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?
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 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”
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?