International Space Station Footage

http://www.tntmagazine.com/tnt-today/archive/2011/09/19/flying-over-planet-earth-in-the-international-space-station-is-a-youtube-hit.aspx

New footage has been produced showing the view of the earth from the International Space Station. High quality, High resolution and lower altitude than other sattelite imagery. Anyone care to check out the videos/images and attempt to debunk this?

#!

The curvature in the video appears fake.

- The earth's curvature in the video is not an arc of a circle

- It looks like the earth's curvature has been filtered through a wide angle or fish-eye lens

Failed argument, and an obvious cop out. ANYTHING can be faked. I can print one hundred dollar bills, that does not mean one hundred dollar bills don't exist. Let's see you create some similar images without lens distortion in perfect clarity. Don't say that I have to prove it. I have already provided a fully researchable and undebunkable link. That is my evidence. I don't have to recreate evidence I have already provided. Now it's up to you to prove my evidence invalid. Simply saying "It's fake" isn't good enough. You have to prove it. Your argument "sounds fake" and 99 percent of the scientific world would agree, yet that isn't good enough for you. Why should it be for me? "The earth's curvature in the video is not an arc of a circle." Any arc followed through will make a circle eventually, please explain and cite.

Failed argument, and an obvious cop out. ANYTHING can be faked. I can print one hundred dollar bills, that does not mean one hundred dollar bills don't exist. Let's see you create some similar images without lens distortion in perfect clarity. Don't say that I have to prove it. I have already provided a fully researchable and undebunkable link. That is my evidence. I don't have to recreate evidence I have already provided. Now it's up to you to prove my evidence invalid. Simply saying "It's fake" isn't good enough. You have to prove it. Your argument "sounds fake" and 99 percent of the scientific world would agree, yet that isn't good enough for you. Why should it be for me? "The earth's curvature in the video is not an arc of a circle." Any arc followed through will make a circle eventually, please explain and cite.

LOL his 2nd post and he's ramming it up Tom's sphincter harder than most of us would ever dare try. Good stuff 

lol'd hard 

everytime a footage that proves earth's round shape is posted the same thing happens:

flat earth believer(s) trying to make it fake by providing random statements while covering their eyes 

keep posting these videos when they come out, a good laugh never hurts

Why are there lights on when it's not dark?

Why are there lights on when it's not dark?

or maybe the question is: why does it appear to be daytime when lights are on whilst it is clearly orbiting the dark side of the "planet". The sun begins to rise toward the end so it has to have been on the opposite night side during the footage.

#!

The curvature in the video appears fake.

- The earth's curvature in the video is not an arc of a circle

- It looks like the earth's curvature has been filtered through a wide angle or fish-eye lens

I can rearrange your argument to be the explanation:
 

- The earth's curvature in the video is not an arc of a circle

because it

has been filtered through a wide angle or fish-eye lens

Besides that observation, I find it does look like an arc of a circle.

Why are there lights on when it's not dark?

Excellent question.

Quote from: Hazbollah on September 20, 2011, 12:25:40 PM

Why are there lights on when it's not dark?

Excellent question.

2nd light source:
The moon.  The full moon can be bright enough to read by.

Also wanted to add that the fish eye lens theory is poppycock. Anyone trying at all to be objective would clearly see the panels of the space station in the upper right corner, obscuring the full image presented by the camera. These panels would look distorted (imagine looking at someone through a peepole in your front door...same effect.) That answer was obviously just as well thought out as every other red herring on these boards from proponents of a flat earth.

Why are there lights on when it's not dark?

You should really watch the video provided in the first post on this thread rather than commenting on a still. The light you see is the dark side of the planet basked in moonlight. If that's as bright as your days are, I feel sorry for you. the last three or four seconds of the video show the sun rising on the other side of our round planet, which nearly blinds the camera. Even with irrefutable photographic evidence, we hear the call of the flat earther "it's fake! it's fake!" without any evidence to prove so without rhetoric, red herring arguments and contrarian wax science. Stop answering question with more questions and truly debunk this footage. Or forever hold your peace.

Yeah, sure. "Moonlight." 

Despite the fact that in other ISS photos of the earth the night side is always pitch black.

RE'ers will go to great lengths to keep their childhood beliefs alive.

the video will suggest for round earth...
no..., what i believe the earth is like a carpet, it said on Quran. no round at all and no spinning

Yeah, sure. "Moonlight." 

Despite the fact that in other ISS photos of the earth the night side is always pitch black.

RE'ers will go to great lengths to keep their childhood beliefs alive.

Great length?  It's a true phenomenon.  The moon does cast light on the ground.  Are you denying this?

Besides:




Clearly not always pitch black.

the video will suggest for round earth...
no..., what i believe the earth is like a carpet, it said on Quran. no round at all and no spinning

So you'll disregard what you see in the video in favour of what is said in the Quran?

Quote from: maserati on September 21, 2011, 05:58:21 AM

the video will suggest for round earth...
no..., what i believe the earth is like a carpet, it said on Quran. no round at all and no spinning

So you'll disregard what you see in the video in favour of what is said in the Quran?

yes, Quran never lies...
if news in tv, newspaper or youtube, it could be right or wrong....
i dont trust for round earth...
i have a guidance from Quran.

you must explain for rotation of the earth, but the fact the earth is not rotating.

This one demonstrates clearly that the earth's curvature is not an arc of a circle.

This one demonstrates clearly that the earth's curvature is not an arc of a circle.

No scientists that I am aware of ever said the earth was a perfect sphere.  In fact, they all say it is a slightly squashed sphere that is fatter at the equator. 

We could also say that it is bendy light that makes it not appear to be a perfect arc, but that would just be crazy nonsense, wouldn't it?

Quote

This one demonstrates clearly that the earth's curvature is not an arc of a circle.

We could also say that it is bendy light that makes it not appear to be a perfect arc, but that would just be crazy nonsense, wouldn't it?

Yes, because bendy light has no effect on CGI animations.

Quote

This one demonstrates clearly that the earth's curvature is not an arc of a circle.

No scientists that I am aware of ever said the earth was a perfect sphere.

They say that it's a near perfect sphere.

I don't recall anyone saying that the earth was shaped like an egg.

Quote from: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 06:00:28 AM

This one demonstrates clearly that the earth's curvature is not an arc of a circle.

How small the globe must be. Are they kidding?

Quote from: Nolhekh on September 21, 2011, 06:00:28 AM

[im]http://randommization.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/night-time-images-of-earth-from-ISS_Northern-Africa.jpg[/im]

This one demonstrates clearly that the earth's curvature is not an arc of a circle.

How small the globe must be. Are they kidding?

Tom has already given us the reason for this:

- It looks like the earth's curvature has been filtered through a wide angle or fish-eye lens

I thought we (well, the globularists) had ruled this out:

Also wanted to add that the fish eye lens theory is poppycock. Anyone trying at all to be objective would clearly see the panels of the space station in the upper right corner, obscuring the full image presented by the camera. These panels would look distorted (imagine looking at someone through a peepole in your front door...same effect.) That answer was obviously just as well thought out as every other red herring on these boards from proponents of a flat earth.

I don't see what you guys are arguing about. The earth in the picture looks to be a accurate size, fisheye or not. Remember you are only seeing a smallish part of the Earth.

That only shows how willing you are to take their photos as representative of the earth without examining the claim.

That only shows how willing you are to take their photos as representative of the earth without examining the claim.

How? You can't calculate how big or small the earth is from a picture showing that little of the surface. And saying "That only shows how willing you are to take their photos as representative of the earth" is no more valid than me saying "That only shows how willing you are to take their photos as fakes".

I thought we (well, the globularists) had ruled this out:

Quote from: wryng on September 20, 2011, 10:25:15 PM

Also wanted to add that the fish eye lens theory is poppycock. Anyone trying at all to be objective would clearly see the panels of the space station in the upper right corner, obscuring the full image presented by the camera. These panels would look distorted (imagine looking at someone through a peepole in your front door...same effect.) That answer was obviously just as well thought out as every other red herring on these boards from proponents of a flat earth.

The panels are not distorted because the panels are layered on top of a scene which is being distorted.

By looking at how much of the globe is apparent from the picture, and how much of a circle is made of the visible horizon. Africa apparently takes up half the globe according to NASA.

I thought we (well, the globularists) had ruled this out:

Quote from: wryng on September 20, 2011, 10:25:15 PM

Also wanted to add that the fish eye lens theory is poppycock. Anyone trying at all to be objective would clearly see the panels of the space station in the upper right corner, obscuring the full image presented by the camera. These panels would look distorted (imagine looking at someone through a peepole in your front door...same effect.) That answer was obviously just as well thought out as every other red herring on these boards from proponents of a flat earth.

I appologize to wryng, but if you look at the picture I posted that tom pointed out, the soyuz solar panels are bent.  No hoaxer, whether building a miniature or CG model, would ever put bent panels on their work.  That tells me there is a lens thing going on.