don't always look to nasa... japanese satellite images from 2014!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.
if you turn round in a circle fast enough, you end up following yourselfAnd 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.
Then toss it in the bin, it's shite. I want a very simple photo taken from one snap of a camera.Meteorological Satellites -Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)-
yes the main photo is a composite
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 genuineThen 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"?Then toss it in the bin, it's shite. I want a very simple photo taken from one snap of a camera.
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?!?!I said:just below are all of the original, single, uncomposited images
no conceit from my part, did you explore the link i posted?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
I am waiting for proof of either to be honest. So far I have seen nothingso 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]
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.so do you think composite only means "a photograph reconstructed from segments of other photographs"?
I concurAs 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.
And I concur with this tooI 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.
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.
- 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
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?