19 Sep 16
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Antarctic_ice-sheet_height
Nice whole image of Antarctica showing ice thicknesses, something even your hated NASA didn't do. Guess they had to have their own graphics artists make this one up, eh.
So now ESA is in on the big lie, according to your mythology.
19 Sep 16
And if you don't like NASA, how about something a little Russian?
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels
'Unlike NASA's pictures, this satellite produces 121-megapixel images that capture the Earth in one shot instead of a collection of pictures from multiple flybys stitched together.'
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI was pointing out the various images of Antarctica because freak doesn't believe NASA, which lies about everything, which he has to do in his mythology, Antarctica is not a continent but a barrier or some such.
And if you don't like NASA, how about something a little Russian?
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels
'Unlike NASA's pictures, this satellite produces 121-megapixel images that capture the Earth in one shot instead of a collection of pictures from multiple flybys stitched together.'
Two different space agencies have imaged Antarctica but he now has to include ESA in part of the big lie, and anyone else daring to image all of Antarctica.
His mythology of a flat Earth cannot abide an Antarctica as a huge island in the south pole area of Earth.
The Russian video does not include Antarctica so he can breath easier about that one. Beautiful images though.
Know any other space images of the whole of Antarctica by other than EAS or NASA?
It's not an easy task, the spacecraft has be fairly far from Earth and facing the south pole to get such an image in one go.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThose are amazing shots, unlike the unsatisfying artificial image that sonhouse offered.
And if you don't like NASA, how about something a little Russian?
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels
'Unlike NASA's pictures, this satellite produces 121-megapixel images that capture the Earth in one shot instead of a collection of pictures from multiple flybys stitched together.'
A couple really cool things about these shots.
There's a GigaPan link in the article which takes you to "Planet Earth" by James Trywhitt-Drake.
He describes the shot from May 2012 as "The Highest Resolution Image of Our Planet."
Uh-huh.
But even at 1.12 gigapixels, zooming too far in only produces what appear to be the tell-tale brush strokes of an artist's schemes.
Such is life of artifice, I suppose: no matter how life-like we attempt to be, our efforts at imitation fail to pass scrutiny.
(And let's not even mention those ridiculous cloud formations, right?)
The video, however, is where the real fun begins.
Weird that even when completely within the earth's umbra, no artificial lights appear on any part of the earth for the entire week.
Weird that while in that umbra, no stars appear in the space surrounding earth's background anywhere, either.
Weird that despite a time-lapse recording which allows 24 hours to take ~30 seconds, there are highly unusual cloud formations which either do not move at all, or are simply moving in real time.
Weird that the halo of light does not match either the encroaching or retreating shadows of the night.
Weird that the path the sun traces on the earth's surface (seen in the reflections of the same) change between day to day, and on some days,abruptly in the middle of its pass.
Weird that for the first three days of this "recording," (May 14, 15 and 16, 2012), the weather conditions in the area presented included thunderstorms, heavy rain and wind speeds to upwards of 35 MPH, and yet all seven days shown are identical: nearly completely clear of cloud obstructions, relatively calm.
That's just an awful lot of weird for something supposedly science-y, don't you think?
21 Sep 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo in other words, Russia is in on the big lie also. BTW, that 'artificial' image was processed from satellite images specifically designed to show ice thickness or didn't you get to that part? It looks like it does for a reason. It is actual science data.
Those are amazing shots, unlike the unsatisfying artificial image that sonhouse offered.
A couple really cool things about these shots.
There's a GigaPan link in the article which takes you to "Planet Earth" by James Trywhitt-Drake.
He describes the shot from May 2012 as "The Highest Resolution Image of Our Planet."
Uh-huh.
But even at 1.12 gigapixels ...[text shortened]...
That's just an awful lot of weird for something supposedly science-y, don't you think?
21 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonhouseSo in other words, explain all the "weird" in the video before you go off on asinine tangents.
So in other words, Russia is in on the big lie also. BTW, that 'artificial' image was processed from satellite images specifically designed to show ice thickness or didn't you get to that part? It looks like it does for a reason. It is actual science data.
21 Sep 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLack of lights at night: camera set for one brightness, no dark adaptation. So when it views night scene, it does not have the setting for dim light, it is set to one sensitivity only.
So in other words, explain all the "weird" in the video before you go off on asinine tangents.
From 10,000 miles in space, clouds don't move much because they have to cover a significant amount of ground to see any differences.
So you are still implying the whole thing is faked.
21 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonhouseYour "answers" are laughable--- derisively so.
Lack of lights at night: camera set for one brightness, no dark adaptation. So when it views night scene, it does not have the setting for dim light, it is set to one sensitivity only.
From 10,000 miles in space, clouds don't move much because they have to cover a significant amount of ground to see any differences.
So you are still implying the whole thing is faked.
'Yeah, Bob, says here: put the lighting setting at 'complete daylight only,' so we can get the best pics.'
From 10,000 miles in space, clouds don't move much because they have to cover a significant amount of ground to see any differences.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?!
Do you read this crap before you hit "Post," or do you just flail away on the keyboard and hope to make a sentence?
From any distance in space, the clouds will move consistent with formation patterns.
Nothing in the picture, nothing in the video comes anywhere close to normal formations; since each day has been compressed down to 30 seconds, we should see clouds zipping across the face of the planet in a somewhat synchronized speed... but certainly not locked into a position directly over a specific portion of the planet for the entirety of the day, nor moving as though in real time.
But I'll be sure to let the clouds know of their new required behavior, i.e., to cover a significant amount of ground.
You took a pathetic stab at two--- landing on your ass with both--- and you still have four "weirds" to go.
Something tells me you're about to launch into some long-winded dissertation about how brilliant you were putting together two tin cans and an intercontinentally-long piece of string when you were nine years old, "accidentally" creating the country's first telecommunications network not involving Native American smoke signals...
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are just proving how much you don't know about optics and weather. A cloud doesn't move a thousand miles in an hour or even 12 hours. You are stuck with the mental images of being on the ground V a real spacecraft thousands of miles away from Earth looking at the same thing. You perhaps did notice the entire span of Earth is shown in an image a couple inches wide maximum? So movement of a cloud of 100 miles won't show much change, but of course you will deny that as well as the entire space economy going on now. Another thing you forget about that image that proves Earth is round, just look at the edges, a flat Earth for instance would not spin, you don't allow a spinning Earth, and the land masses at the edges get distinctly forshortened because they are being looked at from the side V the ones in the center which are among other things, 4000 miles closer to the spacecraft than the edges of the round Earth. If Earth was flat, the land masses on the edges would not be foreshortened but shown in the same perspective as the ones in the middle and they would be exactly the same distance from the spacecraft.
Your "answers" are laughable--- derisively so.
'Yeah, Bob, says here: put the lighting setting at 'complete daylight only,' so we can get the best pics.'
[b]From 10,000 miles in space, clouds don't move much because they have to cover a significant amount of ground to see any differences.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?!
Do you read this ...[text shortened]... ng the country's first telecommunications network not involving Native American smoke signals...[/b]
Your entire mythology is sinking fast.
Another thing, derision is not a valid arguing point. Just scoffing people is not going to win a point, it is just going to point out how much you DON'T know.
You think you are some kind of expert on many subjects like simple stuff like perspective and you use bogus arguments thinking you have now blasted your opponent but in reality all it shows is how little you actually know.
If you want to actually win an argument, you need to provide real evidence, not crap like 'well do you know what Admiral Byrd said' blah blah blah.
Or just going "another fail' is not an argument, it is an OPINION. Do you actually understand the difference?
22 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd you are proving how slight your grasp is on reality, how ridiculous your bluster in the face of your wanton ignorance of basic physics.
You are just proving how much you don't know about optics and weather. A cloud doesn't move a thousand miles in an hour or even 12 hours. You are stuck with the mental images of being on the ground V a real spacecraft thousands of miles away from Earth looking at the same thing. You perhaps did notice the entire span of Earth is shown in an image a couple ...[text shortened]... "another fail' is not an argument, it is an OPINION. Do you actually understand the difference?
Depending on the cloud classification, speeds can range from just a few miles an hour to hundreds of miles an hour... you know: just as fast as the wind carries them.
Scoffing is not part of the argument against your bullsh** 'reasoning.'
Scoffing is the result of your bullsh** 'reasoning.'
Reality is the argument against your position... you know: the position which is informed by animations which completely contradict physics and reality.
You have six "weirds" and cannot answer a single one except to claim I know nothing of optics or weather.
Once you can successfully respond to the six "weirds" in such a manner as to refute them, you can start spouting off about my supposed deficiency on any topic of your choosing.
Until then, you're just a sounding gong.
22 Sep 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn that post there was zero in the way of argument, again, more scoffing, zero actual argument. Give me your best shot. Explain why the edges of the image from the Russians were foreshortened when a flat Earth would have had them be exactly like the ones in the center of the image. That is the crux of all your arguments, based on your obsession with the flat Earth.
And you are proving how slight your grasp is on reality, how ridiculous your bluster in the face of your wanton ignorance of basic physics.
Depending on the cloud classification, speeds can range from just a few miles an hour to hundreds of miles an hour... you know: just as fast as the wind carries them.
Scoffing is not part of the argument aga ...[text shortened]... my supposed deficiency on any topic of your choosing.
Until then, you're just a sounding gong.
If the camera had had a narrower focal range, the edges would have been out of focus and the center in focus or vice versa, they were both in focus only because the focal range was good enough for each distance, where the center was 4000 miles close than the edges, the horizon.
So how do you explain the fact the edges of the image shows foreshortening when a flat Earth would have shown the edges the same as the center?
Originally posted by sonhouseRead my lips, numbnuts:
In that post there was zero in the way of argument, again, more scoffing, zero actual argument. Give me your best shot. Explain why the edges of the image from the Russians were foreshortened when a flat Earth would have had them be exactly like the ones in the center of the image. That is the crux of all your arguments, based on your obsession with the fla ...[text shortened]... image shows foreshortening when a flat Earth would have shown the edges the same as the center?
It.
Is.
An.
Animation.
How can I possibly be so certain?
Hmmm...
Let's think on it for a bit.
Ah, too much work, right?
The six weird things I pointed out that are WRONG in this ANIMATION will suffice as my "best shot."
Your complete and utter inability to present a cogent rebuttal--- other than ask me to refute what is clearly an animation, which is clearly the argument I have already made--- is part and parcel why your failure at "optics and weather" is so painfully apparent.
To wit:
you cannot tell your head from a hole in the ground (optics), and you lack the sense to come in from the rain (weather).
By any and all means, tear apart the six, sonhouse...
I'm all a-twitter.
Originally posted by SuzianneNo sh**, Sherlock.
Says the guy who claims the Earth is flat.
On the basis of the truckloads of crap NASA cranks out, evidenced in this here linkage, tutelage, cartilage and whatnot.
Are you in the front row because you're hard of hearing or slow of learning?
Or just--- in general--- a suck up?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, more of your oh so solid arguement points. Show us your analysis of NASA failures, put your money where your extensive mouth is. Let's see your proof. Oh, you mean all you have is scoffing, derision and more opinions?
No sh**, Sherlock.
On the basis of the truckloads of crap NASA cranks out, evidenced in this here linkage, tutelage, cartilage and whatnot.
Are you in the front row because you're hard of hearing or slow of learning?
Or just--- in general--- a suck up?
I can see your arguments now: "look at this OBVIOUS fake, why are there no night lights, why are there no cloud movents?" Obvious fail.
That is the sum of your kind of argument.