a point by point demolition of the flat earth claims

a reply to: totallackey

Palmer and Rothera. Flat Earth is now impossible.

Sydney to Santiago. Flat Earth is now impossible.

Explanation?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?

Even DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth.

The difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the Earth's 8000 mile diameter. That would make the height 99.7% of the width.

That tiny bulge is not something you are going to notice by looking at the Earth or its shadow. You won't be able to "see" that pear-shape in pictures of the Earth. It's something that is discerned just through precise measurement.

To illustrate how tiny the difference is look at this graphic. This shape on the left is a perfect circle (or as perfect as the graphic software I used would allow ;-). The shape on the right is a slightly imperfect circle, with the height 99.7% that of the width, and the widest part being below the horizontal center, in the lower hemisphere, similar to the measured dimension of the "pear-shaped" Earth:

Can anyone really see a difference?

EDIT:
I changed the graphic to be side-by-side rather than top-and-bottom to fit better on the webpage.

No. I do not see much of a difference, even in this small size rendering you posted here. Neither would anyone else if they were being honest. Yet, you know because the images are your construct. So go ahead and construct me something resembling a pear and we will go from there...Show me how I can mistake a pear...

There was no need for Neil to be an asshat and introduce the word PEAR either, was there?

The images from NASA and all other space agencies are CONSTRUCTS/COMPOSITES/PHOTOSHOPPED CRAP...And the asshats are caught in their own words...

Why is he an asshat for using a word that describes Earth? Pear shaped, bigger on the bottom, like the Earth. Neil said the difference is too small to see with the naked eye. If there is a problem it is on your end.

If you do not think I can tell a pear from an apple or an orange or a mango or a grape or papaya or a tomato, simply by the shape, then you are wrong.

And so is Neil.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: totallackey

Palmer and Rothera. Flat Earth is now impossible.

Sydney to Santiago. Flat Earth is now impossible.

Explanation?

Conclusion of impossibility - Wrong.

Conclusion of impossibility- Wrong.

Explained.

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?

Even DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth.

The difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the Earth's 8000 mile diameter. That would make the height 99.7% of the width.

That tiny bulge is not something you are going to notice by looking at the Earth or its shadow. You won't be able to "see" that pear-shape in pictures of the Earth. It's something that is discerned just through precise measurement.

To illustrate how tiny the difference is look at this graphic. This shape on the left is a perfect circle (or as perfect as the graphic software I used would allow ;-). The shape on the right is a slightly imperfect circle, with the height 99.7% that of the width, and the widest part being below the horizontal center, in the lower hemisphere, similar to the measured dimension of the "pear-shaped" Earth:

Can anyone really see a difference?

EDIT:
I changed the graphic to be side-by-side rather than top-and-bottom to fit better on the webpage.

No. I do not see much of a difference, even in this small size rendering you posted here. Neither would anyone else if they were being honest. Yet, you know because the images are your construct. So go ahead and construct me something resembling a pear and we will go from there...Show me how I can mistake a pear...

There was no need for Neil to be an asshat and introduce the word PEAR either, was there?

The images from NASA and all other space agencies are CONSTRUCTS/COMPOSITES/PHOTOSHOPPED CRAP...And the asshats are caught in their own words...

Why is he an asshat for using a word that describes Earth? Pear shaped, bigger on the bottom, like the Earth. Neil said the difference is too small to see with the naked eye. If there is a problem it is on your end.

If you do not think I can tell a pear from an apple or an orange or a mango or a grape or papaya or a tomato, simply by the shape, then you are wrong.

And so is Neil.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you actually saying you expect the earth to be an actual proper pear shape because of it being called pear shaped? Can you really be that ignorant or are you just playing with us?

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?

Even DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth.

The difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the Earth's 8000 mile diameter. That would make the height 99.7% of the width.

That tiny bulge is not something you are going to notice by looking at the Earth or its shadow. You won't be able to "see" that pear-shape in pictures of the Earth. It's something that is discerned just through precise measurement.

To illustrate how tiny the difference is look at this graphic. This shape on the left is a perfect circle (or as perfect as the graphic software I used would allow ;-). The shape on the right is a slightly imperfect circle, with the height 99.7% that of the width, and the widest part being below the horizontal center, in the lower hemisphere, similar to the measured dimension of the "pear-shaped" Earth:

Can anyone really see a difference?

EDIT:
I changed the graphic to be side-by-side rather than top-and-bottom to fit better on the webpage.

No. I do not see much of a difference, even in this small size rendering you posted here. Neither would anyone else if they were being honest. Yet, you know because the images are your construct. So go ahead and construct me something resembling a pear and we will go from there...Show me how I can mistake a pear...

There was no need for Neil to be an asshat and introduce the word PEAR either, was there?

The images from NASA and all other space agencies are CONSTRUCTS/COMPOSITES/PHOTOSHOPPED CRAP...And the asshats are caught in their own words...

Why is he an asshat for using a word that describes Earth? Pear shaped, bigger on the bottom, like the Earth. Neil said the difference is too small to see with the naked eye. If there is a problem it is on your end.

If you do not think I can tell a pear from an apple or an orange or a mango or a grape or papaya or a tomato, simply by the shape, then you are wrong.

And so is Neil.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it was "like" a pear in the sense that its fattest point is not the equator but rather slightly south of the equator. He was just giving a visual clue as to something in nature that is fatter on the bottom than it is on the top -- even if the difference is extremely exaggerated in a pear as compared the Earth.

He also said in this same video (linked below) that "...But cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere". For some reason, you are choosing to ignore that part of what he said. Measurements have shown that the pear-shapedness of the Earth is real, but too small to be seen just by looking at the Earth. It's only something that can be discerned through precise measurement.

Sure -- he didn't spend a lot of time on the idea that the Earth is "like a pear" rather than it being the same shape as a pear", but he probably didn't think people would have taken him so literally. Frankly, I'm shocked anyone took him so literally that they would think he actually mean that the Earth would look like a pear sitting in space.

Obviously DeGrasse Tyson needs to be a little more explanatory for some people who may misunderstand him. However, if those people actually listened to his explanations (in the below video and elsewhere) instead of getting fixated on the word "pear", they would understand what he meant.

Here's the video I mentioned:

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?

Even DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth.

The difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the Earth's 8000 mile diameter. That would make the height 99.7% of the width.

That tiny bulge is not something you are going to notice by looking at the Earth or its shadow. You won't be able to "see" that pear-shape in pictures of the Earth. It's something that is discerned just through precise measurement.

To illustrate how tiny the difference is look at this graphic. This shape on the left is a perfect circle (or as perfect as the graphic software I used would allow ;-). The shape on the right is a slightly imperfect circle, with the height 99.7% that of the width, and the widest part being below the horizontal center, in the lower hemisphere, similar to the measured dimension of the "pear-shaped" Earth:

Can anyone really see a difference?

EDIT:
I changed the graphic to be side-by-side rather than top-and-bottom to fit better on the webpage.

No. I do not see much of a difference, even in this small size rendering you posted here. Neither would anyone else if they were being honest. Yet, you know because the images are your construct. So go ahead and construct me something resembling a pear and we will go from there...Show me how I can mistake a pear...

There was no need for Neil to be an asshat and introduce the word PEAR either, was there?

The images from NASA and all other space agencies are CONSTRUCTS/COMPOSITES/PHOTOSHOPPED CRAP...And the asshats are caught in their own words...

Why is he an asshat for using a word that describes Earth? Pear shaped, bigger on the bottom, like the Earth. Neil said the difference is too small to see with the naked eye. If there is a problem it is on your end.

If you do not think I can tell a pear from an apple or an orange or a mango or a grape or papaya or a tomato, simply by the shape, then you are wrong.

And so is Neil.

Wait. I'm confused. Are you actually saying you expect the earth to be an actual proper pear shape because of it being called pear shaped? Can you really be that ignorant or are you just playing with us?

I am not ignorant of what is being stated by Tyson. I am listening to the words coming from his mouth. He says it is shaped more like a pear. He did not use the word proper.

You do not not have a problem with reconciling his statements and the composites/photoshopped images presented by various space agencies as to the true nature of our world.

I do.

And so I am investigating it myself. Hope you do not mind while I do my own work.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?

Even DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth.

The difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the Earth's 8000 mile diameter. That would make the height 99.7% of the width.

That tiny bulge is not something you are going to notice by looking at the Earth or its shadow. You won't be able to "see" that pear-shape in pictures of the Earth. It's something that is discerned just through precise measurement.

To illustrate how tiny the difference is look at this graphic. This shape on the left is a perfect circle (or as perfect as the graphic software I used would allow ;-). The shape on the right is a slightly imperfect circle, with the height 99.7% that of the width, and the widest part being below the horizontal center, in the lower hemisphere, similar to the measured dimension of the "pear-shaped" Earth:

Can anyone really see a difference?

EDIT:
I changed the graphic to be side-by-side rather than top-and-bottom to fit better on the webpage.

No. I do not see much of a difference, even in this small size rendering you posted here. Neither would anyone else if they were being honest. Yet, you know because the images are your construct. So go ahead and construct me something resembling a pear and we will go from there...Show me how I can mistake a pear...

There was no need for Neil to be an asshat and introduce the word PEAR either, was there?

The images from NASA and all other space agencies are CONSTRUCTS/COMPOSITES/PHOTOSHOPPED CRAP...And the asshats are caught in their own words...

Why is he an asshat for using a word that describes Earth? Pear shaped, bigger on the bottom, like the Earth. Neil said the difference is too small to see with the naked eye. If there is a problem it is on your end.

If you do not think I can tell a pear from an apple or an orange or a mango or a grape or papaya or a tomato, simply by the shape, then you are wrong.

And so is Neil.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it was "like" a pear in the sense that its fattest point is not the equator but rather slightly south of the equator. He was just giving a visual clue as to something in nature that is fatter on the bottom than it is on the top -- even if the difference is extremely exaggerated in a pear as compared the Earth.

He also said in this same video (linked below) that "...But cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere". For some reason, you are choosing to ignore that part of what he said. Measurements have shown that the pear-shapedness of the Earth is real, but too small to be seen just by looking at the Earth. It's only something that can be discerned through precise measurement.

Sure -- he didn't spend a lot of time on the idea that the Earth is "like a pear" rather than it being the same shape as a pear", but he probably didn't think people would have taken him so literally. Frankly, I'm shocked anyone took him so literally that they would think he actually mean that the Earth would look like a pear sitting in space.

Obviously DeGrasse Tyson needs to be a little more explanatory for some people who may misunderstand him. However, if those people actually listened to his explanations (in the below video and elsewhere) instead of getting fixated on the word "pear", they would understand what he meant.

Here's the video I mentioned:

No, I did not ignore it originally and I am not now.

Except for the fact it is double speak and virtually meaningless.

originally posted by: totallackey

I am not ignorant of what is being stated by Tyson. I am listening to the words coming from his mouth. He says it is shaped more like a pear. He did not use the word proper.

You do not not have a problem with reconciling his statements and the composites/photoshopped images presented by various space agencies as to the true nature of our world.

I do.

And so I am investigating it myself. Hope you do not mind while I do my own work.

Maybe instead of taking his words out of context, you would read the whole body of work about what he said regarding the Earth being fatter just south of the equator than it is measured any other way.

If you did, then you would understand the entire context of his statements about it rather than keying on just that one word.

And here are a couple of images taken with a film camera (the original image was not a digital composite)of the Pacific Ocean showing North America and both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. I don't see a discernable pear-shape.
history.nasa.gov...

To further investigate the shape, here is another film image (again, the original image was NOT digital nor a composite) of mostly the Southern Hemisphere and Africa. Again, no easily-discernable pear shape looking from this direction, either:
history.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: totallackey

No, I did not ignore it originally and I am not now.

Except for the fact it is double speak and virtually meaningless.

How is it "double speak" when he clearly and pointedly explains exactly what he means?

Even if you do a little more investigating into this (just a little), you can find that the "pear-shapedness" of the earth results in only a 28-mile difference between the approximately 8000 mile diameter of the Earth -- which is only a 0.0035% difference between its widest part (which is slightly south of the equator) compared to the height.

How in the world is that "double speak"? It's a real measurable difference -- but one that Neil DeGresse Tyson has said on many different occasions is not a difference you can see just by looking at it. If you are out is space, you're not going to be able to see the "pear shape" because it is so subtle, but it does exist.

I really don't get what part of what DeGrasse Tyson has said that you are taking issue with that you are calling "double speak". It all seems very straightforward to me.

Can a flat earther please explain to me what they think happens with the sun. Please tell me urgently. I need to know this information.

It does baffle me why people of a conspiratorial bent are unable to grasp the concepts of metaphor and simile.

There are no pear shapes in the geostationary ATS satellite images in here either:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

just lots of pictures of only one hemisphere.

How weather satellites work show very simply that the Earth is a sphere, not flat.

ESSA satellites in the 1960s took their images in a series of tracks on the daylight side of Earth, for example. The Earth moved underneath them while the passed over the dark side, and by the time they re-emerged into sunlight they could image a completely new track. Their image tracks were thus always north to south. Not possible in a flat Earth.

Later NIMBUS satellites in the same period used the night side to take images in infra-red, so they took visible image shots on the daylight side and then infra red on the dark side. You can get all the images from NIMBUS here

nsidc.org...

and the direction they take is entirely consistent with them being in a polar orbit, not zig-zagging impossibly around over a flat disk.

I have original ESSA and NIMBUS books from the 1960/70s showing their images (in other words not some sort of modern photoshop), and they are not of a flat earth!

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

No, I did not ignore it originally and I am not now.

Except for the fact it is double speak and virtually meaningless.

How is it "double speak" when he clearly and pointedly explains exactly what he means?

Even if you do a little more investigating into this (just a little), you can find that the "pear-shapedness" of the earth results in only a 28-mile difference between the approximately 8000 mile diameter of the Earth -- which is only a 0.0035% difference between its widest part (which is slightly south of the equator) compared to the height.

How in the world is that "double speak"? It's a real measurable difference -- but one that Neil DeGresse Tyson has said on many different occasions is not a difference you can see just by looking at it. If you are out is space, you're not going to be able to see the "pear shape" because it is so subtle, but it does exist.

I really don't get what part of what DeGrasse Tyson has said that you are taking issue with.

"Bueller...Bueller...Bueller..."

Does a freaking pear have that small of a difference to where you cannot tell the difference between it and any other fruit?

Tyson got caught with his tit in a wringer. Sure, he knew it and was quick enough on his feet to give the "comrade clean up version," along with his original statement in the same interview.

Dude, your first demonstration is nowhere near a freaking pear.

And your other images from NASA are photoshopped or otherwise altered. All NASA images are either:

Photoshopped;
Composites; or,
Artist renditions.

And are typically accompanied by such words. You presented the images. Present the writing going along with them.

originally posted by: totallackey
All NASA images are either:

Photoshopped;
Composites; or,
Artist renditions.

Even the ones taken in the 60s and 70s using fim cameras?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
It does baffle me why people of a conspiratorial bent are unable to grasp the concepts of metaphor and simile.

There are no pear shapes in the geostationary ATS satellite images in here either:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

just lots of pictures of only one hemisphere.

How weather satellites work show very simply that the Earth is a sphere, not flat.

ESSA satellites in the 1960s took their images in a series of tracks on the daylight side of Earth, for example. The Earth moved underneath them while the passed over the dark side, and by the time they re-emerged into sunlight they could image a completely new track. Their image tracks were thus always north to south. Not possible in a flat Earth.

Later NIMBUS satellites in the same period used the night side to take images in infra-red, so they took visible image shots on the daylight side and then infra red on the dark side. You can get all the images from NIMBUS here

nsidc.org...

and the direction they take is entirely consistent with them being in a polar orbit, not zig-zagging impossibly around over a flat disk.

I have original ESSA and NIMBUS books from the 1960/70s showing their images (in other words not some sort of modern photoshop), and they are not of a flat earth!

The accompanying text clearly indicates the images have been altered.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: totallackey
All NASA images are either:

Photoshopped;
Composites; or,
Artist renditions.

Even the ones taken in the 60s and 70s using fim cameras?

Especially those. We just started to blow out Ray Harryhausen and Kubrick was especially happy to do it. How excited were you when you got your first model/bike/action figure, etc...I betcha you wore the # out of that thing, just like all humanity do with shiny new toys/tech.

a reply to: totallackey

No. It doesn't.

You need to work on your definition of 'altered' - you seem to be working on the assumption that they are without any supporting evidence that they have been.

Which part of this, for example:

he Nimbus Advanced Vidicon Camera System Visible Imagery L1, HDF5 (NmAVCS1H) data set consists of black-and-white images captured by the Advanced Vidicon Camera Systems onboard the Nimbus 1 (1964) and Nimbus 2 (1966) satellites. Data are provided as HDF5-formatted files. Browse images are also available.

Translates as 'altered'?

Where in the ATS Meteorological Data Catalog is there any reference to altering the content of the images?

Like your posts about Tyson you have zoomed in on one insignificant aspect and failed to take notice of the important stuff. The satellites I discussed operate in a way that is physically impossible over a flat Earth. If you have a mechanism that you think allows them to work in the way they do over a flat Earth then go ahead and describe it.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: totallackey

No. It doesn't.

You need to work on your definition of 'altered' - you seem to be working on the assumption that they are without any supporting evidence that they have been.

Which part of this, for example:

he Nimbus Advanced Vidicon Camera System Visible Imagery L1, HDF5 (NmAVCS1H) data set consists of black-and-white images captured by the Advanced Vidicon Camera Systems onboard the Nimbus 1 (1964) and Nimbus 2 (1966) satellites. Data are provided as HDF5-formatted files. Browse images are also available.

Translates as 'altered'?

Where in the ATS Meteorological Data Catalog is there any reference to altering the content of the images?

Like your posts about Tyson you have zoomed in on one insignificant aspect and failed to take notice of the important stuff. The satellites I discussed operate in a way that is physically impossible over a flat Earth. If you have a mechanism that you think allows them to work in the way they do over a flat Earth then go ahead and describe it.

Anyone reading your source material is free to come to their own conclusions as to whether or not the accompanying text indicates they have been altered in any fashion. I have read it and come to my conclusion.

NIMBUS

The AVCS consisted of three earthward-facing cameras deployed in a fan-like array to produce three-image composite pictures...

Composite images, by the very meaning of the word COMPOSITE, must be ASSEMBLED; therefore, ALTERED!

Game, set,and match...

a reply to: totallackey

Nope, you are failing to understand the difference between composing an image and altering it. There is nothing there that says anything was altered. You are assuming composing an image means changing the reality of the content. Simply shouting that something altered does not mean that its content is not genuine or that you are correct.

Good old cathode ray tube TV' assembled their pictures from three different colours. Are all TV programmes imaginary?

Are the satellite strips in my 1970 book of NIMBUS images Photoshopped? How does the method of taking those strips square with the idea of a flat Earth?

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: totallackey
All NASA images are either:

Photoshopped;
Composites; or,
Artist renditions.

Even the ones taken in the 60s and 70s using fim cameras?

Especially those. We just started to blow out Ray Harryhausen and Kubrick was especially happy to do it. How excited were you when you got your first model/bike/action figure, etc...I betcha you wore the # out of that thing, just like all humanity do with shiny new toys/tech.

That reply doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

Direct, unaltered scans of the Apollo photographic film are freely available on the Internet, including shots of the clearly round Earth. Cloud patterns in those shots match the cloud patterns captured by weather satellites orbiting Earth at that time, proving that those Apollo shots are genuine.

Just as a small example, and I hope this isn't dragging thread too far from its original premise. Here is one photograph from the introduction to one of the NIMBUS volumes I own. I took it just now. Notice the identifying mark showing the location of the image. Each image is date and time stamped.



Here's the tile corresponding to that identifier from the site I linked to:



Now, show me where anything has been added or taken away.

You can download any single day's images from the site I linked to and follow the imaging sequence. Please explain how that imaging sequence is possible in a flat earth scenario. Here they are in a single image, again from my book, with the area photographed above outlined:



Oh wait, I composed that image - it's instantly fake right?

How's that Chicago skyline image coming along? Why not just post the one you claim to have on your phone that you said illustrates your point?