The Seed

Apple Sky · Jan 6, 2026

@d taylor

Happy birthday

Apple Sky · Jan 6, 2026

prodromos said:
None of the cameras used on the Apollo missions were fisheye lenses

See the ZEISS technology used throughout each apollo mission — Optical Heritage Museum | Southbridge MA

The most stunning and iconic photography from space, all captured with a ZEISS lens.

www.opticalheritagemuseum.com

How do you know ? Your only going by what they tell or show you.

prodromos · Jan 6, 2026

Apple Sky said:
You can tell if an image is real or not, by going to 'FotoForensics'.

View attachment 375024

Fake ..........

You obviously have no comprehension of what you are looking at. Have you tried uploading a genuine photo of yourself and seeing what the Error Level Analysis of your face looks like?

This is me, in case you were wondering

d407898bc90fc25e46712c0e962c3d5c26b818a5.877839-ela.png

prodromos · Jan 6, 2026

Apple Sky said:
How do you know ? Your only going by what they tell or show you.

What evidence have you offered? Oh that's right, nothing. Just whatever false notion pops into your head.

David Lamb · Jan 6, 2026

Apple Sky said:
You can tell if an image is real or not, by going to 'FotoForensics'.

View attachment 375024

Fake ..........

So have you submitted all the photos of the earth from space to FotoForensics? Anyway, do you know how to interpret the results from FotoForensics? I just tried using Fotoforensics on this photo:

Here is the result fromFotoForensic:

Does that make the photo of me a fake?

Apple Sky · Jan 6, 2026

prodromos said:
You obviously have no comprehension of what you are looking at. Have you tried uploading a genuine photo of yourself and seeing what the Error Level Analysis of your face looks like?

This is me, in case you were wondering
View attachment 375026

Yes & this is the earth & the moon.

Notice anything different ?

prodromos · Jan 6, 2026

David Lamb said:
So have you submitted all the photos of the earth from space to FotoForensics? Anyway, do you know how to interpret the results from FotoForensics? I just tried using Fotoforensics on this photo:

View attachment 375028

Here is the result fromFotoForensic:

View attachment 375027

Does that make the photo of me a fake?

The most important thing to look at in a photo is the Metadata. If it is a genuine digital photo then the camera details are stored in the Metadata of the image. If the photo is CGI then the Metadata has details of the software used to generate the image.

Unfortunately, your photo is a scan of a CMYK printed image which appears as a uniform texture to the analyser software.

David Lamb · Jan 6, 2026

Apple Sky said:
Yes & this earth & the moon.

View attachment 375029

Notice anything different ?

But unless you know how to interpret the differences, that means absolutely nothing. Two of us have posted the FotoForensics results of real photos of ourselves - mine included the original image for comparison.

prodromos · Jan 6, 2026

Apple Sky said:
Yes & this is the earth & the moon.

View attachment 375029

Notice anything different ?

Obviously my glasses must be fake

Once again, do you have any comprehension as to what the analysis image is presenting to you? Have you gone through all the tutorials? Do you expect the texture of the moon to be identical to the earth?

Apple Sky · Jan 6, 2026

Rob Skiba

Description

As a graduate of the Hollywood Film Institute and avid seeker of truth, Rob Skiba’s unique talents and keen interests led him to becoming an award-winning documentary filmmaker, a best-selling author, and an international keynote speaker at conferences around the world who has worked on a TV series called “SEED.”

Apple Sky · Jan 6, 2026

prodromos said:
Do you expect the texture of the moon to be identical to the earth?

Yes.

Herman Hedning · Jan 6, 2026

Apple Sky said:
Yes.

Why? Have you even read the tutorials on how to use the FotoForensic tools? Have a look here: FotoForensics

This part is relevant to the image you used:

The size of an image and the quality of the picture directly impacts the ability to evaluate the file. While a large picture that is near-camera-original may reveal a wealth of information, a tiny thumbnail image is unlikely to tell much about the picture.

And also this:

It is very common to see an amateur analyst force a result into their desired answer. For example, ELA renders a picture that reflects the compression rate. People often post to Twitter comments like "It's real!" or "It's fake!" when the ELA result really indicates a very low quality image or a consistent compression rate. (With ELA, "white" does not mean modified; white means a higher error level potential that must be compared against similar edges and similar surfaces in the picture.)

Apple Sky · Jan 6, 2026

prodromos said:
None of the cameras used on the Apollo missions were fisheye lenses

See the ZEISS technology used throughout each apollo mission — Optical Heritage Museum | Southbridge MA

The most stunning and iconic photography from space, all captured with a ZEISS lens.

www.opticalheritagemuseum.com

When the horizon of the earth is going from convex to flat to concave and back - warping all over the place, that's a really good indication of a fish-eye lens being used. But the fact that people have shot footage of the earth's horizon from altitudes above 100,000 feet, not using fish-eye lenses, and the resulting images are that of a totally flat horizon, should give us all pause to consider. At the very least, it says to me that NO ONE has seen the alleged curvature of the earth at any altitude below 100,000 feet. So, PLEASE stop claiming you have seen it out the window of your commercial airline flights (which are below 40,000 feet)

prodromos · Jan 6, 2026

Apple Sky said:
When the horizon of the earth is going from convex to flat to concave and back - warping all over the place, that's a really good indication of a fish-eye lens being used. But the fact that people have shot footage of the earth's horizon from altitudes above 100,000 feet, not using fish-eye lenses, and the resulting images are that of a totally flat horizon, should give us all pause to consider. At the very least, it says to me that NO ONE has seen the alleged curvature of the earth at any altitude below 100,000 feet. So, PLEASE stop claiming you have seen it out the window of your commercial airline flights (which are below 40,000 feet)

Rob is neglecting to mention that non fisheye lenses have a narrow field of view, so they don't take in much of the horizon, so there will be little to no curvature visible. Our eyes are not the same as a camera lens and can take in a much larger view of the horizon allowing the curvature to be evident. I've also shown you frames from one of those balloon videos (which flat earthers use to 'prove' the earth is flat) where the horizon was in the centre of the camera view which was using a fisheye lens, and despite being in the centre where there is no distortion, the horizon was curved down.

Plus, all you need to see the curve from a flight at 30,000 ft is a bottle of water. While looking out the window at the horizon, hold the bottle in front of your eyes so that you are looking across the surface of the water which will give you "eye level". The horizon sits below eye level which it would not do if the earth were flat but does so because the earth is a globe.

Servus · Jan 6, 2026

prodromos said:
This is me, in case you were wondering
View attachment 375026

Ha, I knew it. You're really just a faded chalk drawing.

Apple Sky · Jan 6, 2026

prodromos said:
Plus, all you need to see the curve from a flight at 30,000 ft is a bottle of water. While looking out the window at the horizon, hold the bottle in front of your eyes so that you are looking across the surface of the water which will give you "eye level". The horizon sits below eye level which it would not do if the earth were flat but does so because the earth is a globe.

I've never seen any curvature whilst flying.

Apple Sky · Jan 6, 2026

Servus said:
Ha, I knew it. You're really just a faded chalk drawing.

He looks very intelligent with those glasses on.

prodromos · Jan 6, 2026

Apple Sky said:
I've never seen any curvature whilst flying.

That's because you don't use a water level to determine eye level. You simply define the horizon as eye level and say;

"Ha!. See, the horizon rises to eye level! The earth is flat!"

prodromos · Jan 6, 2026

Apple Sky said:
He looks very intelligent with those glasses on.

That's why I never take them off. So at least I 'look' intelligent. :oldthumbsup:

Apple Sky · Jan 6, 2026

prodromos said:
That's because you don't use a water level to determine eye level.

I'm sure not going to take a level with me everytime I fly, oh & BTW your not allowed to take liquids on a plane anymore.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

The Seed

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Rob Skiba​

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Hiking is fun

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

<><

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald

Similar threads

Rob Skiba