Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - flyingmonkey

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24]
691
Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: January 01, 2010, 11:33:00 PM »
All it is, is comparing the visual information obtained in the videos to gather enough information so that it indicates who it is.
Nothing else.


As I said.

Doesn't take a genius to work out what he did, apparently some of us are lacking though and like to make up things that don't exist by reading too far into things.

owai-

692
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA update: more ridiculousness
« on: January 01, 2010, 04:27:43 AM »
You have 47 posts, and probably dont even read threads about GPS. GPS works without sattelites.


What

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

693
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetic poles wandering
« on: January 01, 2010, 04:17:51 AM »
How come constellations of stars in the Southern Hemisphere are upside down compared to ones in the Northern Hemisphere, Orion for example.

Why can't countries in the Northern Hemisphere see the Southern Cross?
Why can't countries is the Southern Hemisphere see the North Star?

If Earth were a flat plane, all stars should be visible everywhere, especially if the stars are rotating around the flat plane of Earth.


ED: Also

Plate tectonics cannot be the one influencing the pole, otherwise the geographic North would be shifting in relation to the Suns direction, and the icecap would be in some randomass spot.

694
Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: December 30, 2009, 04:17:45 AM »
Tom appears to be one of these people who read too far into things, get stuck at a dead end, and will never turn back because he's always right.


Quote
According to data from helmet cam video recordings

Does not mean anything about timestamps or similar, it could mean what you can see visually in the video, in this case, where the astronaut is in relation to the station.

Quote
calculated from the point of sunset in the video and during the pass, timing and location indicates the spacewalker...

Still doesn't say anything about time stamps, all it says is that he used the sunset and passing to work out the timing and location of the spacewalk compared to the NASA clips.



All it is, is comparing the visual information obtained in the videos to gather enough information so that it indicates who it is.
Nothing else.

695
Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: December 29, 2009, 03:29:54 AM »
The trollbait on these forums is amazing stuff

I must congratulate the FE'ers on that.

  Like I said earlier in this thread with no response. I know an amateur astronomer that has taken pictures of the ISS. He has nothing to do with NASA. So I know that it is there like NASA says it is. We know that it cannot be a projection because it disapears behind clouds, this would require many projectors, and something in the sky for the image to be seen on. I know people who have watched the ISS pass over the sky while one was in KY and the other was in VA. They were on the phone with each other. So we know it must be extremely high up to be seen at these two locations at the same time. We know that because of the design it cannot move at the high speeds required to move across the sky as fast as it does without breaking apart unless it was in space.

  Based on all of this information I think we can only come to one conclusion. Not that the Earth is round, but that the ISS does exist as NASA says it does. It is not a hoax. This puts a major hole the conspiracy idea.


Given the fact satellites exist if this is true, I'm sure they can beam down pictures.

Owai- they already do that, and looks like it's round.

696
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 22, 2009, 05:39:32 AM »
That's just a better stitched image from better images than the first one.

Both use the exact same technique.


It all just depends on what quality the original 200 or so snapshots were like before they stitched them together.


Yes, I'm serious about that number.

Higher zoom = better quality snaps, but requires more stitching and will probably lead to more visible joining lines.


I'm going to play some L4D2

697
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 22, 2009, 05:27:14 AM »

1st part: so make trapeziums and map is ready.

2nd part: if we have Hubble and are able to see the distant stars and even more, why we dont have 100times lesser than a hubble at the freaking orbit over the South Pole at an appropriate altitude and just make that freaky snapshot in good Hubble quality. I would be able to zoom in to it!

Am I not right?!

1: Not quite, Trapeziums don't form Spheres easily either.

2: Hubble is a giant telescope, it is not made for close up objects such as Earth.

If a Hubble style camera was to take an image of Earth, I would suspect you to be able to count the hairs on a mans head, but most probably it would just be a blurry image that you wouldn't be able to make out.

You still would not be able to have an entire continent in the shot, as it is a telescope, not a wide angle camera - so it would still require image stitching to get what you are looking for.


why we dont have 100times lesser than a hubble at the freaking orbit over the South Pole at an appropriate altitude and just make that freaky snapshot in good Hubble quality. I would be able to zoom in to it!

Am I not right?!

That is exactly what the satellites already are. I don't know what exactly you are wanting.

698
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 22, 2009, 05:16:21 AM »
Yes, this is how Google Earth works. But it works like this because by default they think that earth is a globe, not even an oblated spheroid.

So, if they just construct circular map and just form it from rectangular snapshots everything would be ok. But to do this, they must firstly agree that world is not a globe.

So, it cut both ways...


They do take rectangular images, the first thing they do is form them into longitudinal columns, to make stitching them into a globe easier.

Try to make a sphere out of large rectangles, I bet you can't do it without distorting some into trapeziums.

The Earths measurement difference between the poles and equator is a measly 42.7km, given the size of the globe, that's basically ignored when making a small 3D model.


Please, I want to see the picture of Antarcita not composed from those lousy parts... And they even look unnatural!

It cannot be done because of the size of Antarctica, unless you want a really low quality image that you can't zoom in on.

Have a look anywhere else in Google Earth (Europe if you must) and you will also see it is made up of many images.

Why is this? It is the only way they can make the quality images, the satellites must zoom in enough to be able to make out cars, there is no way they have the lenses that can have the entire continent in that kind of image at the same time.

Another reason they take many isolated images is because the Earth curves, so if they did take one massive image with a super camera to catch the entirety on Antarctica in a single shot with the quality to make out the bases, it would stretch and skew the further from the center you got.


Here's one you might like: http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/landsat-satellite-image-antarctica.jpg

699
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 22, 2009, 05:04:49 AM »
Let them show us at least just the pictures of Antarctica in good resolution, with out stitching and so on. But no, no such maps exist(at least I was never able to find them) All I saw, is that their picture were over when it come to the Ross Ice Sheld with the infinite of snow and ice stretching till the very horizon. Nobody was able to be that far, thus nobody knows what is going on there... only penguins maybe.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/e/ea/Antarctica_Satellite_Map.jpg


There are numerous others.


Scott would be disappointed in you.

700
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 22, 2009, 05:02:44 AM »
I dont like that map you're just posted.

And Anarctica always looks different on different maps. And also, this map is just like rectangle. FE maps like http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat_earth-1.png this are different. And if you convert that rectangle map to the circular map i just gave a link, i believe it would look like it.


The thing is, the only map that actually has all the continents in the right place/scale/what they actually look like, is this:

You cannot just change how things like that look without it being noticed.


You cannot just completely change the shape and relative location of things to make them fit on a map.

Australia is not larger than North America, nor does it look anything like it does in that image.

You know why? You are trying to project a spherical image onto a flat plane. It will always look wrong, nomatter how hard you try to improve it, because you cannot just stretch and skew images to your fancy.

701
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 22, 2009, 04:54:39 AM »
Edited previous post to be more clear on image stitching and how it can be difficult with spheres.

If the Earth was not a globe, there would be no need to stitch images, they would lie next to each other perfectly, and there would not be the stretching anomaly.

[What difficulties with image stitching!? What they had to do with sattelites(if they were existing) is just to take pictures! No any stitching.

Sounds like you don't know how to form a single image from a mass of images.

702
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 22, 2009, 04:45:53 AM »
You obviously missed the bit about how stitching images works, and how Antarctica cannot be improved quality wise without messing up other, more important, parts of the globe.

They stitch the images together at the poles, because there is nothing there, just white and/or sea, nothing of high importance like the rest of the globe.


You dont have to be smart to udnerstand that something is wrong with that stuff...

You obviously have to have some background in image stitching to know this stuff, though.




Here's a small experiment:

Print out a map of the world (you may need a few depending on how much you want to overlap each image)
Cut it into thin vertical strips going from the North to South poles
Now try to form a sphere from all the overlapping strips

The closer you are to the poles, the mass of strips that are there overlap too much because of how thick they are, to avoid re-overlapping images occurring, the images have to be stretched and skewed so that the become thinner as they get closer to the poles, or in this case, you would have to trim each strip of paper to a point for it to fit together properly.

This is how Google Earth works.

703
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 22, 2009, 04:41:03 AM »
The thing is, the only map that actually has all the continents in the right place/scale/what they actually look like, is this:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-map-2008.jpg

Any normal World map.


The FE maps stretch and skew continents to form completely different ones, that are unrecognizable if you flew overhead, or even drove around in a car.

You cannot just change how things like that look without it being noticed.


704
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 22, 2009, 03:49:41 AM »
Also. Situation is this, if you look on google.earth map you would see that Antarctica is hand-made picture, it is not a photo picture. And that's why I am asking, why if we have sattelites, we dont have photo picture of the region in the internet, and only having hand-made picture. That's is another small leaning to the FE side.

You mean this? http://nsidc.org/data/google_earth/images/agdc.jpg
Looks like badly stitched satellite photo imagery to me.

Google Earth stitches them in longitudinal clumps, so at both poles, the images overlap and become a mess - it is unavoidable.
Even if they changed how it worked, so that the poles were clearer, you would see the mess somewhere else.

Anyone who has done image stitching can tell you this.


On that note, on the FAQ there's a question about the view from ontop of Everest, the evidence used by FE is horrible.

When you stitch images together to form a panoramic, like the evidence used by the FE, the horizon will always be horizontal, nomatter how curved the horizon in each photo is.

If it weren't, the image would not flow freely from left to right, and would instead try to spin like a wheel along the curvature of the horizon.

Also, you cannot even see a horizon in the panoramic, mountain tops are too random to be able to provide any information for both parties, I suggest that part of the FAQ be fixed.

705
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 22, 2009, 03:38:15 AM »
Still hasn't explained the anomalies in the FE maps, if anything, it has reinforced RE.

706
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 22, 2009, 03:04:15 AM »
I just dont understand you.
Actually, airplanes NEVER fly thru the North Pole, and NEVER thru the Antarctica. And that particular one should be strange and a care for you RE'ers. Ask yourself a question.

Actually, planes fly over Antarctica all the time, it's the prime choice of locomotion to get to the many bases there.

The only thing resembling an Ice Wall down there is Mt. Erebus

707
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 22, 2009, 03:01:23 AM »
Thank you for an easy question. I believe it was done with the use of regular flying means, i dont know all of them, but I think aircraft were used for the most part.

It would be cheaper and probably more cost efficient to just send a satellite up there to do the job automatically than the amount of man hours required to fly planes every 2 years to update photos.

Not to mention, it doesn't explain why some places have very large low res clouds overhead, if they were taken from a plane that was traveling just above the cloud line to get such photos, the clouds would appear very clearly and probably be the only thing visible in the shot.
Or the fact you can get aerial photos of cyclones, brb, flying a plane over this: http://www.mauritius-weather.org/images/mauritius-cyclone.jpg

Anything you explain as reason for FE can be easily explained as reason for RE, this entire forum goes in circles, with many facepalms and wallbashes inbetween.

708
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 22, 2009, 02:23:11 AM »
Oh so polite of you to write your first post to me. I am glad.
Well, you did see the picture of oblated spheroid I posted in the previous post. And how come that we don't see the moon like oblated spheroid, and how come in all pictures of Earth from space Earth looks like a perfect sphere.

And no, we dont have sattelites, that's why Antarctic region is just a drawing, hand-made picture. That's my version.

I saw the picture, the Earth does not look like that, unless you believe that 42km is about 1/3 the Earths height.
That image you have is a scaled, stretched representation.

Physically, anything that spins around an axis is a Oblated Spheroid, whether or not it looks like one visually depends on the viscosity, size, and numerous other things.

How do you explain how Google Earth is able to take photos of all the houses and land scapes of the planet if we do not have satellites?

709
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 22, 2009, 02:07:39 AM »
I live in New Zealand


Problems with your maps:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat_earth-1.png

We don't have to fly over the north pole to fly to Europe.


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Azimuthal-equidistant-1.jpg
and
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3735/trueearthpu3.png

Don't have to fly over Antarctica to get to anywhere that isn't Australia

Are you also saying that Australia is larger than Africa or America depending on what map you look at?


How do you explain this lack of flying over places, FE'ers?
Do airlines take the worst possible routes on purpose?

710
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 21, 2009, 11:49:57 PM »
Well, I would also say if you look up Antarctic region of earth on the google.maps you would see that it is also just a drawing, not a photography, so they dont have info about the Antarctica just like they dont have info about the oceans, great dip. So, why would they just draw Anatarcitca if it is less then nothing for them(in RE eyes) just to fly some sattelite over that region to take good pictures and show us.

Also, in RE Earth is not a sphere, it is oblate spheroid. So how come, RE should ansnwer, that only Earth is an oblate spheroid in the Universe, and Sun and Moon and other planets are just plaing spheres? Or all massive bodies in the Universe are oblated spheroids ? mmm? what to think?


If we have satellites to take photographs of the planet, I'm sure they know what shape it is, and I'm certain that it would be far easier just pasting them in their appropriate locations as opposed to stitching them together to make some sort of sphere.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge

Earth isn't the only one, do some research next time - owait, this is FE'ers we're talking about.

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24]