NASA lies

Their globe of earth, it is a photoshop rendition put together by satellite data according to what the globe creator thinks the earth should look like:



"It is photoshopped, but, but it has to be!"

I love how people like to use loaded terms like "admits", as if it had to be forced out of him and somehow NASA was pretending that the main image in the video was anything other than a composite. It was always stated to be a composite of several images. Only eye rolling dullards claim otherwise. I guess "Photo is what it was always claimed to be" doesn't quite as good when you're trying to get clickbait.

The NASA technician also doesn't say that all images from space are photoshop cgi, and just because images have been generated on a computer it doesn't mean that they aren't showing genuine stuff. If you go to my own page that I linked to above I show you how to generate your own photos from image data, are those fake? People bleating out this shit need to realise that photoshop is an industry standard photo editor. Not every image that passes through photoshop is faked. All of my holiday snaps go through photoshop, it doesn't mean I didn't go on holiday.

The first images from space were done on film, not digital. They did not go anywhere near photoshop.

So, still no proven lies.

 "it just means many real pictures have been pasted alongside each other."

It is not a real picture of earth, that is the point! "It is photoshopped, but, but it has to be." You know why, because earth is not a spinning speeding ball. I'm sure you saw my "conclusive proof" thread right? There is your chance to provide the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports your worldview.

"it just means many real pictures have been pasted alongside each other."

It is not a real picture of earth, that is the point! "It is photoshopped, but, but it has to be." You know why, because earth is not a spinning speeding ball. I'm sure you saw my "conclusive proof" thread right? There is your chance to provide the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports your worldview.

It is a series of real pictures put together.  There was no lie there they came out and said it.

We have yet to see a map or a photograph of the so-called "flat earth." Composite, photoshopped or whatever.

You might just as well say that all the navies in the world are liars because they say they don't use flat maps, or charts, made from a flat earth map, but use flat maps, or charts, made from projections of the globe.

Single photo of earth, no composite or photoshop

Single photo of earth, no composite or photoshop

Where'd you get that picture from if you don't mind me asking?

Single photo of earth, no composite or photoshop

FE would probably say it's fake.....
Because:
(1) It's a photograph
(2) Photographs are fakes
(3) The continents are fakes
(4) The oceans are fakes
(5) The clouds are fakes
(6) It's a fake because it only shows half of the earth
(7) It's a fake because it doesn't show the ice ring
And probably for some other "reasons" , too.......

At least a few reasons why there is no photograph of a "flat earth" might be:
Space travel is impossible in the first place
Even it was possible, you couldn't get high enough to take a picture because you would bump into the dome
You might bump into the moon, the sun and/or the stars under the dome, too

Quote from: frenat on February 13, 2017, 08:43:41 AM

Single photo of earth, no composite or photoshop

Where'd you get that picture from if you don't mind me asking?

the internet.  It is a vast inter connected network of computers.

The pic is from Apollo 17, taken on film.

Water on Nasa's globe: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=WAhCJ5Rd&id=F94711B43FD0B90A0EFDD2E2A3974F4DB2EA13C0&q=nasa+globe+pictures&simid=608041008228532992&selectedIndex=0&qpvt=nasa+globe+pictures&ajaxhist=0

Water on earth: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=51eD629h&id=9567A0DFFC2A356D822E40197649724713D3E27A&q=calm+ocean+waters&simid=608003813823024365&selectedIndex=23&ajaxhist=0

Notice the horizon left to right is always flat, it never shows a curvature, no matter how many miles are shown left to right.

Water on Nasa's globe: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=WAhCJ5Rd&id=F94711B43FD0B90A0EFDD2E2A3974F4DB2EA13C0&q=nasa+globe+pictures&simid=608041008228532992&selectedIndex=0&qpvt=nasa+globe+pictures&ajaxhist=0

Water on earth: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=51eD629h&id=9567A0DFFC2A356D822E40197649724713D3E27A&q=calm+ocean+waters&simid=608003813823024365&selectedIndex=23&ajaxhist=0

Notice the horizon left to right is always flat, it never shows a curvature, no matter how many miles are shown left to right.

Exactly as you'd expect with a globe that size when viewing from sea level. 

Water on Nasa's globe: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=WAhCJ5Rd&id=F94711B43FD0B90A0EFDD2E2A3974F4DB2EA13C0&q=nasa+globe+pictures&simid=608041008228532992&selectedIndex=0&qpvt=nasa+globe+pictures&ajaxhist=0

Water on earth: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=51eD629h&id=9567A0DFFC2A356D822E40197649724713D3E27A&q=calm+ocean+waters&simid=608003813823024365&selectedIndex=23&ajaxhist=0

Notice the horizon left to right is always flat, it never shows a curvature, no matter how many miles are shown left to right.

Notice how the horizon is a sharp edge?  That would not happen on a flat earth.  Notice how the sun is not shrinking in size as it moves away?  That's what would happen on a flat earth.
Notice how no one has produced a single provable lie from NASA?

Frenat- "The pic is from Apollo 17, taken on film."

It is NASA's 2007 photoshopped globe.

Quote from: dyl000 on February 13, 2017, 08:56:25 AM

Quote from: frenat on February 13, 2017, 08:43:41 AM

Single photo of earth, no composite or photoshop

Where'd you get that picture from if you don't mind me asking?

the internet.  It is a vast inter connected network of computers.

The pic is from Apollo 17, taken on film.

FE answer.:
 It's a fake. The picture doesn't exist. Space travel doesn't exist. Apollo 17 didn't exist. Film doesn't exist. It's just a pretty painting drawn by those evil liars and satan worshipping devils staff of artists at NASA.

Frenat- "Exactly as you'd expect with a globe that size when viewing from sea level."

Yep, flat straight across, because water always levels off across its surface, it does not curve. There has to be what, 50/75 miles left to right, where is the curvature? 

Frenat- "The pic is from Apollo 17, taken on film."

It is NASA's 2007 photoshopped globe.

Nope.  That is from Apollo 17.  check the image link.  1972.  I can link another source if you like.  I am POSITIVE that is from Apollo 17.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/blue-marble-image-of-the-earth-from-apollo-17

Frenat- "Exactly as you'd expect with a globe that size when viewing from sea level."

Yep, flat straight across, because water always levels off across its surface, it does not curve. There has to be what, 50/75 miles left to right, where is the curvature?

the horizon is the same distance from the observer on the left as it is in the center as it is on the right.  There should be none in that case.
the curvature is what causes the sharp horizon calculable only from height of the observer.

Quote from: Lykus on February 12, 2017, 10:34:23 AM

Everyone ist talking about NASA but what about ESA?

Or JAXA, or ISRO, or Roscosmos...

All the rest of the world's space agencies are merely subsidiaries of NASA.

Quote from: physical observer on February 13, 2017, 09:32:20 AM

Frenat- "Exactly as you'd expect with a globe that size when viewing from sea level."

Yep, flat straight across, because water always levels off across its surface, it does not curve. There has to be what, 50/75 miles left to right, where is the curvature?

the horizon is the same distance from the observer on the left as it is in the center as it is on the right.  There should be none in that case.
the curvature is what causes the sharp horizon calculable only from height of the observer.

physical observer: watch this video and learn:

Frenat- "The pic is from Apollo 17, taken on film."

It is NASA's 2007 photoshopped globe.

As has been said, it's a photograph from 1972. I have many examples of it that predate not just Photoshop but graphics cards and the internet. I can point you at the satellite images that match the weather patterns, not to mention the 16mm footage of the same weather systems taken after Apollo 17 left Earth orbit.

Not all photographs are digital.

Their globe of earth, it is a photoshop rendition put together by satellite data according to what the globe creator thinks the earth should look like:



"It is photoshopped, but, but it has to be!"

Do you mean the composite image compiled from images taken from low altitude aircraft which cannot take a picture of the full disc?
If so, yes, it has to be "photoshopped"
But that is not the same as fake.
It is a composite, where they take many images and stitch them together.

This isn't a lie at all. It is explained quite well by them.
There is no need to go searching for evidence it is fake. They stated quite explicitly what it was and how it was made.

Where have they ever passed it off as a single photo rather than a composite?

We also have plenty of non-photoshopped images, which were taken from far enough away to show the full disc.

Water on Nasa's globe:

Water on earth:

Notice the horizon left to right is always flat, it never shows a curvature, no matter how many miles are shown left to right.

You are aware both are of water on Earth?

Yes, I notice that the horizon appears to be flat. That is because you are viewing such a tiny image of it. Would you like me to make some pictures for you to demonstrate that?

How about this, find me a picture showing 12 000 km of horizon which still shows the water on Earth being flat. Note: The image must have a FOV of 30 degrees or less. No fish eye lenses or the like.

Frenat- "The pic is from Apollo 17, taken on film."

It is NASA's 2007 photoshopped globe.

You may be right.

Perhaps you will be happier with this one:

Yep, flat straight across, because water always levels off across its surface, it does not curve. There has to be what, 50/75 miles left to right, where is the curvature?

Nope. Water will naturally form into a sphere without any external influences. That is because of surface tension.

The reason it "flattens out" is due to gravity.
Basically water will try and go to the same gravitational potential.
If part of it is higher it will get pulled down by gravity.

If Earth is a globe (which it is), then these contours will be roughly spherical, and thus the surface of water will be a sphere.

You are not viewing a great circle of Earth.
Instead you are viewing a horizon which is equally distant from you, and thus would have the same angle of elevation, which will be slightly below eye-level.

How about instead of complaining that there is no curvature observed you tell us exactly how much curvature there should be observed, explaining exactly how you figured that out, and tell us how many pixels that would be.

And 75 miles is nothing compared to the 6400 km radius of Earth.

Frenat- "Exactly as you'd expect with a globe that size when viewing from sea level."

Yep, flat straight across, because water always levels off across its surface, it does not curve. There has to be what, 50/75 miles left to right, where is the curvature?

An example of why that picture is useless:
Lets say it is 75 miles, even though there is no reason at all to think that.
Lets say somehow it is magically a picture of a great circle, rather than the horizon being equally distant.
Lets also use the simple formula of the bulge being 8 inches per mile squared.
The distance from the centre to the edge would be 75/2 miles or 37.5 miles. That squared is 1406.25 miles squared. That means the bulge should be a height of 11250 inches.
That is ~ 0.18 miles.

The picture is 604 pixels wide, and 75 miles wide.
That means each pixel is ~8 miles, or each mile is ~ 0.124 pixels.

That means this bulge of 0.18 miles would correspond to ~ 0.18 miles * 0.124 pixels per mile, or 0.022 pixels.

So best case scenario based upon what you have said, you are asking us to find a bulge which is less than 10th of a pixel.

I'm not sure if you know how digital images work, but that is impossible.
The best case scenario for the limit of detection would be the horizon having the same y position at the left and right edge and being one pixel higher in the middle.
But that is much larger than what we have and would require a bulge of roughly 8 miles.

Even if you use an incorrect method, and try to find the buldge from left to right, that is still only 0.71 miles and thus only ~0.09 pixels, still far too little to be able to detect.
Or to put it another way, the 2 are the same within error.
The observed curvature is within error of the expected curvature, considering the observed curvature is 0 plus or minus 8 miles. 0.71 fits well within that error range, but so does 0.

And like I said, this is assuming you are seeing the great circle.
In reality, that great circle is beyond the horizon except for the point in the middle, so you would actually expect even less of a bulge. The math to figure out exactly how much is somewhat complicated and dependent on FOV of the camera/eye.

Now do you see the issue with these images and how they don't actually demonstrate no curvature?

Water on Nasa's globe: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=WAhCJ5Rd&id=F94711B43FD0B90A0EFDD2E2A3974F4DB2EA13C0&q=nasa+globe+pictures&simid=608041008228532992&selectedIndex=0&qpvt=nasa+globe+pictures&ajaxhist=0

Water on earth: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=51eD629h&id=9567A0DFFC2A356D822E40197649724713D3E27A&q=calm+ocean+waters&simid=608003813823024365&selectedIndex=23&ajaxhist=0

Notice the horizon left to right is always flat, it never shows a curvature, no matter how many miles are shown left to right.

From sea level, the horizon is the of the Globe must be precisely flat left-to-right. Just think about it.
If the earth is a Globe it looks exactly the same whichever direction you look.
Imagine you are in a small boat in a large calm lake with your eye-level 6 feet above the water.
Whichever direction you look the horizon will always be 3 miles away and near enough to level, so whichever way you turn the horizon is at exactly the same level.

Whatever your altitude, the horizon will always be exactly the same distance away and very, very slightly below a true horizontal at eye-level.

What you are always doing is looking at a slight downward angle on a very large circle about your location.
When this down angle (dip angle as it is called) gets large enough we can see a slight curve. Depending on the field of view this is claimed to be anywhere from about 50,000 to 90,000 feet.

This video entitled "Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon" explains this better than I can.
Have a look if you like.

Quote from: physical observer on February 13, 2017, 09:32:20 AM

Frenat- "Exactly as you'd expect with a globe that size when viewing from sea level."

Yep, flat straight across, because water always levels off across its surface, it does not curve. There has to be what, 50/75 miles left to right, where is the curvature?

An example of why that picture is useless:
Lets say it is 75 miles, even though there is no reason at all to think that.
Lets say somehow it is magically a picture of a great circle, rather than the horizon being equally distant.
Lets also use the simple formula of the bulge being 8 inches per mile squared.
The distance from the centre to the edge would be 75/2 miles or 37.5 miles. That squared is 1406.25 miles squared. That means the bulge should be a height of 11250 inches.
That is ~ 0.18 miles.

The picture is 604 pixels wide, and 75 miles wide.
That means each pixel is ~8 miles, or each mile is ~ 0.124 pixels.

That means this bulge of 0.18 miles would correspond to ~ 0.18 miles * 0.124 pixels per mile, or 0.022 pixels.

So best case scenario based upon what you have said, you are asking us to find a bulge which is less than 10th of a pixel.

I'm not sure if you know how digital images work, but that is impossible.
The best case scenario for the limit of detection would be the horizon having the same y position at the left and right edge and being one pixel higher in the middle.
But that is much larger than what we have and would require a bulge of roughly 8 miles.

Even if you use an incorrect method, and try to find the buldge from left to right, that is still only 0.71 miles and thus only ~0.09 pixels, still far too little to be able to detect.
Or to put it another way, the 2 are the same within error.
The observed curvature is within error of the expected curvature, considering the observed curvature is 0 plus or minus 8 miles. 0.71 fits well within that error range, but so does 0.

And like I said, this is assuming you are seeing the great circle.
In reality, that great circle is beyond the horizon except for the point in the middle, so you would actually expect even less of a bulge. The math to figure out exactly how much is somewhat complicated and dependent on FOV of the camera/eye.

Now do you see the issue with these images and how they don't actually demonstrate no curvature?

Good post.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 13, 2017, 01:04:22 PM

Quote from: physical observer on February 13, 2017, 09:32:20 AM

Frenat- "Exactly as you'd expect with a globe that size when viewing from sea level."

Yep, flat straight across, because water always levels off across its surface, it does not curve. There has to be what, 50/75 miles left to right, where is the curvature?

An example of why that picture is useless:
Lets say it is 75 miles, even though there is no reason at all to think that.
Lets say somehow it is magically a picture of a great circle, rather than the horizon being equally distant.
Lets also use the simple formula of the bulge being 8 inches per mile squared.
The distance from the centre to the edge would be 75/2 miles or 37.5 miles. That squared is 1406.25 miles squared. That means the bulge should be a height of 11250 inches.
That is ~ 0.18 miles.

The picture is 604 pixels wide, and 75 miles wide.
That means each pixel is ~8 miles, or each mile is ~ 0.124 pixels.

That means this bulge of 0.18 miles would correspond to ~ 0.18 miles * 0.124 pixels per mile, or 0.022 pixels.

So best case scenario based upon what you have said, you are asking us to find a bulge which is less than 10th of a pixel.

I'm not sure if you know how digital images work, but that is impossible.
The best case scenario for the limit of detection would be the horizon having the same y position at the left and right edge and being one pixel higher in the middle.
But that is much larger than what we have and would require a bulge of roughly 8 miles.

Even if you use an incorrect method, and try to find the buldge from left to right, that is still only 0.71 miles and thus only ~0.09 pixels, still far too little to be able to detect.
Or to put it another way, the 2 are the same within error.
The observed curvature is within error of the expected curvature, considering the observed curvature is 0 plus or minus 8 miles. 0.71 fits well within that error range, but so does 0.

And like I said, this is assuming you are seeing the great circle.
In reality, that great circle is beyond the horizon except for the point in the middle, so you would actually expect even less of a bulge. The math to figure out exactly how much is somewhat complicated and dependent on FOV of the camera/eye.

Now do you see the issue with these images and how they don't actually demonstrate no curvature?

Good post.

Thanks.

Single photo of earth, no composite or photoshop

So fake and ***, lol. Big Blue Marble  is a fairytale for kids.

Ah right, hoppy says so. Must be right then. Never mind the 16mm footage showing the same scene



Never mind the weather satellite records that show the weather systems matching what's in the view



http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a17/ch4_9_1a.html

Never mind the other photos taken at that time that show the weather systems developing as the Earth rotates



Hoppy says so.

Quote from: frenat on February 13, 2017, 08:43:41 AM

Single photo of earth, no composite or photoshop

So fake and ***, lol. Big Blue Marble  is a fairytale for kids.

Do you have any reason to think it is fake at all?
Or do you just dismiss everything that goes against your delusions as being fake?

All the evidence points to it being real. None points to it being fake.

So no one can produce a single provable NASA lie?

"it just means many real pictures have been pasted alongside each other."

It is not a real picture of earth, that is the point! "It is photoshopped, but, but it has to be." You know why, because earth is not a spinning speeding ball. I'm sure you saw my "conclusive proof" thread right? There is your chance to provide the physical clues/signs/evidence from earth's physical condition that supports your worldview.

So you don't have any examples of provable lies from NASA?
Yeah, I saw your conclusive proof thread.  I saw your proof debunked like a dozen times.  You simply dismiss anything that proves you wrong.
Now, about those nasa lies....anything?