FE Question: Curvature Videos

[JacksBratt]

Were fish eye lenses used in these photos?

I don't believe so. Why do you ask?

These photo's were posted to show how easily one can present a photo that shows something that is not actual reality.

 

[Kaon]

I don't believe so. Why do you ask?

These photo's were posted to show how easily one can present a photo that shows something that is not actual reality.

I know. I was being facetious.

 

[lasthero]

Why is it that you want, so badly, to pin a FE believer button on my chest? Would that give you closure? Would that help you sleep at night.. Or would that just give you more "right" to jab me with jibes and name calling.

Oh, here we go.

Again with the name-calling thing. I have never, not once, ever, called you a derogatory name, at least not in the way you seem to be insinuating. In fact, I don't think I've ever been all that rude to you. All I've ever done is point on the flaws in your arguments.

Really, Jack, this act you put up whenever you're on the defense is tiring and predictable.

Let me spell it out... OK?

I am not convinced of the shape being globe or Flat..

You say that often, and to many people. Maybe you should figure out why so many people assume that of you. There might be a good reason.

It's very easy, in fact can be done accidentally, to shoot a picture of a horizon with a curve.. absolutely no further manipulation need to be done.

A base assertion.

It is very difficult to shoot a view of a curved horizon, if that is the actual state of it, and show it to be flat, without digital manipulation.

Another base assertion. As near as I'm aware, you have no actual expertise in digital photography, so these are rather odd declarative statements for you to be making, given you utter dearth of knowledge on the subject.

It's easy to defish a photo, Jack. As someone who constantly decries others for not doing research, I would think you would know this. There are even plenty of YouTube videos that can you show you how to do it, and we know you love those.

So, no photograph has convinced me of either... Certainly not the fake fish eye NASA shots that they keep vomiting out and people keep standing on like they are some Holy grail.....

There are plenty of none NASA photos of the Earth, Jack. Despite what flat earthers seem to think, NASA does not own every satellite in the world and are not the only ones capable of sending things to space, or even high enough to see a curve. There are literally satellites, not owned by NASA which take FULL pictures of the Earth every few minutes. Why do you dismiss all that stuff, Jack?

So, live out your fantasy of my view, what ever you want.. Ridicule me for not accepting obviously fake pictures and video that an 8 year old can do.. Stick what ever name on me that helps you have a good meal... enjoy your realm of unreality... you certainly don't want to risk having your eyes open to the real one...

Oh, the irony.

 

[JacksBratt]

Oh, here we go.

Again with the name-calling thing. I have never, not once, ever, called you a derogatory name, at least not in the way you seem to be insinuating. In fact, I don't think I've ever been all that rude to you. All I've ever done is point on the flaws in your arguments.

Really, Jack, this act you put up whenever you're on the defense is tiring and predictable.



You say that often, and to many people. Maybe you should figure out why so many people assume that of you. There might be a good reason.



A base assertion.



Another base assertion. As near as I'm aware, you have no actual expertise in digital photography, so these are rather odd declarative statements for you to be making, given you utter dearth of knowledge on the subject.

It's easy to defish a photo, Jack. As someone who constantly decries others for not doing research, I would think you would know this. There are even plenty of YouTube videos that can you show you how to do it, and we know you love those.



There are plenty of none NASA photos of the Earth, Jack. Despite what flat earthers seem to think, NASA does not own every satellite in the world and are not the only ones capable of sending things to space, or even high enough to see a curve. There are literally satellites, not owned by NASA which take FULL pictures of the Earth every few minutes. Why do you dismiss all that stuff, Jack?



Oh, the irony.

Then, maybe you can tell me why it is.. why it would make you so happy, what the motivation is for you trying to get me to admit that I'm something that I am not?

Can a person not be a searcher? Can they not have any solid conclusion to some of life's mysteries? MUST we have to take the side of one or the other?

Is that what this is all about.. black or white?

I find that there are people who can accept that others have another view... They may not agree but they accept.

Then there are those that hear about someone that thinks there is a FE or something.. and they just cannot help but insult them. Many times without any support for their argument or support to counter the other persons point... NOPE just poke poke poke..... It's like a personal assault to them when someone else doesn't hold their view.

Many times I think that this is out of fear that these people might be on to something and that they, themselves are wrong.

 

[lasthero]

Then, maybe you can tell me why it is.. why it would make you so happy, what the motivation is for you trying to get me to admit that I'm something that I am not?

I’m not trying to get you to admit anything, Jack. I don’t care whether you acknowledge what’s patently obvious. But that’s not going to stop me from pointing it out.

Can a person not be a searcher? Can they not have any solid conclusion to some of life's mysteries? MUST we have to take the side of one or the other?

Is that what this is all about.. black or white?

I find that there are people who can accept that others have another view... They may not agree but they accept.

Then there are those that hear about someone that thinks there is a FE or something.. and they just cannot help but insult them. Many times without any support for their argument or support to counter the other persons point... NOPE just poke poke poke..... It's like a personal assault to them when someone else doesn't hold their view.

Many times I think that this is out of fear that these people might be on to something and that they, themselves are wrong.

Funny story.

I was looking about FSTDT the other day, and I stumbled on this guy named Back2theBible. His writing style is oddly familiar - in particular, he seems to share your tendency to use too many or too few periods for an ellipses. He’s a flat earther, and he even uses a lot of the same arguments you do, like the selenelion thing. And he wrote on CARM, not too long ago, when asked what to would take for him to accept the world was round...

The same as it would take for me to not believe that Jesus is God's Son...............not a chance in this world would ever convince me differently...............remember I was a globe earther before I investigated the matter, my whole premise of investigation was to disprove the flat earth theory....................the only thing that stood in the corner of the flat earth theory for me, was the word of God and how the entire bible is filled with flat earth language and was written by flat earth believers....................then when you start realizing that we do see much further than the curve allows and start putting all the pieces together you can see heliocentrism is a satanic deception of grande proportions............just looking up at the stars at night you can see the stars are laid out in a dome shape, the sun shining down through the clouds with crepuscular rays shows the sun is close and local

But that’s not you, since you’re an open minded thinker and whatnot. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

Anyway, this is a nice pity party, Jack, but do you want to get back to the thing we were talking about before, the stuff about the picture? You know, the stuff that pertained to the topic?

 

[JacksBratt]

I’m not trying to get you to admit anything, Jack.

OK.... Sorry, others are.

I don’t care whether you acknowledge what’s patently obvious. But that’s not going to stop me from pointing it out.

See, there you go... acting like you are of some superior intellect an state it as if it is a solid truth. "patently obvious".

Funny story.

I was looking about FSTDT the other day, and I stumbled on this guy named Back2theBible. His writing style is oddly familiar - in particular, he seems to share your tendency to use too many or too few periods for an ellipses. He’s a flat earther, and he even uses a lot of the same arguments you do, like the selenelion thing. And he wrote on CARM, not too long ago, when asked what to would take for him to accept the world was round...



But that’s not you, since you’re an open minded thinker and whatnot. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

Ya, never heard of the guy/girl. What's FSTDT or CARM?

Are you surprised that others out there think like me? Hold similar thoughts on events of the sky?

Anyway, this is a nice pity party, Jack, but do you want to get back to the thing we were talking about before, the stuff about the picture? You know, the stuff that pertained to the topic?

Next time bring a violin not a fiddle....

As to the picture... still fish eye..... AND.. I will still state that it is much much harder, not impossible..but much harder....To take a curved surface and photograph it to look flat.
Much harder to make this, below, if the earth is a ball:

Than this, below... if it's flat:

 

[lasthero]

Are you surprised that others out there think like me? Hold similar thoughts on events of the sky?

More surprised that he writes almost the same way you do. Weird coincidence.

See, there you go... acting like you are of some superior intellect an state it as if it is a solid truth. "patently obvious".

Good, now you know what it feels like.

Are you surprised that others out there think like me? Hold similar thoughts on events of the sky?

Moreso the notably similar writing style. But hey, I said it couldn’t be you. You’d certainly never say something like that.

Also, you’re literally the only other flat earther I’ve known to make that silly argument.

As to the picture... still fish eye..... AND.. I will still state that it is much much harder, not impossible..but much harder....To take a curved surface and photograph it to look flat.

You can state that all you like, it doesn’t mean much. Especially when there are plenty of readily available tutorials that show how easy it is to defish a picture.

And you’re still doing nothing to explain the full pictures taken by satellites.

 

[JacksBratt]

You can state that all you like, it doesn’t mean much. Especially when there are plenty of readily available tutorials that show how easy it is to defish a picture.

Very interesting that someone, out of the millions on the internet, writes similar to me...

Anyway, I was not talking about "defishing" a photo taken with a fish eye lens... I was talking about taking a real picture of a real curved surface and making it look flat...

Do you see the difference?

 

[lasthero]

Very interesting that someone, out of the millions on the internet, writes similar to me...

Anyway, I was not talking about "defishing" a photo taken with a fish eye lens... I was talking about taking a real picture of a real curved surface and making it look flat...

Do you see the difference?

It’s the same process - take something that curved and flatten it. Really simple.

But we don’t even have to go there. There are plenty of satellite pictures taken of a round earth. Are they using a fisheye lens? How do you even get satellites on a flat earth?
.

 

[JacksBratt]

It’s the same process - take something that curved and flatten it. Really simple.

But we don’t even have to go there. There are plenty of satellite pictures taken of a round earth. Are they using a fisheye lens? How do you even get satellites on a flat earth?
.

It's not the same process. For the making of a curved surface, from a flat and straight one, I simply put a fish eye lens on the device.. snap... and voila.. curved surface.

Now, tell me what lens you would use to take a picture of a soccer ball or cue ball or the hull of a boat... and make it look flat, or straight.


Maybe you can post one?

 

[lasthero]

It's not the same process. For the making of a curved surface, from a flat and straight one, I simply put a fish eye lens on the device.. snap... and voila.. curved surface.

Now, tell me what lens you would use to take a picture of a soccer ball or cue ball or the hull of a boat... and make it look flat, or straight.

That what defishing is, Jack. It’s a a simple process. You can dead seriously do it with any good Photoshop program. I don’t know why this is such a foreign concept to you. You can create the fisheye effect on any photo, of course you can do it in reverse.

Maybe you can post one?

For a guy who loves to tell people to do their own research, you don’t seem to like it when it might draw a conclusion you won’t like.

Just type ‘defishing’ into Google. You’ll learn all about it.

But why are we even debating this when there are plenty of full picture of the Earth? Why are you ignoring the satellite photos?

 

[JacksBratt]

That what defishing is, Jack. It’s a a simple process. You can dead seriously do it with any good Photoshop program. I don’t know why this is such a foreign concept to you. You can create the fisheye effect on any photo, of course you can do it in reverse.



For a guy who loves to tell people to do their own research, you don’t seem to like it when it might draw a conclusion you won’t like.

Just type ‘defishing’ into Google. You’ll learn all about it.

But why are we even debating this when there are plenty of full picture of the Earth? Why are you ignoring the satellite photos?

Defishing is for taking a picture, taken with a fish eye lens and restructuring the image to be viewed as close to normal as possible, with the software.

This is NOT the same as using a taking a picture of a naturally curved surface, such as a ball, and then, either with a lens or some software, making the image appear to be straight.

My point is... you can take a picture of the flat horizon, as it is seen with the naked eye, use a fish eye lens and make it appear to be a curved surface, as the globe would be.

However, it is much more difficult to take a picture of a curved surface, such as the earth, and, using a lens or software, make it appear to be flat, as is shown in many super high altitude weather balloon photo's.

This is not "defishing"

 

[lasthero]

Defishing is for taking a picture, taken with a fish eye lens and restructuring the image to be viewed as close to normal as possible, with the software.

Yes, that's what it's meant for. Which brings up a question - how come you, nor any other flat earth, both to defish this pictures you claim are in a fisheye lens to see what they look like?

This is NOT the same as using a taking a picture of a naturally curved surface, such as a ball, and then, either with a lens or some software, making the image appear to be straight.

It actually is. You're straightening a curve in both cases. I don't know why you think this is so complicated, Jack. It's really not.

However, it is much more difficult to take a picture of a curved surface, such as the earth, and, using a lens or software, make it appear to be flat, as is shown in many super high altitude weather balloon photo's.

You can say it's much more difficult all you want, but it's not. All you're doing is the same process in reverse, manipulating a curve to be straight. Any good Photoshop can do this.

Regardless, 'much more difficult' isn't impossible, so why are we even arguing. Even if I accept your entirely baseless claim that it's harder to straighten a curve than curve a straight, hard =/= impossilble, so the point still remains. If you're going to reject pictures that have show a curve just because they COULD be fake, then you have reject pictures that show a flat surface just because they COULD be fake. Otherwise, you're being bias towards the evidence you think supports you.

Also, I like how you just keep blatantly ignoring the fact that there are satellites which take full pictures of the Earth every few minutes, and clearly aren't under any fisheye effect whatsoever. I've brought that up...what, five times now? And you've ignored the point each time. Usually, you're much more subtle about that.

 

[JacksBratt]

It actually is. You're straightening a curve in both cases. I don't know why you think this is so complicated, Jack. It's really not.

No, it's not.. they are totally different.

AND.. as I said before, using digital software to straighten a curve is NOT impossible.. but far more difficult that photographing a straight plane and making it appear curved.

I don't see any reason to continue this debate. You and I are the only stragglers here and we are obviously not going to change each others minds..

By the way.. no satellite images are taken.. They don't have cameras on them. All images from space, of the earth are, admittedly by NASA.. CGI... in their own words.. "They have to be"


In the CGI clip you have posted... the time for the globe to spin that much would be hours... yet, the clouds remain constant and do not change... This is normal for their CGI as it is too intricate to fabricate and most of the sheep watching don't care. They just sleep through it.

 

[lasthero]

No, it's not.. they are totally different.

AND.. as I said before, using digital software to straighten a curve is NOT impossible.. but far more difficult that photographing a straight plane and making it appear curved.

I don't see any reason to continue this debate.

It’s not really a debate. In a debate y, you’d be expected to bring evidence to support your claim. You’ve yet to do so.

You and I are the only stragglers here and we are obviously not going to change each others minds..

Oh, I don’t think I can change your mind, I’m just using this as an opportunity to point out your hypocrisy.

By the way.. no satellite images are taken.. They don't have cameras on them. All images from space, of the earth are, admittedly by NASA.. CGI... in their own words.. "They have to be"

That is untrue. The specific case your talking about was in reference to a certain set of photos. They did not say ALL photos.

These photos are taken every few minutes, they show the full globe, and they can even be correlated with events on the ground, like the sol in the gif. They are not CGI, unless you seriously think someone somewhere is making an accurate, highly realistic CGI photo every five minutes. Which you might, I don’t know.

In the CGI clip you have posted... the time for the globe to spin that much would be hours... yet, the clouds remain constant and do not change...

The eclipse only laste about three hours, which would be about 1/8 of a rotation of the Earth, so it matches up.

And I don’t know if you noticed, but clouds are really slow. They don’t actually move that much, especially when viewed from thousands of miles away. Most moved around 50 MPH, which isn’t squat when you’re talking about an area of half the Earth. You’re thinking about the tiny bits of clouds you see on the ground.

It’s the difference between watching an ant move when you’re a foot away and watching an ant move when you’re a mile away. Obviously, when you’re that far, you’re not going to see much movement. It’s called parallax.

 

[Skreeper]

It's not the same process. For the making of a curved surface, from a flat and straight one, I simply put a fish eye lens on the device.. snap... and voila.. curved surface.

Now, tell me what lens you would use to take a picture of a soccer ball or cue ball or the hull of a boat... and make it look flat, or straight.


Maybe you can post one?

You're welcome.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

There is no discernable fish-eye lens in the below time-lapse video. I know the typical response by FE proponents is to dismiss video out of hand with "fish-eye! cries. But in a video like this, where no fish-eye can credibly be argued, is the only possible response, "CGI!" ?

I assume for the FE model to be true, we must believe with 100% certainty that the below time-lapse is 100% fake. Yet, if we can't cry Fish-Eye, or CGI, what's left?


An astronaut recorded a time lapse video of Earth and it's breathtaking - CNN

And I say 'verify it' and 'your cred's in shreds nasa' (aka no actual space adventures). Disney's really short-changing them on the quality imho.

Good thing about point to point terrestrial photos - you can check them. They have the character of falsifiability.

I'd have thought you'd have seen the error of your ways by now Mr Skunk.

 

[JacksBratt]

You're welcome.

So, then... Which is it? Photo number one is real... or number two?

 

[lasthero]

Good thing about point to point terrestrial photos - you can check them. .

You mean like this guy did, when he compared pictures from Earth and they matched up with satellite photos of the planet?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You mean like this guy did, when he compared pictures from Earth and they matched up with satellite photos of the planet?

Ah, the glorious geostationary satellite, orbiting at an altitude of some 36,000 km and moving at over 11,000 kmh (or Mach 9 in the lingo, about 4x rifle bullet speed). But wait! That's assuming a stationary rotating earth. Betcha can't calculate the speed it's tumbling around an earth itself orbiting the sun at 110,000 kmh. Wwwway faster! Plus it would need to change speed significantly to 'catch up' with the earth on each revolution.

But how about them fixed and super long range camera shots, not even a flicker, a hint of motion relative to those clouds? And how does it deal with earth's unpredictable perturbations such as nutation, and with space weather like solar flares and other events that can throw it out of orbit or mess with its electronics?

Unfortunately you got a case of indoctrination by magical thinking there my man. Take the cure - Jesus Christ, the truth - he'll save you.