This live-stream proofs Earth is round

@onebigmonkey - nasa clearly pay you huge amounts of bananas (just kidding, I bet it's coming though haha)

@setiyotherev - I don't understand your question

can someone tell me why there's no other satellite? i have read about 13k satellites are evolving our earth.

Satellites can be seen with the naked eye, but there is no reason you should expect to see them in photographs, or swarming around like bees. If you calculate the area in which those satellites can be found based on the surface area of a sphere, yo'd get one satellite for every 44000 square km. Not so many as it sounds.

and where are the stars?
thanks

Photo exposures too short, though if you look elsewhere on the forum there is a very nice gif showing both stars and satellites.

Quote from: setiyotherev on September 18, 2016, 02:41:50 AM

can someone tell me why there's no other satellite? i have read about 13k satellites are evolving our earth.

Satellites can be seen with the naked eye, but there is no reason you should expect to see them in photographs, or swarming around like bees. If you calculate the area in which those satellites can be found based on the surface area of a sphere, yo'd get one satellite for every 44000 square km. Not so many as it sounds.

Quote

and where are the stars?
thanks

Photo exposures too short, though if you look elsewhere on the forum there is a very nice gif showing both stars and satellites.

ahh I see.. the best answer for the 'where's the stars' question is this:







hence that question being a rare one nowadays

can someone tell me why there's no other satellite? i have read about 13k satellites are evolving our earth. and where are the stars?
thanks

Satellites are small and spread out.  They are all typically smaller than a small car and the area they fill is many times larger than the surface of the Earth.  You shouldn't expect to see them.

Star are relatively dim.  You need a long exposure for a camera to see them and then the Earth being sunlit will be extremely overexposed.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2016, 03:35:04 AM

Quote from: setiyotherev on September 18, 2016, 02:41:50 AM

can someone tell me why there's no other satellite? i have read about 13k satellites are evolving our earth.

Satellites can be seen with the naked eye, but there is no reason you should expect to see them in photographs, or swarming around like bees. If you calculate the area in which those satellites can be found based on the surface area of a sphere, yo'd get one satellite for every 44000 square km. Not so many as it sounds.

Quote

and where are the stars?
thanks

Photo exposures too short, though if you look elsewhere on the forum there is a very nice gif showing both stars and satellites.

ahh I see.. the best answer for the 'where's the stars' question is this:







hence that question being a rare one nowadays

Those stars are gone because of Light Pollution. Common in almost every city. Go out in the country and you can see almost every star visible in our area.

Quote from: Johnorbital on September 18, 2016, 04:16:47 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2016, 03:35:04 AM

Quote from: setiyotherev on September 18, 2016, 02:41:50 AM

can someone tell me why there's no other satellite? i have read about 13k satellites are evolving our earth.

Satellites can be seen with the naked eye, but there is no reason you should expect to see them in photographs, or swarming around like bees. If you calculate the area in which those satellites can be found based on the surface area of a sphere, yo'd get one satellite for every 44000 square km. Not so many as it sounds.

Quote

and where are the stars?
thanks

Photo exposures too short, though if you look elsewhere on the forum there is a very nice gif showing both stars and satellites.

ahh I see.. the best answer for the 'where's the stars' question is this:







hence that question being a rare one nowadays

Those stars are gone because of Light Pollution. Common in almost every city. Go out in the country and you can see almost every star visible in our area.

got a photo to prove it?

It's simple, you need to change exposure settings and leave time for the light to show

there's no reason nasa would want to include stars in photos of the earth

its not a conspiracy, it's camera settings

nasa DO keep secrets, the shape of the earth NOT being one of them

Quote from: dutchy on September 17, 2016, 06:24:49 PM

You do know that NASA admits how those ''blue marble'' pictures are fabrications of considerable varying data collected by different camera sources  ?

Funny how the loaded term "admits" always gets drooled out by NASA-phobes. They can never use word like "explain" or "say"

Quote

Are you doubting NASA and believe this was a single shot from outer space ? They don't and have admitted it by spokesmen of their professional team of photo shoppers.

How about all the images of Earth that are not digital and were taken with a single shot from outer space? NASA or otherwise?

(Psst  - this is where you display your ignorance about stuff, I'm expecting low standards so please don't disappoint me)

I may have low standards at some point, but a low standard is still something.
You NASA fanboys don't have any standard at all when it comes to critical thinking vs NASA, but you accept, believe and defend what ''sky daddy'' NASA says no matter what ........ 
It is not my fault when the NASA photoshop department runs low on proper clouds in their pictures and start re-using them, but it is entirely your fault when such things happen and you still close your eyes for the truth about NASA and their fakery.

I may have low standards at some point, but a low standard is still something.
You NASA fanboys don't have any standard at all when it comes to critical thinking vs NASA, but you accept, believe and defend what ''sky daddy'' NASA says no matter what ........ 
It is not my fault when the NASA photoshop department runs low on proper clouds in their pictures and start re-using them, but it is entirely your fault when such things happen and you still close your eyes for the truth about NASA and their fakery.

Remember the bit where I said 'non-digital'?

No-one has every denied that the image you posted is a composite image taken over a long period of time. NASA explained exactly how they took it - never a secret.

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723

 I have a composite image taken from a balloon over Berlin last weekend. It features bits of rope tethering the balloon disappearing into nothingness thanks to the joys of photomerging. Does that mean I didn't go up in the balloon or that it's fake?

No

Now, you totally met the standards I expected so I'll ask again: what about the non-digital ones. The pre-Photoshop ones?

dude, you're around 3yrs behind in your research.. you're using 'proofs' most flat earthers stopped using a LONG time ago

what's next, you're gonna show us a picture of crepuscular sun rays coming through clouds at an angle and tell us it's just above the clouds?

you may as well do


look, I'm certainly in agreement that nasa DO keep secrets, but the shape of the earth definitely ISNT one of them

if you actually CROSS EXAMINE your evidence, you'll get absolute answers

until you stop WANTING the earth to be flat, you simply won't cross examine.. trust me, I know, I've been there my friend

Remember the bit where I said 'non-digital'?
No-one has every denied that the image you posted is a composite image taken over a long period of time. NASA explained exactly how they took it - never a secret.

 I have a composite image taken from a balloon over Berlin last weekend. It features bits of rope tethering the balloon disappearing into nothingness thanks to the joys of photomerging. Does that mean I didn't go up in the balloon or that it's fake?

No

Now, you totally met the standards I expected so I'll ask again: what about the non-digital ones. The pre-Photoshop ones?

Hahaha, NASA is coming forward about certain things the last decade because people are starting to complain.
It is beyond me how you cannot, will not see this change in direction from NASA, has nothing to do with their initial approach....keep the people dumb.
As if they would ever admit what kind of image doctoring they have done,....if it wasn't because of the increased awareness by the public through the internet.

Dutchy, we already went thorugh that here. It's obviously compression artifacts.

Please, stop your retarded ranting, you just ridicule yourself.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2016, 10:05:40 AM

Remember the bit where I said 'non-digital'?
No-one has every denied that the image you posted is a composite image taken over a long period of time. NASA explained exactly how they took it - never a secret.

 I have a composite image taken from a balloon over Berlin last weekend. It features bits of rope tethering the balloon disappearing into nothingness thanks to the joys of photomerging. Does that mean I didn't go up in the balloon or that it's fake?

No

Now, you totally met the standards I expected so I'll ask again: what about the non-digital ones. The pre-Photoshop ones?

Hahaha, NASA is coming forward about certain things the last decade because people are starting to complain.
It is beyond me how you cannot, will not see this change in direction from NASA, has nothing to do with their initial approach....keep the people dumb.
As if they would ever admit what kind of image doctoring they have done,....if it wasn't because of the increased awareness by the public through the internet.

And the non-digital copy of that I have in a book from 1969?

Dutchy, we already went thorugh that here. It's obviously compression artifacts.

Please, stop your retarded ranting, you just ridicule yourself.

''Ridicule myself '' ? 

The most rediculous thing to do for me is participating on a forum when the only goal is to repeat a fully closeminded view that results in an obnoxious stalemate.
You are here for your daily fun ?
You are teaching the poor and ignorant ?
You are here hiding from an incredible boring life in reality ?
You are a simple worker and have to nod towards your chef for 9 hours each day and flatearthers recieve your wrath and frustrations ? 
And no reality is not owned by you........it is not for you to decide when.....mirages, refraction, obscuring,and now compression artifacts take place......
I am free to decide to eat crap or not....and when the bullshitometer goes to the red zone i am out (current cosmology)..

Why don't you and your spinning friends change the dictionairy ?
Sunset and sundown are clearly old fashioned words from a time humanity obviously didn't know any better. They imply a stationary earth and a sun setting from the east.
 

You are here for your daily fun ?
You are teaching the poor and ignorant ?
You are here hiding from an incredible boring life in reality ?
You are a simple worker and have to nod towards your chef for 9 hours each day and flatearthers recieve your wrath and frustrations ? 

All wrong. But you tried 

Quote

You are here for your daily fun ?
You are teaching the poor and ignorant ?
You are here hiding from an incredible boring life in reality ?
You are a simple worker and have to nod towards your chef for 9 hours each day and flatearthers recieve your wrath and frustrations ? 

All wrong. But you tried 

Darnnnnn,.....and i thought i was good at some stuff.
First you take away my flat plane, then take away my self asteem and now downgrade my ''special senses'' to the level of meaningless guesswork......

Please continue,....I like you for some inexplainable reason...

Quote from: AYellowCat on September 18, 2016, 07:37:30 AM

Quote from: Johnorbital on September 18, 2016, 04:16:47 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2016, 03:35:04 AM

Quote from: setiyotherev on September 18, 2016, 02:41:50 AM

can someone tell me why there's no other satellite? i have read about 13k satellites are evolving our earth.

Satellites can be seen with the naked eye, but there is no reason you should expect to see them in photographs, or swarming around like bees. If you calculate the area in which those satellites can be found based on the surface area of a sphere, yo'd get one satellite for every 44000 square km. Not so many as it sounds.

Quote

and where are the stars?
thanks

Photo exposures too short, though if you look elsewhere on the forum there is a very nice gif showing both stars and satellites.

ahh I see.. the best answer for the 'where's the stars' question is this:







hence that question being a rare one nowadays

Those stars are gone because of Light Pollution. Common in almost every city. Go out in the country and you can see almost every star visible in our area.

got a photo to prove it?

It's simple, you need to change exposure settings and leave time for the light to show

there's no reason nasa would want to include stars in photos of the earth

its not a conspiracy, it's camera settings

nasa DO keep secrets, the shape of the earth NOT being one of them

Yes, go out in the country, far from the city. Look up. You can see stars. Tonight I'll take a picture. You will see some stars. And all the pictures you shown were IN the city. None of them showed out in the country. I live in the Midwest and I see stars all the time in the country

Quote from: dutchy on September 17, 2016, 12:03:35 PM

That the globe by ISS (night city lights) had the wrong curvature compared to the size of Italy and southern Europe.

Citations and maths please.

You do realize where you are, right?

Quote from: dutchy on September 18, 2016, 10:59:27 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2016, 10:05:40 AM

Remember the bit where I said 'non-digital'?
No-one has every denied that the image you posted is a composite image taken over a long period of time. NASA explained exactly how they took it - never a secret.

 I have a composite image taken from a balloon over Berlin last weekend. It features bits of rope tethering the balloon disappearing into nothingness thanks to the joys of photomerging. Does that mean I didn't go up in the balloon or that it's fake?

No

Now, you totally met the standards I expected so I'll ask again: what about the non-digital ones. The pre-Photoshop ones?

Hahaha, NASA is coming forward about certain things the last decade because people are starting to complain.
It is beyond me how you cannot, will not see this change in direction from NASA, has nothing to do with their initial approach....keep the people dumb.
As if they would ever admit what kind of image doctoring they have done,....if it wasn't because of the increased awareness by the public through the internet.

And the non-digital copy of that I have in a book from 1969?

You can't use prints for that kind of testing, prints don't have anywhere near the dynamic range of film.

When I scan print of picture 1, it has low dynamic range. I have a very hard time getting detail out of dark and bright areas.
When I scan negative of picture 1, it has high dynamic range. I can find detail in dark and bright areas easily.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2016, 10:05:40 AM

Remember the bit where I said 'non-digital'?
No-one has every denied that the image you posted is a composite image taken over a long period of time. NASA explained exactly how they took it - never a secret.

 I have a composite image taken from a balloon over Berlin last weekend. It features bits of rope tethering the balloon disappearing into nothingness thanks to the joys of photomerging. Does that mean I didn't go up in the balloon or that it's fake?

No

Now, you totally met the standards I expected so I'll ask again: what about the non-digital ones. The pre-Photoshop ones?

Hahaha, NASA is coming forward about certain things the last decade because people are starting to complain.
It is beyond me how you cannot, will not see this change in direction from NASA, has nothing to do with their initial approach....keep the people dumb.
As if they would ever admit what kind of image doctoring they have done,....if it wasn't because of the increased awareness by the public through the internet.

There are a few options for that result.

1. NASA faked the image.
2. It are compression artifacts.

We can prove it is a compression artifact by:

1. Taking a picture with similar characteristics and resizing it down, changing it to low-quality  JPG and changing the curves. You will get the same result.
2. Or download a raw, unedited TIFF file of the same photo you just showed us in JPG. If you change curves in the TIFF photo, you will not see the artifacts. When you resize this TIFF and change it to a low quality JPG, you will see the artifacts.

This does add proof to our theory of it being just compression artifacts.

Honestly, If the earth is really flat, why don't some flat earther go in space, take pictures, and then bring them back to prove Earth is flat?

Oh wait, no because there's a giant glass dome around earth that projects the day and night...

Honestly, If the earth is really flat, why don't some flat earther go in space, take pictures, and then bring them back to prove Earth is flat?

Oh wait, no because there's a giant glass dome around earth that projects the day and night...

No matter, they can still shoot a rocket up there and take pictures of a flat earth and a dome. They can also shoot a rocket up with some kind of lander I guess, and they can walk around against the dome with rovers.

Hell, they can even shoot a rocket against the dome... filming that would surely grant them some evidence.


Oh
waitno

This has never be done by any flat earther at all, they refuse to fund rockets for this.
I guess they aren't confident enough?

Quote from: AYellowCat on September 18, 2016, 04:09:12 PM

Honestly, If the earth is really flat, why don't some flat earther go in space, take pictures, and then bring them back to prove Earth is flat?

Oh wait, no because there's a giant glass dome around earth that projects the day and night...

No matter, they can still shoot a rocket up there and take pictures of a flat earth and a dome. They can also shoot a rocket up with some kind of lander I guess, and they can walk around against the dome with rovers.

Hell, they can even shoot a rocket against the dome... filming that would surely grant them some evidence.


Oh
waitno

This has never be done by any flat earther at all, they refuse to fund rockets for this.
I guess they aren't confident enough?

Then that is pathetic. If they really want to prove us wrong, then they can just go fly a rocket to the dome... At this point I feel like they dont want to admit they are wrong..

...
the flat earth community ridicule this forum, it's just a breeding ground for new theories, thought up by flat earth beginners who don't have any solid answers

welcome! lol

Yes.
Welcome.

And now: Flat Earth Community can ridicule this forum as much as they want,
but Eric Dubai's claims are even worse than many of claims here.

Here some people try to explain why you can't see Polaris from southern hemisphere.
Eric says "you can see it".
Anyone who lives in southern hemisphere knows he's blatantly lying.
And he's lying about many other things.

But he doesn't care. It's just business for him.
He just says what Flat Earthers want to hear, and sells books,
collects subscribers and money from ads, and so on...

And he's not the only one.

You can't use prints for that kind of testing, prints don't have anywhere near the dynamic range of film.

When I scan print of picture 1, it has low dynamic range. I have a very hard time getting detail out of dark and bright areas.
When I scan negative of picture 1, it has high dynamic range. I can find detail in dark and bright areas easily.

I know what you're saying, but that's not quite what I'm saying - my point is that the copy I have in my contemporary publications have not been anywhere near photoshop, or a scanner.

If anyone wants to try your other point about uncompressed TIF images, they can prove it for themselves with a nice 47Mb one here:

https://archive.org/details/AS11-44-6642

It is not my fault when the NASA photoshop department runs low on proper clouds in their pictures and start re-using them, but it is entirely your fault when such things happen and you still close your eyes for the truth about NASA and their fakery.

A quest for you. Find out how the above image was made. Was it a single shot? Or was it a composite image stiched from thousands of pictures from low orbit?

Quote from: dutchy on September 18, 2016, 09:57:59 AM

It is not my fault when the NASA photoshop department runs low on proper clouds in their pictures and start re-using them, but it is entirely your fault when such things happen and you still close your eyes for the truth about NASA and their fakery.

A quest for you. Find out how the above image was made. Was it a single shot? Or was it a composite image stiched from thousands of pictures from low orbit?

A good question: Why would NASA lie in the first place? If they really did fake it during the space race, someone would spill the tea eventually. And claiming that NASA was founded by Nazis and is satanic is just IQ dropping. That one post about someone turning the NASA logo is highly cheap and looks cliche for a movie.

I'm not saying NASA doesn't keep secrets, they're a government organization, of course they do. But being literal demons? No... just no.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2016, 10:05:40 AM

Remember the bit where I said 'non-digital'?
No-one has every denied that the image you posted is a composite image taken over a long period of time. NASA explained exactly how they took it - never a secret.

 I have a composite image taken from a balloon over Berlin last weekend. It features bits of rope tethering the balloon disappearing into nothingness thanks to the joys of photomerging. Does that mean I didn't go up in the balloon or that it's fake?

No

Now, you totally met the standards I expected so I'll ask again: what about the non-digital ones. The pre-Photoshop ones?

Hahaha, NASA is coming forward about certain things the last decade because people are starting to complain.
It is beyond me how you cannot, will not see this change in direction from NASA, has nothing to do with their initial approach....keep the people dumb.
As if they would ever admit what kind of image doctoring they have done,....if it wasn't because of the increased awareness by the public through the internet.

I have to ask again--with all the money and work NASA is putting into this "conspiracy"...could no one be bothered to actually cut out the shape of the earth?  They just cut a big rectangle around it, slap it down, and hope no one notices?

Quote from: Johnorbital on September 18, 2016, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: AYellowCat on September 18, 2016, 07:37:30 AM

Quote from: Johnorbital on September 18, 2016, 04:16:47 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2016, 03:35:04 AM

Quote from: setiyotherev on September 18, 2016, 02:41:50 AM

can someone tell me why there's no other satellite? i have read about 13k satellites are evolving our earth.

Satellites can be seen with the naked eye, but there is no reason you should expect to see them in photographs, or swarming around like bees. If you calculate the area in which those satellites can be found based on the surface area of a sphere, yo'd get one satellite for every 44000 square km. Not so many as it sounds.

Quote

and where are the stars?
thanks

Photo exposures too short, though if you look elsewhere on the forum there is a very nice gif showing both stars and satellites.

ahh I see.. the best answer for the 'where's the stars' question is this:







hence that question being a rare one nowadays

Those stars are gone because of Light Pollution. Common in almost every city. Go out in the country and you can see almost every star visible in our area.

got a photo to prove it?

It's simple, you need to change exposure settings and leave time for the light to show

there's no reason nasa would want to include stars in photos of the earth

its not a conspiracy, it's camera settings

nasa DO keep secrets, the shape of the earth NOT being one of them

Yes, go out in the country, far from the city. Look up. You can see stars. Tonight I'll take a picture. You will see some stars. And all the pictures you shown were IN the city. None of them showed out in the country. I live in the Midwest and I see stars all the time in the country

I have done, I've posted 2 pics in another thread, I took them from Northumberland UK, at one of the best stargazing spots in the UK, I camped there for 5 days

- one night the sky was beautifully filled with stars, I took a picture with my 16mp camera.. nothing at all showed up
- another night, Jupiter was really bright, with an average amount of stars around it, again I took a picture, all I saw was Jupiter, blackness surrounding it

so I Google how to get a better photo, it explained you need to leave the exposure going for longer, and it proceeded to explain WHY you NEVER see stars in skyline photos unless taken with specific exposure settings

Quote from: AYellowCat on September 18, 2016, 01:42:02 PM

Quote from: Johnorbital on September 18, 2016, 09:18:08 AM

Quote from: AYellowCat on September 18, 2016, 07:37:30 AM

Quote from: Johnorbital on September 18, 2016, 04:16:47 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2016, 03:35:04 AM

Quote from: setiyotherev on September 18, 2016, 02:41:50 AM

can someone tell me why there's no other satellite? i have read about 13k satellites are evolving our earth.

Satellites can be seen with the naked eye, but there is no reason you should expect to see them in photographs, or swarming around like bees. If you calculate the area in which those satellites can be found based on the surface area of a sphere, yo'd get one satellite for every 44000 square km. Not so many as it sounds.

Quote

and where are the stars?
thanks

Photo exposures too short, though if you look elsewhere on the forum there is a very nice gif showing both stars and satellites.

ahh I see.. the best answer for the 'where's the stars' question is this:







hence that question being a rare one nowadays

Those stars are gone because of Light Pollution. Common in almost every city. Go out in the country and you can see almost every star visible in our area.

got a photo to prove it?

It's simple, you need to change exposure settings and leave time for the light to show

there's no reason nasa would want to include stars in photos of the earth

its not a conspiracy, it's camera settings

nasa DO keep secrets, the shape of the earth NOT being one of them

Yes, go out in the country, far from the city. Look up. You can see stars. Tonight I'll take a picture. You will see some stars. And all the pictures you shown were IN the city. None of them showed out in the country. I live in the Midwest and I see stars all the time in the country

I have done, I've posted 2 pics in another thread, I took them from Northumberland UK, at one of the best stargazing spots in the UK, I camped there for 5 days

- one night the sky was beautifully filled with stars, I took a picture with my 16mp camera.. nothing at all showed up
- another night, Jupiter was really bright, with an average amount of stars around it, again I took a picture, all I saw was Jupiter, blackness surrounding it

so I Google how to get a better photo, it explained you need to leave the exposure going for longer, and it proceeded to explain WHY you NEVER see stars in skyline photos unless taken with specific exposure settings

I mean, I hope you're not saying that there's no such thing as stars.

yeah we may have crossed wires, I'm definitely on the 'the earth is a globe and the universe is beautiful' side of the fence