Proof earth is a globe... SERIOUSLY... from 2017 Solar eclipse.

You can see the ISS go in front of the sun during the eclipse.  DEBUNK THIS!
3:32 - Regular Speed
3:51 - SLO-MO

Here another photograph from the ISS


The ISS is the size of an American football field and orbits at a height of 400 km.


One of the mountains in the distance of the worldrecord long distance photography is Pic Gaspard at 443 km.
The Pic Gaspard is 3867 m tall...if the ISS would fly above this mountain for size comparison it would be an invisible dot....simply to small.

In all photographic examples from earth the size of the ISS is still very present, while the mountains that are supposedly 25-40 times larger are the WORLD RECORD for long distance photography.
What is the trickery when photographing the ISS ? And i am not talking about a sharp picture due to atmospheric refraction, but SIZE of the observed objects...!!

Obviously CGI fakery!

Any normal person can tell.

You can tell by the pixels.

What is the trickery when photographing the ISS ? And i am not talking about a sharp picture due to atmospheric refraction, but SIZE of the observed objects...!!

I'm no photographer, but I feel fairly sure the 'trickery' you speak of has something to do with magnification.

What is the trickery when photographing the ISS ? And i am not talking about a sharp picture due to atmospheric refraction, but SIZE of the observed objects...!!

A revolutionary concept called "zooming in".

Do the math. The ISS is 72 meters long, 400000m away. Its angular size is about 0.01 degrees. The angular diameter of the sun is about 0.53 degrees. So it should look roughly 53 times shorter than the Sun's diameter. *Checks to see if it looks like that in the picture* yep, seems about right to me.

Here another photograph from of the ISS

*sigh*

Quote from: dutchy on September 04, 2017, 12:29:00 PM

What is the trickery when photographing the ISS ? And i am not talking about a sharp picture due to atmospheric refraction, but SIZE of the observed objects...!!

A revolutionary concept called "zooming in".

Do the math. The ISS is 72 meters long, 400000m away. Its angular size is about 0.01 degrees. The angular diameter of the sun is about 0.53 degrees. So it should look roughly 53 times shorter than the Sun's diameter. *Checks to see if it looks like that in the picture* yep, seems about right to me.

Of course i understand that !
But i want to know why the worldrecord zooming in on long distances seems to capture less substance of the objects in the distance.
The mountains are 25-40 times taller than the ISS ,but some are extremely small on that worldrecord photograph. Imagine the ISS above the mountain and it could not be photographed.
Unless of course this isn't the worldrecord and people can zoom in even further....

It was a simple question, ....just curiousity

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2017, 01:38:07 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 04, 2017, 12:29:00 PM

What is the trickery when photographing the ISS ? And i am not talking about a sharp picture due to atmospheric refraction, but SIZE of the observed objects...!!

A revolutionary concept called "zooming in".

Do the math. The ISS is 72 meters long, 400000m away. Its angular size is about 0.01 degrees. The angular diameter of the sun is about 0.53 degrees. So it should look roughly 53 times shorter than the Sun's diameter. *Checks to see if it looks like that in the picture* yep, seems about right to me.

Of course i understand that !
But i want to know why the worldrecord zooming in on long distances seems to capture less substance of the objects in the distance.
The mountains are 25-40 times taller than the ISS ,but some are extremely small on that worldrecord photograph. Imagine the ISS above the mountain and it could not be photographed.
Unless of course this isn't the worldrecord and people can zoom in even further....

It was a simple question, ....just curiousity

I would hazard a guess it's due to 2 things. The first is simply the quality of what's being used to zoom in. Camera's generally don't have as powerful optics as you find on telescopes to my knowledge. They are, after all, not normally used to photograph things hundreds and even thousands of km distant. Secondly, looking up at the ISS, there is a LOT less atmosphere to get through compared to looking at that mountain. Even FE agrees air isn't perfectly clear. I would think the first has more to do with it than the second though. But assuming same camera, the second could be the deciding factor.

Can't quite see, but there looks like there is a Sigma 150-600, a Canon maybe 500mm and a couple of astro scopes, which could be serious focal lengths, prob in the region of 1000 to 2000mm focal length. Generally the human eye is reckoned to be about 50mm so you can work out zoom factors from that. Longest I have shot with was a 600mm astro scope with 2X teleconverter making it about 1200mm f16. Serious length

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2017, 01:38:07 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 04, 2017, 12:29:00 PM

What is the trickery when photographing the ISS ? And i am not talking about a sharp picture due to atmospheric refraction, but SIZE of the observed objects...!!

A revolutionary concept called "zooming in".

Do the math. The ISS is 72 meters long, 400000m away. Its angular size is about 0.01 degrees. The angular diameter of the sun is about 0.53 degrees. So it should look roughly 53 times shorter than the Sun's diameter. *Checks to see if it looks like that in the picture* yep, seems about right to me.

Of course i understand that !
But i want to know why the worldrecord zooming in on long distances seems to capture less substance of the objects in the distance.
The mountains are 25-40 times taller than the ISS ,but some are extremely small on that worldrecord photograph. Imagine the ISS above the mountain and it could not be photographed.
Unless of course this isn't the worldrecord and people can zoom in even further....

That photograph doesn't look greatly magnified at all. What "world record" does it hold? Citation..?

Plenty of amateur astronomers use DSLRs with converters on astroscopes, problem with focal lengths like those is small apertures requiring long exposures or high ISO. A Nikon D5 with 4k video, 20.8 MP and up to 3,280,000 ISO is serious kit at £5,000 would handle it. The Nikon p900 people tend to like is 24mm-2000mm, but even with its 5 stop vibration reduction would still be damn difficult to hand hold a shot without camera shake and at 2000mm it would be a small aperture so don't expect anything turning out at night. £500 but no where near the D5

The camera stuff aside I find it amazing they determined at what location to be and timed the ISS path and trajectory to the millisecond.
I ask the FErs how could they do a prediction like that if the ISS was just a balloon doing holographic projections? Or whatever ways the FE believe NASA fakes the ISS?

When somebody challenges your assertation, and your response is "because science is super precise and super accurate and technology is sufficiently advanced that your small mind can't understand it" flat earthers just laugh at you.

When somebody challenges your assertation, and your response is "because science is super precise and super accurate and technology is sufficiently advanced that your small mind can't understand it" flat earthers just laugh at you.

Yeah, small minds like to laugh at things that they can't understand.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2017, 01:38:07 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 04, 2017, 12:29:00 PM

What is the trickery when photographing the ISS ? And i am not talking about a sharp picture due to atmospheric refraction, but SIZE of the observed objects...!!

A revolutionary concept called "zooming in".

Do the math. The ISS is 72 meters long, 400000m away. Its angular size is about 0.01 degrees. The angular diameter of the sun is about 0.53 degrees. So it should look roughly 53 times shorter than the Sun's diameter. *Checks to see if it looks like that in the picture* yep, seems about right to me.

Of course i understand that !
But i want to know why the worldrecord zooming in on long distances seems to capture less substance of the objects in the distance.
The mountains are 25-40 times taller than the ISS ,but some are extremely small on that worldrecord photograph. Imagine the ISS above the mountain and it could not be photographed.
Unless of course this isn't the worldrecord and people can zoom in even further....

It was a simple question, ....just curiousity

A simple question with a simple answer that confirms the earth is a globe. First of all, the record is for distance, not zoom. They are different, and you should learn the difference. Establishing that, the distance an object can be photographed on earth is limited by the curvature of our globe. As such, the "world record" relies on photographing tall things like mountains, and under specific circumstances that maximise refraction. The amount of atmosphere between photographer and mountain peaks with these long distances will naturally impact resolution. No such problems exist zooming in on and photographing the ISS.

Quote from: The Troll God on September 04, 2017, 05:24:20 PM

When somebody challenges your assertation, and your response is "because science is super precise and super accurate and technology is sufficiently advanced that your small mind can't understand it" flat earthers just laugh at you.

Yeah, small minds like to laugh at things that they can't understand.

hahahahahahahaha


oh wait.....

Quote from: The Troll God on September 04, 2017, 05:24:20 PM

When somebody challenges your assertation, and your response is "because science is super precise and super accurate and technology is sufficiently advanced that your small mind can't understand it" flat earthers just laugh at you.

Yeah, small minds like to laugh at things that they can't understand.

 

Being a round-earther really is just always repeating the mantra "you're too stupid to realize that I am correct."

Meaning round earth cannot even win a grade school debate.

Think about that.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 04, 2017, 01:38:07 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 04, 2017, 12:29:00 PM

What is the trickery when photographing the ISS ? And i am not talking about a sharp picture due to atmospheric refraction, but SIZE of the observed objects...!!

A revolutionary concept called "zooming in".

Do the math. The ISS is 72 meters long, 400000m away. Its angular size is about 0.01 degrees. The angular diameter of the sun is about 0.53 degrees. So it should look roughly 53 times shorter than the Sun's diameter. *Checks to see if it looks like that in the picture* yep, seems about right to me.

Of course i understand that !
But i want to know why the worldrecord zooming in on long distances seems to capture less substance of the objects in the distance.
The mountains are 25-40 times taller than the ISS ,but some are extremely small on that worldrecord photograph. Imagine the ISS above the mountain and it could not be photographed.
Unless of course this isn't the worldrecord and people can zoom in even further....

It was a simple question, ....just curiousity

No trickery! No-one ever claimed "worldrecord zooming". Read the relevant website:

By    Marc Bret (Beyond Horizons team)
Camera    Panasonic Lumix FZ72 @ ISO100 – 1/250
Lens    Integrated Zoom @ 1200 mm – f./2.8
Date    July 16th 2016

That 1200 mm is by no means a record zoom. 
The camera I use is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60, not quite up to the FZ72 but, has optical zoom to 720 mm and digital zoom to 2880 mm.
The Nikon Coolpix D900's 83x optical zoom lens has optical zoom to 2000 mm.

No, that Marc Bret photo is world record distance, not "worldrecord zooming".

Being a round-earther really is just always repeating the mantra "you're too stupid to realize that I am correct."

Meaning round earth cannot even win a grade school debate.

Think about that.

really? What I see it people explaining why dutchy was wrong.

You seem to have proven that you a Troll Globe supporter with

Quote from: The Troll God on September 01, 2017, 05:54:53 PM

Yet round earth believers post all day.

Since you ask "Why are there no flat earth believers on this forum?" I assume that you are not a flat earth believer either, nice to know.

I guess that you are implying that you "cannot even win a grade school debate" either.

And now the circle of crap has been established.

Sincerity is the ultimate troll, fam. Nobody ever sees it coming.

But i want to know why the worldrecord zooming in on long distances seems to capture less substance of the objects in the distance.
The mountains are 25-40 times taller than the ISS ,but some are extremely small on that worldrecord photograph. Imagine the ISS above the mountain and it could not be photographed.
Unless of course this isn't the worldrecord and people can zoom in even further....

    and how flat earthers explain why we don't see things very far away on ground but we see sun and stars. So, if earth is flat then why don't we see entire mountain clearly and even more. Why don't we see over Atlantic ocean. And why we can't zoom in on the ship entirely when its gone over horizon.

mmmm...it must be the work of an enemy stand!

Are you saying what we saw was NOT the ISS?

I think he's saying it was a Tie Fighter...

CGI fakery everyone knows thats not a camel its clearly a lama.

Nah,  a Diplodocus with dwarfism.

NASA is slowly but steadily exposed as the photoshop institute that has never been to outerspace !!!

[youtube][/youtube]