Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?

  • 72 Replies
  • 11633 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2015, 03:39:35 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'?

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!!!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #31 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.


*

rabinoz

  • 17781
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #32 on: November 19, 2015, 04:34:26 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".

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #33 on: November 19, 2015, 05:30:16 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:



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?


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!!!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #34 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:

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.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2015, 08:33:21 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!



I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #36 on: November 21, 2015, 08:00:36 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?



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? 

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2015, 06:03:48 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:



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?

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.

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?

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:



And here is a screenshot I took on Google Earth:



Please point out which continents you think have moved.

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.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #38 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?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2015, 11:50:24 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:



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.

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.

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):



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):



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.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #40 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.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #41 on: December 01, 2015, 10:17:13 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?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2015, 12:51:34 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 12:55:32 PM by donalgodon »

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #43 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). There are 9 images that have been released from that satellite - click on 9 images (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/). "NASA, in charge of both the launch and activation of the satellite, has officially handed over satellite operations to NOAA’s DSCOVR team".
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2015, 06:55:18 PM »
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. 

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.

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #45 on: December 02, 2015, 04:17:08 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. 

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.

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #46 on: December 02, 2015, 04:19:11 AM »
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). There are 9 images that have been released from that satellite - click on 9 images (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/). "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.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #47 on: December 02, 2015, 07:28:55 AM »
I read it and responded:
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.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2015, 08:01:40 PM »
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. 

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.

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #49 on: December 11, 2015, 09:17:18 AM »
I read it and responded:
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?

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #50 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.

If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #51 on: December 11, 2015, 06:30:47 PM »
I read it and responded:
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:
  • It costs money, lots of money, to put things in space. Furthermore, you need receiving equipment on the ground and people to man it. Unless there is some benefit to putting a camera on a geosynchronous satellite, nobody is just going to do it for the hell of it. It can be done, but why do it? Who's going to pay for it?
  • If it is important to FEers to prove the Earth is Flat, they should do it (unless they know it is a globe and just debating here for the hell of it).
  • The complaint is that pictures are composites. I tried to explain why low level satellites ARE useful but take pictures of small areas of Earth and since they go around so fast (90 min/orbit), half the Earth is night time. Several orbits later, clouds and lighting conditions may change.
  • To make any sense of this, you need to composite these partial pictures. You probably need to adjust them (rotate, enlarge, shrink, brighten, darken, etc.) to match (seamlessly). When you do this, the complaint is that they are now "manipulated"/"corrected" therefore "fake".
  • My example asks how anyone can create a composite and not manipulate it to look right. If you don't correct it, it looks wrong/weird. If you do, so people agree that is what they see, then it is "fake". You can't win.
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), 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)
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

rabinoz

  • 17781
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2015, 11:38:46 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!


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!

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2015, 09:34:15 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!


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."

*

rabinoz

  • 17781
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2015, 12:45:56 AM »
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!


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.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2015, 07:38:06 AM »
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.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #56 on: December 21, 2015, 07:45:49 AM »
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!


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.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #57 on: December 21, 2015, 08:05:07 AM »
Folks, there are lots of pictures of:
  • satellites going across the sky. These you can check from software that will tell you where to look from your location. All you need are binoculars. These go from horizon to horizon in <2 hrs.
  • ISS. In the night sky and against the Sun and Moon. Software can tell you where to look with your binoculars. This goes from horizon to horizon in <2 hrs.
  • geosynchronous/geostationary satellites. Use software from dish TV installers to locate the satellite in the sky then set up a camera with a zoom lens on a tripod and shoot a "long" exposure photo so the stars start to streak/trail. The stationary dot will be the satellite. It is geostationary so available all the time.
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).
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 09:15:04 AM by Jadyyn »
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #58 on: December 21, 2015, 08:17:10 AM »
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)

Re: Why can't "orbiting satellites" give us a full picture?
« Reply #59 on: December 21, 2015, 08:26:40 AM »
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.