The experiment that ended the Flat / Globe debate.

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
465
Reactions
2,290
Great to have you here @Lurck, I consider flat earth a big psyop, and it makes people stop thinking rationally. Like you I found evidence against everything you mention, and still can't find any evidence for flat earth.

There's a good criticism of flat earth concepts here: FlatEarth.ws
 
Last edited:

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
537
Reactions
1,793
I just want a single picture of earth that was taken from space. Or perhaps a picture from the edge of the earth, whichever NASA might be able to provide, that'd be great.

And just to spoil it for everyone, it's not round or flat... it's a simulation. You go east far enough, you come out the west. You are the Pac-Man.
 

0harris0

Active member
Messages
120
Reactions
242
I just want a single picture of earth that was taken from space. Or perhaps a picture from the edge of the earth, whichever NASA might be able to provide, that'd be great.
don't always look to nasa... japanese satellite images from 2014!

Meteorological Satellites -Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)-

yes the main photo is a composite, but just below are all of the original, single, uncomposited images used to make said composite ;)
And just to spoil it for everyone, it's not round or flat... it's a simulation. You go east far enough, you come out the west. You are the Pac-Man.
if you turn round in a circle fast enough, you end up following yourself o_O
 

Moriarty

Active member
Messages
72
Reactions
219
Then toss it in the bin, it's shite. I want a very simple photo taken from one snap of a camera.
I agree. Such a lot of conceit on this subject from those that sucked in the globe nonsense. Its a shame to be so single minded and NONE of those pictures look anything approaching genuine
 

0harris0

Active member
Messages
120
Reactions
242
Then toss it in the bin, it's shite. I want a very simple photo taken from one snap of a camera.
so do you think composite only means "a photograph reconstructed from segments of other photographs"?

that can be (but isn't always) the case, in this instance they use several different lenses/filters, different ways of capturing the same image, and make a composite to make details more visible and the colours more (or less) "realistic". If you aren't aware of this, then your idea of composite image production is very low and kinda invalidates your "anti-composite" stance towards imaging.

AND.... I you actually bothered to read my whole post, you would have seen the next thing I wrote:-
I said:
just below are all of the original, single, uncomposited images
so, I attempted to show you exactly what you were asking for and you knee-jerk about the least important part of what i posted.. I guess it's easier to do that then actually bother with counter evidence, right?!?!

jeez man I thought this forum would be a safe haven, away from knee-jerking flat earthers 😢
Post automatically merged:

I agree. Such a lot of conceit on this subject from those that sucked in the globe nonsense. Its a shame to be so single minded and NONE of those pictures look anything approaching genuine
no conceit from my part, did you explore the link i posted?
you would see many NON-COMPOSITE photographs of earth :)

[I'm all up for the concept of flat earth btw, but I'm still waiting for some direct, observable proof of it]
 
Last edited:

Moriarty

Active member
Messages
72
Reactions
219
so do you think composite only means "a photograph reconstructed from segments of other photographs"?

that can be (but isn't always) the case, in this instance they use several different lenses/filters, different ways of capturing the same image, and make a composite to make details more visible and the colours more (or less) "realistic". If you aren't aware of this, then your idea of composite image production is very low and kinda invalidates your "anti-composite" stance towards imaging.

AND.... I you actually bothered to read my whole post, you would have seen the next thing I wrote:-

so, I attempted to show you exactly what you were asking for and you knee-jerk about the least important part of what i posted.. I guess it's easier to do that then actually bother with counter evidence, right?!?!

jeez man I thought this forum would be a safe haven, away from knee-jerking flat earthers 😢
Post automatically merged:


no conceit from my part, did you explore the link i posted?
you would see many NON-COMPOSITE photographs of earth :)

[I'm all up for the concept of flat earth btw, but I'm still waiting for some direct, observable proof of it]
I am waiting for proof of either to be honest. So far I have seen nothing
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,416
Reactions
11,739
As it stands, with Hubbles and alike photographing galaxies and what not, there is exactly ZERO excuse for the lack of a non composite photograph.

Stuff is weird.
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
537
Reactions
1,793
so do you think composite only means "a photograph reconstructed from segments of other photographs"?
Yes. And I think you took me the wrong way. I'm your friend, we are not on opposite sides of the fence. There is no difference between a "reaction" and a "knee-jerk reaction" on the internet.
 
Last edited:

Worsaae

New member
Messages
14
Reactions
15
This forum is so refreshingly polite.

On topic: I've got to admit I didn't understand the experiment in this thread and I find it weird that there is zero non composite photographs. I do however believe that the earth is round, although I find the idea of it not being round very "gravitating"
 

realitycheck

Member
Messages
18
Reactions
66
I am not into flat Earth - I would sooner say Matrix like simulation if we are not on planet/globe. But as I use PS daily and do photomontages when needed etc. as designer so few things in hi-res Earth photo of JMA caught my eye.

  • Google maps is considered as accurate representation of Earth? (correct me if I am wrong)
  • what first caught my eye was size of Australia and position of rest so I did quick compare with google maps
  • I tried to align upper tip of Australia on both screens as most visible and closest to center and did quick outline of most visible parts - Australia and Korea peninsula as main points (images 01, 02, 03, 04)
  • when you have both layers with outlines active difference is huge, Australia is smaller in satellite photo, Korea is closer and at different angle - in short or google maps is way off or satellite image is faked (image 05)
  • now moving in closer, looking by illumination of earth and reflection on sea by tip of Australia at moment of photo Sun should be right behind us, maybe little lower from center, so shadows should be away from the sun but on some parts shadows just don't make sense (also taking in account shadows should be on a globe shape so closer to edge is at lower angle so they should be much longer)
  • on image 06 shadow should be on other side of cloud or snow mountain (arrow is approx. direction light is coming from)
  • on image 07 it is even more noticeable - green arrow is direction of light in photo and red one should be correct direction (away from viewer), and that close to edge shadows should be longer
  • image 08 is of some clouds that look to me just like when you make brush strokes in PS - maybe better visible in max res photo, but looking at clouds they just don't feel right in so many areas, like upper clouds are more gray (why if they are first in a way of light?) and some look too stretched and distorted that are close to the edge, but other in same area are not (layers?), shadows don't align with Sun position... etc.
  • just interesting find on satellite photo - looks like a giant hole in Asia - image 09
So if somebody asked me do you think JMA image of Earth is real untouched photo - I would say not real, or if real photo than it was edited to in many areas.

I don't know if we are on a globe or plate or simulation or in snow globe but thing is on almost any official photo of Earth there are edits and mistakes - why? Why if we have so many satellites and Hubble and James Webb Space Telescope and companies launching cars into space, why is such a problem to give us normal, unedited photo of Earth from every possible angle?

1890218903189041890518906
18907189081890918910
 
Last edited:

Worsaae

New member
Messages
14
Reactions
15
Very interesting find! That's some good detective work

Are the pictures of the earth at the same time? I could imagine that the atmosphere could distort the picture slightly, but I'm not an expert
 

Moriarty

Active member
Messages
72
Reactions
219
As it stands, with Hubbles and alike photographing galaxies and what not, there is exactly ZERO excuse for the lack of a non composite photograph.

Stuff is weird.
I concur
Post automatically merged:

A
I am not into flat Earth - I would sooner say Matrix like simulation if we are not on planet/globe. But as I use PS daily and do photomontages when needed etc. as designer so few things in hi-res Earth photo of JMA caught my eye.

  • Google maps is considered as accurate representation of Earth? (correct me if I am wrong)
  • what first caught my eye was size of Australia and position of rest so I did quick compare with google maps
  • I tried to align upper tip of Australia on both screens as most visible and closest to center and did quick outline of most visible parts - Australia and Korea peninsula as main points (images 01, 02, 03, 04)
  • when you have both layers with outlines active difference is huge, Australia is smaller in satellite photo, Korea is closer and at different angle - in short or google maps is way off or satellite image is faked (image 05)
  • now moving in closer, looking by illumination of earth and reflection on sea by tip of Australia at moment of photo Sun should be right behind us, maybe little lower from center, so shadows should be away from the sun but on some parts shadows just don't make sense (also taking in account shadows should be on a globe shape so closer to edge is at lower angle so they should be much longer)
  • on image 06 shadow should be on other side of cloud or snow mountain (arrow is approx. direction light is coming from)
  • on image 07 it is even more noticeable - green arrow is direction of light in photo and red one should be correct direction (away from viewer), and that close to edge shadows should be longer
  • image 08 is of some clouds that look to me just like when you make brush strokes in PS - maybe better visible in max res photo, but looking at clouds they just don't feel right in so many areas, like upper clouds are more gray (why if they are first in a way of light?) and some look too stretched and distorted that are close to the edge, but other in same area are not (layers?), shadows don't align with Sun position... etc.
  • just interesting find on satellite photo - looks like a giant hole in Asia - image 09
So if somebody asked me do you think JMA image of Earth is real untouched photo - I would say not real, or if real photo than it was edited to in many areas.

I don't know if we are on a globe or plate or simulation or in snow globe but thing is on almost any official photo of Earth there are edits and mistakes - why? Why if we have so many satellites and Hubble and James Webb Space Telescope and companies launching cars into space, why is such a problem to give us normal, unedited photo of Earth from every possible angle?

And I concur with this too
 

Top