The bottom is the picture run through fotoforensics.com
The black area doesn't have the same level of variation / detail as the rest. That's why it shows black.
The straight lines you can see in the pure white area are due to this being a "mosaic", because Antarctica is "too big" to photograph all at once. However, the mosaic lines only exist in the pure white area. The rest is not too big to photograph all at once.
Until a few weeks ago, I always thought flat earth was stupid. Then I began having discussions with someone who is very wise and level headed. Not like your typical flat earther who lacks an objective mind and simply finds the idea of a flat earth scintillating. I’ve since been searching for proofs either way. Please keep in my that I’m already fully aware of globe theory, and have a 1st class honours degree in aeronautical engineering. I supposed that one of the best proofs would be video footage of Antartica from space. Well, I couldn’t find any of that, so I settled for an image. Even an image was hard to find. Though this ‘mosaic’ image is on the NASA website. Supposedly there are a few others, but I suppose I’ll show this image to a few people and see what they think before I check others. Anyway, a huge chunk in the top image has no detail. Why not? It’s just pure white. I ran it through the photoshop checker, and it shows that the ‘pure white’ section is indeed of a completely different detail level. Though that’s obvious without the forensic tool. My other thoughts on this image are: 1) it looks like someone made a sculpture a foot wide on black felt and took a photo. 2) You cannot see any curvature. Like, if I take a photo of an orange, it will not look flat, just because you can only see part if one side. The light will allow you to see the curvature, no? Well you tell me - can you see curvature of either the continent or the cloud cover? Anyway, what does it imply? Just that for some reason NASA is unable to give even a good photo of Antarctica, a feat which should be easy, no?
What’s with these posts lately? I just made this comment on another claim last night.
“I do long exposure astrophotography.
If you take a long exposure photo of the night sky from the north pole the observer sees the stars appear to rotate as circular light streaks around a point directly overhead, where the Earth's rotational axis intersects the sky at the north celestial pole.
An observer located at a mid northern latitude (say 30°) sees the north celestial pole elevated 30° above his northern horizon.
Care to guess what an observer at the equator sees?
Because under a geocentric model, we are stationary and the stars rotate above. The heliocentric model says that our 23.4 degrees of tilt is angled towards Polaris, thus it appears to be stationary with all stars rotating around it.
I'm not sure why you're mentioning that at all. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. We're talking about Antarctica. Do you have any comments on the image or Antarctica in general?
Correct. Why some people are rattling off their flat earth disproving theories instead of talking about Antarctica is telling. They'd be more comfortable with Antarctica being a secret Cabal base full of Nazis, than they would with a flat earth. I think people are so afraid of flat earth, because it would imply they're not the product of chance... that their lives have meaning.
You've traversed one of these circle routes personally then, yes? And the same for a rhumb line? Like, you actually have that knowledge, yes? You're not just believing someone else who is believing someone else who is believing someone else? I'd particularly like to hear your personal experience that verified the existence of a circle route. How did you come to know it?
It has little to do with FE'rs being scintillating or lacking objectiveness, it's about RE'rs being closed minded. No offense.
FE has been made out to be the red headed stepchild of conspiracy theories. Even some of the lamest videos I've seen have some valid points supporting FE. For many it's just too far outside of their comfort zone to have an open mind to. You can tell by how quickly they bash, insult, and try to shutdown any FE comments.
I even made a post a number of months ago, if you're not open minded to FE then you may not be as awake as you think. Or something like that. But I don't see how some can think our entire reality is a fabrication, except that. lol
I think some of the terminology needs to change to lessen the fringeness of it. Such as instead of flat earthers, maybe Bible literalists, and instead of flat earth, I like dome-icile (play on domicile)
I would not say those who believe in the bible believe in the FE. Quite the contrary, for most. Isaiah 40:22 uses the Hebrew word (rendered Chug or Khug) which can be translated either circle or sphere. "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in."
Keep in mind that a globe, from any angle, will appear as a circle.
For another biblical perspective on the shape of the earth, Ecclesiastes 1:6 gives us this; "The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns."
Both of those verses were written 3,000 + years ago.
The bottom is the picture run through fotoforensics.com
The black area doesn't have the same level of variation / detail as the rest. That's why it shows black.
The straight lines you can see in the pure white area are due to this being a "mosaic", because Antarctica is "too big" to photograph all at once. However, the mosaic lines only exist in the pure white area. The rest is not too big to photograph all at once.
What does it implicate then? Serious question.
Until a few weeks ago, I always thought flat earth was stupid. Then I began having discussions with someone who is very wise and level headed. Not like your typical flat earther who lacks an objective mind and simply finds the idea of a flat earth scintillating. I’ve since been searching for proofs either way. Please keep in my that I’m already fully aware of globe theory, and have a 1st class honours degree in aeronautical engineering. I supposed that one of the best proofs would be video footage of Antartica from space. Well, I couldn’t find any of that, so I settled for an image. Even an image was hard to find. Though this ‘mosaic’ image is on the NASA website. Supposedly there are a few others, but I suppose I’ll show this image to a few people and see what they think before I check others. Anyway, a huge chunk in the top image has no detail. Why not? It’s just pure white. I ran it through the photoshop checker, and it shows that the ‘pure white’ section is indeed of a completely different detail level. Though that’s obvious without the forensic tool. My other thoughts on this image are: 1) it looks like someone made a sculpture a foot wide on black felt and took a photo. 2) You cannot see any curvature. Like, if I take a photo of an orange, it will not look flat, just because you can only see part if one side. The light will allow you to see the curvature, no? Well you tell me - can you see curvature of either the continent or the cloud cover? Anyway, what does it imply? Just that for some reason NASA is unable to give even a good photo of Antarctica, a feat which should be easy, no?
What’s with these posts lately? I just made this comment on another claim last night.
“I do long exposure astrophotography.
If you take a long exposure photo of the night sky from the north pole the observer sees the stars appear to rotate as circular light streaks around a point directly overhead, where the Earth's rotational axis intersects the sky at the north celestial pole.
An observer located at a mid northern latitude (say 30°) sees the north celestial pole elevated 30° above his northern horizon.
Care to guess what an observer at the equator sees?
Do you know why we see these differences?
We are on a rotating globe”
Upvote for common sense.
Because under a geocentric model, we are stationary and the stars rotate above. The heliocentric model says that our 23.4 degrees of tilt is angled towards Polaris, thus it appears to be stationary with all stars rotating around it.
I'm not sure why you're mentioning that at all. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. We're talking about Antarctica. Do you have any comments on the image or Antarctica in general?
The photo speaks more to Antarctica fraud than to flat earth.
Correct. Why some people are rattling off their flat earth disproving theories instead of talking about Antarctica is telling. They'd be more comfortable with Antarctica being a secret Cabal base full of Nazis, than they would with a flat earth. I think people are so afraid of flat earth, because it would imply they're not the product of chance... that their lives have meaning.
Two reasons why the earth isn't flat: Rhumb lines and great circle routes
Anyone in the Navy or has sailed a boat knows. It's not flat.
You've traversed one of these circle routes personally then, yes? And the same for a rhumb line? Like, you actually have that knowledge, yes? You're not just believing someone else who is believing someone else who is believing someone else? I'd particularly like to hear your personal experience that verified the existence of a circle route. How did you come to know it?
It has little to do with FE'rs being scintillating or lacking objectiveness, it's about RE'rs being closed minded. No offense.
FE has been made out to be the red headed stepchild of conspiracy theories. Even some of the lamest videos I've seen have some valid points supporting FE. For many it's just too far outside of their comfort zone to have an open mind to. You can tell by how quickly they bash, insult, and try to shutdown any FE comments.
I even made a post a number of months ago, if you're not open minded to FE then you may not be as awake as you think. Or something like that. But I don't see how some can think our entire reality is a fabrication, except that. lol
I think some of the terminology needs to change to lessen the fringeness of it. Such as instead of flat earthers, maybe Bible literalists, and instead of flat earth, I like dome-icile (play on domicile)
I would not say those who believe in the bible believe in the FE. Quite the contrary, for most. Isaiah 40:22 uses the Hebrew word (rendered Chug or Khug) which can be translated either circle or sphere. "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in."
Keep in mind that a globe, from any angle, will appear as a circle.
For another biblical perspective on the shape of the earth, Ecclesiastes 1:6 gives us this; "The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns."
Both of those verses were written 3,000 + years ago.
Don't worry I completely agree with you on FEs/REs there. I'm kinda playing dumb.
yes, you're on the right track; we been lied to and those flat earthers really aren't so crazy;)
listen to what JFK has to say about going to the moon; makes it sound preposterous & can hear his sarcasm.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=th5A6ZQ28pE
Really? I watched it at your request and came to the total opposite conclusion.
Lol yeah that was funny how he describes it.
Illuminati Card Game 1996:
Flat Earthers card:
"People laugh, but the Flat Earthers know something"...
Hmmm...
I second that...
Well that doesn't make any sense, does it?
Are we talking about the Ice Wall and endless land beyond?
There you go:
https://www.qwant.com/?q=antarctica+from+space&t=images
To me they all look CGI, except the one that I posted. Can you please link directly to some that you think look real?
It's not endless. Supposedly, there are other, wider oceans and continents beyond, in concentric rings, according to the Standard Grifter Earth Model