015, Blue Marble 2.0). Inexplicably, at 22,000 miles, only a tiny fraction of the Earth is visible requiring multiple splicing to form a composite.

Can you not see that this is problematic?

Let’s review the premise:

A standard 35mm camera has a full-frame size of about 24mm x 36mm.   Thus, to take a picture of the ENTIRE earth from space, the diameter of the earth (some 8,000 miles) would have to fit into a 24mm x 24mm circle.

(A "standard" lens on such a camera is somewhere between 35mm and 50mm, depending on who you talk to.   We'll take the larger one, since the 50mm lens is a lot easier to produce with very few geometric distortions in it.)

Using a 50mm lens on a 35mm full-frame camera would require the camera to be a distance of 17,000 miles to put a circle of 8,000 miles diameter into a 24mm x 24mm circle on the 24mm x 36mm film size.

So, if you want to get a FULL image of earth using such a system (35mm full-frame camera using 50mm lens), you'll only need to be 17,000 miles away.
 
Maybe you should be 21,000 miles, though, to get you the 17,000 miles to the closet point and then back to the widest point of the earth (4,000 miles further away . . half the diameter of the earth) to get a good shot.

A geosynchronous orbit is 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth (compared to the 21,000 miles calculated above).

Bottom line:  anything in geosynchronous orbit should, in theory, be capable of taking an image of the earth that shows it as a full disc when using a 35mm full-frame camera and 50mm standard lens.

Yet, it isn't, according to NASA.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 01, 2015, 10:17:13 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on December 01, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
To get a full-size shot of the Earth, we need either a) 28,000 miles (in 1972, Blue Marble 1.0) or b) 1 million miles (in 2015, Blue Marble 2.0). Inexplicably, at 22,000 miles, only a tiny fraction of the Earth is visible requiring multiple splicing to form a composite.

Can you not see that this is problematic?

Let’s review the premise:

A standard 35mm camera has a full-frame size of about 24mm x 36mm.   Thus, to take a picture of the ENTIRE earth from space, the diameter of the earth (some 8,000 miles) would have to fit into a 24mm x 24mm circle.

(A "standard" lens on such a camera is somewhere between 35mm and 50mm, depending on who you talk to.   We'll take the larger one, since the 50mm lens is a lot easier to produce with very few geometric distortions in it.)

Using a 50mm lens on a 35mm full-frame camera would require the camera to be a distance of 17,000 miles to put a circle of 8,000 miles diameter into a 24mm x 24mm circle on the 24mm x 36mm film size.

So, if you want to get a FULL image of earth using such a system (35mm full-frame camera using 50mm lens), you'll only need to be 17,000 miles away.
 
Maybe you should be 21,000 miles, though, to get you the 17,000 miles to the closet point and then back to the widest point of the earth (4,000 miles further away . . half the diameter of the earth) to get a good shot.

A geosynchronous orbit is 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth (compared to the 21,000 miles calculated above).

Bottom line:  anything in geosynchronous orbit should, in theory, be capable of taking an image of the earth that shows it as a full disc when using a 35mm full-frame camera and 50mm standard lens.

Yet, it isn't, according to NASA.
As I asked in reply #38 (read it), why would anyone do this? What does NASA or anyone (except YOU on this forum) gain from this? If FEers care so much, cough up the 1000s of REAL dollars (BTW, you will also need a receiver on Earth and someone to probably man it so you can get your picture) and put a camera on a satellite! (Oh, I forgot, you don't believe in them). The problem isn't whether it CAN happen. The problem is it will probably cost $10,000s to do it, so you get your answer in this forum. Yep, NASA should jump on it and make it a priority. Furthermore, if NASA or anyone DID do it, FEers like those on this forum (YOU), would just dismiss the pictures ANYWAYS (FAKES!!!) because there are no satellites in space per FE! So why should anyone do it?
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on December 01, 2015, 12:51:34 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 01, 2015, 10:17:13 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on December 01, 2015, 08:13:48 AM
To get a full-size shot of the Earth, we need either a) 28,000 miles (in 1972, Blue Marble 1.0) or b) 1 million miles (in 2015, Blue Marble 2.0). Inexplicably, at 22,000 miles, only a tiny fraction of the Earth is visible requiring multiple splicing to form a composite.

Can you not see that this is problematic?

Let’s review the premise:

A standard 35mm camera has a full-frame size of about 24mm x 36mm.   Thus, to take a picture of the ENTIRE earth from space, the diameter of the earth (some 8,000 miles) would have to fit into a 24mm x 24mm circle.

(A "standard" lens on such a camera is somewhere between 35mm and 50mm, depending on who you talk to.   We'll take the larger one, since the 50mm lens is a lot easier to produce with very few geometric distortions in it.)

Using a 50mm lens on a 35mm full-frame camera would require the camera to be a distance of 17,000 miles to put a circle of 8,000 miles diameter into a 24mm x 24mm circle on the 24mm x 36mm film size.

So, if you want to get a FULL image of earth using such a system (35mm full-frame camera using 50mm lens), you'll only need to be 17,000 miles away.
 
Maybe you should be 21,000 miles, though, to get you the 17,000 miles to the closet point and then back to the widest point of the earth (4,000 miles further away . . half the diameter of the earth) to get a good shot.

A geosynchronous orbit is 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth (compared to the 21,000 miles calculated above).

Bottom line:  anything in geosynchronous orbit should, in theory, be capable of taking an image of the earth that shows it as a full disc when using a 35mm full-frame camera and 50mm standard lens.

Yet, it isn't, according to NASA.
As I asked in reply #38 (read it), why would anyone do this? What does NASA or anyone (except YOU on this forum) gain from this? If FEers care so much, cough up the 1000s of REAL dollars (BTW, you will also need a receiver on Earth and someone to probably man it so you can get your picture) and put a camera on a satellite! (Oh, I forgot, you don't believe in them). The problem isn't whether it CAN happen. The problem is it will probably cost $10,000s to do it, so you get your answer in this forum. Yep, NASA should jump on it and make it a priority. Furthermore, if NASA or anyone DID do it, FEers like those on this forum (YOU), would just dismiss the pictures ANYWAYS (FAKES!!!) because there are no satellites in space per FE! So why should anyone do it?

You are asking me why would NASA take a picture of the Earth?

They supposedly DID exactly that, but the numbers don't add up. That's exactly what gives rise to the question.

I'm asking a rational, well-reasoned question and I'm looking for a rational, well-reasoned answer.

Why would NASA claim that what is clearly possible is actually impossible?

I don't think you are actually addressing the question itself.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 01, 2015, 02:41:57 PM
Quote
Why would NASA claim that what is clearly possible is actually impossible?
Where has NASA claimed this? that it is impossible...

There is a satellite in orbit right now providing pictures of the Earth:
Wiki "The Blue Marble" - Blue Marble 2015 section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble)). There are 9 images that have been released from that satellite - click on 9 images (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/)) This is obviously a NASA site. Why would it claim it is impossible?

You can read about the DSCOVR satellite here (http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/ (http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/)). "NASA, in charge of both the launch and activation of the satellite, has officially handed over satellite operations to NOAA’s DSCOVR team".
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: 29silhouette on December 01, 2015, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
As you can imagine, this particular image has been hotly debated since it's timely release. NASA apologists even go so far as to claim that objects photographed always look the same size from multiple distances. They even take a picture of presumably the same classroom globe from presumably three distances where each shows the dimensions of the continents in different scale.

That's a phenomenon I've never experienced in any of my photographs. Have you?
Stand back from a desktop globe, zoom in, and take a picture.  Now zoom out and move in closer so that it takes up the same amount of the frame.  Take another picture. 

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
If you compare the dozen or so "Earth photos" that NASA has released since Blue Marble 1.0, none of them depict the continents the same way, ever. Do the continents drastically changes size, shape, proportion every few years?
Conduct the experiment above and let us know what happens.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on December 02, 2015, 04:17:08 AM
Quote from: 29silhouette on December 01, 2015, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
As you can imagine, this particular image has been hotly debated since it's timely release. NASA apologists even go so far as to claim that objects photographed always look the same size from multiple distances. They even take a picture of presumably the same classroom globe from presumably three distances where each shows the dimensions of the continents in different scale.

That's a phenomenon I've never experienced in any of my photographs. Have you?
Stand back from a desktop globe, zoom in, and take a picture.  Now zoom out and move in closer so that it takes up the same amount of the frame.  Take another picture. 

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
If you compare the dozen or so "Earth photos" that NASA has released since Blue Marble 1.0, none of them depict the continents the same way, ever. Do the continents drastically changes size, shape, proportion every few years?
Conduct the experiment above and let us know what happens.

Your claim is that, although NASA doesn't have a standard 35-50 mm lens, they have zoom capability?

Interesting.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on December 02, 2015, 04:19:11 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 01, 2015, 02:41:57 PM
Quote
Why would NASA claim that what is clearly possible is actually impossible?
Where has NASA claimed this? that it is impossible...

There is a satellite in orbit right now providing pictures of the Earth:
Wiki "The Blue Marble" - Blue Marble 2015 section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble)). There are 9 images that have been released from that satellite - click on 9 images (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/)) This is obviously a NASA site. Why would it claim it is impossible?

You can read about the DSCOVR satellite here (http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/ (http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/)). "NASA, in charge of both the launch and activation of the satellite, has officially handed over satellite operations to NOAA’s DSCOVR team".

Didn't read the OP, did you?

It's okay, I understand.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 02, 2015, 07:28:55 AM
I read it and responded:
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 23, 2015, 07:21:34 AM
Per the OP, my thoughts on this are:
  • From a geosynchronous orbit, what would be the purpose of taking pictures of the Earth with ANY camera?
  • It costs $1000's to place something in orbit. Unless it is useful, and can transmit images with receivers on Earth, why do it?
  • If it is so important to FEers, why don't they put a camera on such a satellite? Only FEers are interested in proving the Earth is a disk. Go for it. Prove the Earth is a disk (or 2 hemidisks) - once and for all.
  • As I believe there really are no true FEers (just debaters), no one seriously believes the FE model. No one therefore, would spend a penny to prove something they know is not true.
  • As I believe that the debaters actually believe in RET, they definitely would not want to waste money on something they know will not prove FE models.
  • Furthermore, since FE doesn't even believe in satellites/space travel, why ask for such proof from REers (per OP)? As is obvious, any such evidence is summarily rejected.
  • Keep in mind, no space travel is a self-imposed limitation and constraint of FE models. It does not apply to RE models. Why should RE models be hindered by these limitations and constraints?
  • We DO have USEFUL pictures from low-level satellites for things like weather (hurricanes) and spy satellites (people DO spend $100,000's and create receivers and hire people to use and maintain them)
  • You DO have to composite the pictures to get the whole picture.
  • As satellites go around the Earth in <2hrs, 1/2 the Earth is in shadow. Also, weather and lighting conditions would change in the pictures.
  • Compositing the pictures (2D) is an effort and I am sure some form of "manipulation"/"correction" is always needed to make the image (3D -> 2D) "look right"
  • Depending on the time of day and sun height, some places may not look "right" unless corrected.
  • So, most composited images will need to be processed. This does not mean there is a conspiracy. This is reality.
  • Using a camera, take a snapshot of say a city/park/whatever at noon moving say 1° to the right/day. This should take a year - then composite the 360 images into 1 panorama (winter,spring,summer,fall,different weather, cars, etc.). Make 1 panorama without correction and see what you get. Will you drop pictures (whiteout - snow, or totally grey - rain)? Conspiracy!!! Will you get what you see looking around? Will anyone believe your panorama if it doesn't look like what they are seeing - right now? If you correct it to make it look "right", I can claim "FAKE!!!". How can you win? Why would you even try?
It is not impossible as I demonstrated in Reply #43.

Apparently you don't understand.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: 29silhouette on December 10, 2015, 08:01:40 PM
Quote from: donalgodon on December 02, 2015, 04:17:08 AM
Quote from: 29silhouette on December 01, 2015, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
As you can imagine, this particular image has been hotly debated since it's timely release. NASA apologists even go so far as to claim that objects photographed always look the same size from multiple distances. They even take a picture of presumably the same classroom globe from presumably three distances where each shows the dimensions of the continents in different scale.

That's a phenomenon I've never experienced in any of my photographs. Have you?
Stand back from a desktop globe, zoom in, and take a picture.  Now zoom out and move in closer so that it takes up the same amount of the frame.  Take another picture. 

Quote from: donalgodon on November 17, 2015, 04:05:35 AM
If you compare the dozen or so "Earth photos" that NASA has released since Blue Marble 1.0, none of them depict the continents the same way, ever. Do the continents drastically changes size, shape, proportion every few years?
Conduct the experiment above and let us know what happens.

Your claim is that, although NASA doesn't have a standard 35-50 mm lens, they have zoom capability?

Interesting.
No, my claim is in regard to the text in bold, and it pertained to you not knowing what happens when a sphere is photographed from different distances.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on December 11, 2015, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 02, 2015, 07:28:55 AM
I read it and responded:
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 23, 2015, 07:21:34 AM
Per the OP, my thoughts on this are:
  • From a geosynchronous orbit, what would be the purpose of taking pictures of the Earth with ANY camera?
  • It costs $1000's to place something in orbit. Unless it is useful, and can transmit images with receivers on Earth, why do it?
  • If it is so important to FEers, why don't they put a camera on such a satellite? Only FEers are interested in proving the Earth is a disk. Go for it. Prove the Earth is a disk (or 2 hemidisks) - once and for all.
  • As I believe there really are no true FEers (just debaters), no one seriously believes the FE model. No one therefore, would spend a penny to prove something they know is not true.
  • As I believe that the debaters actually believe in RET, they definitely would not want to waste money on something they know will not prove FE models.
  • Furthermore, since FE doesn't even believe in satellites/space travel, why ask for such proof from REers (per OP)? As is obvious, any such evidence is summarily rejected.
  • Keep in mind, no space travel is a self-imposed limitation and constraint of FE models. It does not apply to RE models. Why should RE models be hindered by these limitations and constraints?
  • We DO have USEFUL pictures from low-level satellites for things like weather (hurricanes) and spy satellites (people DO spend $100,000's and create receivers and hire people to use and maintain them)
  • You DO have to composite the pictures to get the whole picture.
  • As satellites go around the Earth in <2hrs, 1/2 the Earth is in shadow. Also, weather and lighting conditions would change in the pictures.
  • Compositing the pictures (2D) is an effort and I am sure some form of "manipulation"/"correction" is always needed to make the image (3D -> 2D) "look right"
  • Depending on the time of day and sun height, some places may not look "right" unless corrected.
  • So, most composited images will need to be processed. This does not mean there is a conspiracy. This is reality.
  • Using a camera, take a snapshot of say a city/park/whatever at noon moving say 1° to the right/day. This should take a year - then composite the 360 images into 1 panorama (winter,spring,summer,fall,different weather, cars, etc.). Make 1 panorama without correction and see what you get. Will you drop pictures (whiteout - snow, or totally grey - rain)? Conspiracy!!! Will you get what you see looking around? Will anyone believe your panorama if it doesn't look like what they are seeing - right now? If you correct it to make it look "right", I can claim "FAKE!!!". How can you win? Why would you even try?
It is not impossible as I demonstrated in Reply #43.

Apparently you don't understand.

Help me understand so that I (and the world) may benefit from your advanced intellect. I admit that I'm probably not as smart as you are, but can you have pity on a poor dumb guy like me?

How, specifically, does reply 43 answer the OP?
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.

Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 11, 2015, 06:30:47 PM
Quote from: donalgodon on December 11, 2015, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 02, 2015, 07:28:55 AM
I read it and responded:
Quote from: Jadyyn on November 23, 2015, 07:21:34 AM
Per the OP, my thoughts on this are:
  • From a geosynchronous orbit, what would be the purpose of taking pictures of the Earth with ANY camera?
  • It costs $1000's to place something in orbit. Unless it is useful, and can transmit images with receivers on Earth, why do it?
  • If it is so important to FEers, why don't they put a camera on such a satellite? Only FEers are interested in proving the Earth is a disk. Go for it. Prove the Earth is a disk (or 2 hemidisks) - once and for all.
  • As I believe there really are no true FEers (just debaters), no one seriously believes the FE model. No one therefore, would spend a penny to prove something they know is not true.
  • As I believe that the debaters actually believe in RET, they definitely would not want to waste money on something they know will not prove FE models.
  • Furthermore, since FE doesn't even believe in satellites/space travel, why ask for such proof from REers (per OP)? As is obvious, any such evidence is summarily rejected.
  • Keep in mind, no space travel is a self-imposed limitation and constraint of FE models. It does not apply to RE models. Why should RE models be hindered by these limitations and constraints?
  • We DO have USEFUL pictures from low-level satellites for things like weather (hurricanes) and spy satellites (people DO spend $100,000's and create receivers and hire people to use and maintain them)
  • You DO have to composite the pictures to get the whole picture.
  • As satellites go around the Earth in <2hrs, 1/2 the Earth is in shadow. Also, weather and lighting conditions would change in the pictures.
  • Compositing the pictures (2D) is an effort and I am sure some form of "manipulation"/"correction" is always needed to make the image (3D -> 2D) "look right"
  • Depending on the time of day and sun height, some places may not look "right" unless corrected.
  • So, most composited images will need to be processed. This does not mean there is a conspiracy. This is reality.
  • Using a camera, take a snapshot of say a city/park/whatever at noon moving say 1° to the right/day. This should take a year - then composite the 360 images into 1 panorama (winter,spring,summer,fall,different weather, cars, etc.). Make 1 panorama without correction and see what you get. Will you drop pictures (whiteout - snow, or totally grey - rain)? Conspiracy!!! Will you get what you see looking around? Will anyone believe your panorama if it doesn't look like what they are seeing - right now? If you correct it to make it look "right", I can claim "FAKE!!!". How can you win? Why would you even try?
It is not impossible as I demonstrated in Reply #43.

Apparently you don't understand.

Help me understand so that I (and the world) may benefit from your advanced intellect. I admit that I'm probably not as smart as you are, but can you have pity on a poor dumb guy like me?

How, specifically, does reply 43 answer the OP?
Basically:
Bottom line, the first part (1-7) shows why we don't have 55mm cameras in space. The second part (8-14) shows why when we use what we have, it is not good enough. This is the answer to the OP.

Actually, in Reply #43 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1734288#msg1734288 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1734288#msg1734288)), I found a place that actually does what you ask in the OP with the DSCOVR satellite.

BTW, since now-a-days we have computers, we can take the partial Earth pictures from low satellites, calibrate them, then map/composite them to spherical models to display the entire globe. That is were the globe models come from (e.g. Google Earth). If we could map the partial pictures to a disk and it worked even better, we would. See here for distances involved and what you can see (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1730256#msg1730256 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1730256#msg1730256))
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: rabinoz on December 11, 2015, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.
Quite a number of the geosynchronous satellites are there predominantly to take weather photos, often at a number of wavelengths  (a number of infra-red and a number of visible).
This one was taken 20 min ago (at 07:00 UTC on 12/12/15) in the infra-red.  It shows a cloud mass moving east off SE Queensland.  I can see the clouds out the back door!
(http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs/6/infrared/1/201512120700-00.png)

There are numerous pictures of satellites, including some fairly sharp ones of the ISS through astronomical telescopes.  That's not easy as they move quite fast!  If you choose to disbelieve this, that's your problem, not mine!

Why no photos of satellites from other satellites?  There might be some, I don't know.
But you just try taking a photo of a car sized object 20,000 miles away moving at 17,000 mph from another vehicle moving at 6,900 mph.  You are clearly the photographic expert, maybe you tell us!
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: donalgodon on December 20, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
Quote from: rabinoz on December 11, 2015, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.
Quite a number of the geosynchronous satellites are there predominantly to take weather photos, often at a number of wavelengths  (a number of infra-red and a number of visible).
This one was taken 20 min ago (at 07:00 UTC on 12/12/15) in the infra-red.  It shows a cloud mass moving east off SE Queensland.  I can see the clouds out the back door!
(http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs/6/infrared/1/201512120700-00.png)

There are numerous pictures of satellites, including some fairly sharp ones of the ISS through astronomical telescopes.  That's not easy as they move quite fast!  If you choose to disbelieve this, that's your problem, not mine!

Why no photos of satellites from other satellites?  There might be some, I don't know.
But you just try taking a photo of a car sized object 20,000 miles away moving at 17,000 mph from another vehicle moving at 6,900 mph.  You are clearly the photographic expert, maybe you tell us!

Two issues stood out to me.

How exactly did you verify that the cloud formation in the image was the identical inverted formation to the one you witnessed out the back door?

Ostensibly, we have, if NASA isn't lying (big if) full motion video of the Earth from the ISS, yet no satellites ever show up in any of the "video."
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: rabinoz on December 21, 2015, 12:45:56 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on December 20, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
Quote from: rabinoz on December 11, 2015, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.
Quite a number of the geosynchronous satellites are there predominantly to take weather photos, often at a number of wavelengths  (a number of infra-red and a number of visible).
This one was taken 20 min ago (at 07:00 UTC on 12/12/15) in the infra-red.  It shows a cloud mass moving east off SE Queensland.  I can see the clouds out the back door!
(http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs/6/infrared/1/201512120700-00.png)

There are numerous pictures of satellites, including some fairly sharp ones of the ISS through astronomical telescopes.  That's not easy as they move quite fast!  If you choose to disbelieve this, that's your problem, not mine!

Why no photos of satellites from other satellites?  There might be some, I don't know.
But you just try taking a photo of a car sized object 20,000 miles away moving at 17,000 mph from another vehicle moving at 6,900 mph.  You are clearly the photographic expert, maybe you tell us!

Two issues stood out to me.

How exactly did you verify that the cloud formation in the image was the identical inverted formation to the one you witnessed out the back door?

Ostensibly, we have, if NASA isn't lying (big if) full motion video of the Earth from the ISS, yet no satellites ever show up in any of the "video."
I believe I answered "yet no satellites ever show up in any of the 'video.'"! 
I stress again that any satellites that might be in the field of view would:
1) Be travelling so fast relative to the camera, that it would be completely blurred.
2) The size of the image would be say (10m/10,000km) radians.  You can do the sums!  If the video was about 1000 pixels across, the image of the satellite would be around (1/1000) pixels - you can fix my rough arithmetic.

But, in the end, it is a complete waste answering questions like this:
You don't believe satellites are possible, and for one reason only - they would prove that the earth is a globe.
Yet there is abundant evidence that satellites certainly can exist.

Maybe you recognise who wrote this.
Quote from: John Davis
Its not a lie. Satellites and ISS are completely consistent with my work.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 21, 2015, 07:38:06 AM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.
I seriously doubt people around the world are ever going to believe your BS. There is hurricane monitoring/pictures via satellites. Why don't you take your BS to Mexico a few weeks back when it was hit with 200 mph winds and people were evacuated. Tell THEM satellites don't exist. I'm sure THEY will believe you after they clean up from the hurricane. You obviously don't live where hurricanes hit that rely on satellites.

You obviously never heard of or used dish TV either. These rely on satellites. Yep, those thousands of people are just fools. You are the smart one.

No worries though, LOTS, millions of people who believe in satellites get the benefits of them - you are probably a hypocrite that uses services based on them then says they don't exist. When you decide to live in the REAL world instead of your FE FANTASY world, let us know.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 21, 2015, 07:45:49 AM
Quote from: donalgodon on December 20, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
Quote from: rabinoz on December 11, 2015, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.
Quite a number of the geosynchronous satellites are there predominantly to take weather photos, often at a number of wavelengths  (a number of infra-red and a number of visible).
This one was taken 20 min ago (at 07:00 UTC on 12/12/15) in the infra-red.  It shows a cloud mass moving east off SE Queensland.  I can see the clouds out the back door!
(http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs/6/infrared/1/201512120700-00.png)

There are numerous pictures of satellites, including some fairly sharp ones of the ISS through astronomical telescopes.  That's not easy as they move quite fast!  If you choose to disbelieve this, that's your problem, not mine!

Why no photos of satellites from other satellites?  There might be some, I don't know.
But you just try taking a photo of a car sized object 20,000 miles away moving at 17,000 mph from another vehicle moving at 6,900 mph.  You are clearly the photographic expert, maybe you tell us!

Two issues stood out to me.

How exactly did you verify that the cloud formation in the image was the identical inverted formation to the one you witnessed out the back door?

Ostensibly, we have, if NASA isn't lying (big if) full motion video of the Earth from the ISS, yet no satellites ever show up in any of the "video."
For some odd reason you think the purpose of satellites and the ISS is to demonstrate a FLAT Earth. Why don't the FEers put up some real cash and get a camera on the satellites or get ISS to photograph one?

As I have stated repeatedly, space projects cost money. People are not going to do arbitrary things that people on this website think are USEFUL, not even IMPORTANT, just for the hell of it. Furthermore, if pictures WERE taken, people on this website would simply call them "fake". And you want OTHER people to spend money on this? I am 100% sure if FEers coughed up the money, whatever proof/pictures you want can be taken. Put your money where your mouth is.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 21, 2015, 08:05:07 AM
Folks, there are lots of pictures of:There are LOTS of pictures of these. These can be seen or photographed by anyone who has binoculars or a camera with a zoom lens (i.e. lives in the REAL world).

For everyone who doubts this, obviously they are not serious about FE models. If they were, they would do these REAL FALSIFIABLE EXPERIMENTS and personally know "the truth". No one here really wants that. All people want to do is sit in front of their computers and debate for debate's sake ("how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" when there is no pin).

Like I keep saying, astronomy (reality) falsifies/destroys/annihilates FE models (fantasy).
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Göebbels on December 21, 2015, 08:17:10 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 21, 2015, 07:38:06 AM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.
I seriously doubt people around the world are ever going to believe your BS. There is hurricane monitoring/pictures via satellites. Why don't you take your BS to Mexico a few weeks back when it was hit with 200 mph winds and people were evacuated. Tell THEM satellites don't exist. I'm sure THEY will believe you after they clean up from the hurricane. You obviously don't live where hurricanes hit that rely on satellites.

You obviously never heard of or used dish TV either. These rely on satellites. Yep, those thousands of people are just fools. You are the smart one.

No worries though, LOTS, millions of people who believe in satellites get the benefits of them - you are probably a hypocrite that uses services based on them then says they don't exist. When you decide to live in the REAL world instead of your FE FANTASY world, let us know.

Couldn't help not saying this: TURN DOWN FOR WHAT  8)
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: uCantBeSerious on December 21, 2015, 08:26:40 AM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.

Whoa whoa whoa.  You actually think that a satellite in orbit that snaps a photo of the Earth (or anything else, for that matter) would be able to capture another satellite in the frame?  Please tell me you don't seriously believe that.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 21, 2015, 09:59:05 AM
First off, any pic of anything in orbit will probably cause UFO people to jump all over it. It is not surprising then that NASA/ESA does not show a lot of these. (http://www.ancient-code.com/20-facts-black-knight-satellite/ (http://www.ancient-code.com/20-facts-black-knight-satellite/)) Furthermore, at the distances and sizes of satellites, they would just be points of light, indistinguishable from stars at best (and given the brightness of the Earth, they would be very dim indeed) unless they are just being launched or landed on.

Here are some pics of "satellite" pics of "satellites". Is this what you mean?
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/405/overrides/solar-storms-could-threaten-low-earth-orbit-satellites_40519_600x450.jpg)
(http://www.freebestwallpapers.info/bulkupload/Mania/Space/Satellite-Earth-Space-View.jpg)
(http://openwalls.com/image/2530/mir_satellite_and_earth_1_1920x1080.jpg)
(https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-664386849e83dc1ca4b9dace33e71c04?convert_to_webp=true)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51szIfvpW2L._SX466_.jpg)
(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OrbitsCatalog/images/S126-E-014918.jpg)
BTW, this may be interesting too (LOTS of ISS pics of Earth locations):
(http://www.lovethesepics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Eruption-of-Cleveland-Volcano-Aleutian-Islands-Alaska-is-featured-in-this-image-photographed-by-an-Expedition-13-crewmember-on-the-ISS.jpg)
Miami at night:
(http://www.nightearth.com/images/high-resolution-maps/miami--florida--seen-at-night-from-the-iss-normal.jpg)
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 21, 2015, 10:25:43 AM
Nice pictures. I like the volcano cloud one.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: rabinoz on December 21, 2015, 08:00:29 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 21, 2015, 09:59:05 AM
Jadyyn you can set the width of you images to fit nicely on the screen by adding width=xxx inside the img command.  This was set tp 300.  Thank Jroa for that snippet of info.
Also it's sometimes neat to put text on the left.  The "Insert table" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Themes/tintagel_fes/images/bbc/table.gif) can do this, as in this post.
You can do a quote on this post to see how it was done.  The table is a bit of bother, but setting the width of images is certainly easy and worthwhile.
By the way, sure is a nice set of pictures.
(http://www.lovethesepics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Eruption-of-Cleveland-Volcano-Aleutian-Islands-Alaska-is-featured-in-this-image-photographed-by-an-Expedition-13-crewmember-on-the-ISS.jpg)
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 04:38:52 AM
OK, thanks, done... I'm not going to mess around with tables though...
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 22, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 04:38:52 AM
OK, thanks, done... I'm not going to mess around with tables though...
Yeah me neither. I still haven't figured out how to load pictures.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 22, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 04:38:52 AM
OK, thanks, done... I'm not going to mess around with tables though...
Yeah me neither. I still haven't figured out how to load pictures.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 22, 2015, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 22, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 04:38:52 AM
OK, thanks, done... I'm not going to mess around with tables though...
Yeah me neither. I still haven't figured out how to load pictures.
  • Click on the 1st icon below the Bold icon (looks like a little picture)
  • Paste the picture's image address (if you R-Click on a picture, it has the option "Copy image address")
  • Now, you can add the "width=xxx" (i.e. [ img width=600]address[/ img])

Like this?



I don't think it worked. I'm on a iPhone right now.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 12:55:27 PM
Quote from: mikeman7918 on November 18, 2015, 09:31:17 AM
Oh great, another climate change denyer who thinks that we can pump as much gas as we want into the atmosphere and anyone suggesting that anything at all will happen because if it is just spreading givernment propoganda.
Actually, my belief in that is because CO2 is not a green house gas and this can shown by doing easily repeatable experiments. You can google it if you want to see, not hard to find.

Now that does not mean I advocate just spewing anything into the air either. Just because we can't affect climate doesn't mean we can't hurt the environment.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:12:43 PM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.
Due, form the distance it would be like asking if you can see the dust in the air from a distance.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 01:28:36 PM
Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 22, 2015, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 22, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 04:38:52 AM
OK, thanks, done... I'm not going to mess around with tables though...
Yeah me neither. I still haven't figured out how to load pictures.
  • Click on the 1st icon below the Bold icon (looks like a little picture)
  • Paste the picture's image address (if you R-Click on a picture, it has the option "Copy image address")
  • Now, you can add the "width=xxx" (i.e. [ img width=600]address[/ img])

Like this?



I don't think it worked. I'm on a iPhone right now.
Nope, didn't work. Actually, click on this (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1741000#msg1741000 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1741000#msg1741000)), then click on the "Quote" icon to the top right. It will show you what the "image" command should look like.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:12:43 PM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.
Due, form the distance it would be like asking if you can see the dust in the air from a distance.
Ignore this text. He spams it everywhere. It's like his sig. It has been answered by lots of people. He just ignores people's answers.
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:52:08 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:12:43 PM
Quote from: ronxyz on December 11, 2015, 02:52:15 PM
The answer is easy, there are no orbiting satellites. No picture it didn't happen, period. It seems satellites can not even takes pictures of satellites, as there are no pictures of satellites in space. Again, No picture it didn't happen, period.
Due, form the distance it would be like asking if you can see the dust in the air from a distance.
Ignore this text. He spams it everywhere. It's like his sig. It has been answered by lots of people. He just ignores people's answers.
It makes me feel like JRowe is everyone on this forum and he makes a new persona for each of his "arguments" and "theorys".
Title: Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 22, 2015, 06:19:00 PM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 01:28:36 PM
Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 22, 2015, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 22, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 04:38:52 AM
OK, thanks, done... I'm not going to mess around with tables though...
Yeah me neither. I still haven't figured out how to load pictures.
  • Click on the 1st icon below the Bold icon (looks like a little picture)
  • Paste the picture's image address (if you R-Click on a picture, it has the option "Copy image address")
  • Now, you can add the "width=xxx" (i.e. [ img width=600]address[/ img])

Like this?



I don't think it worked. I'm on a iPhone right now.
Nope, didn't work. Actually, click on this (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1741000#msg1741000 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64879.msg1741000#msg1741000)), then click on the "Quote" icon to the top right. It will show you what the "image" command should look like.

Looks a bit complicated. I think I'll settle for what I learned so far. Maybe I'll get it someday.