SH Archive The experiment that ended the Flat / Globe debate.

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-03-10 20:55:38
Reaction Score: 2

Great to have you here @Lurck, I consider flat earth a big psyop, and it makes people stop thinking rationally. Like you I found evidence against everything you mention, and still can't find any evidence for flat earth.

There's a good criticism of flat earth concepts here: FlatEarth.ws

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-03-10 23:58:20
Reaction Score: 5

There is one issue with the spherical one though. They won't show it to us. I don't know what it really looks like, but I'm fairly convinced it does not look like a properly scaled globe.

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2019-03-11 15:50:12
Reaction Score: 3

I just want a single picture of earth that was taken from space. Or perhaps a picture from the edge of the earth, whichever NASA might be able to provide, that'd be great.

And just to spoil it for everyone, it's not round or flat... it's a simulation. You go east far enough, you come out the west. You are the Pac-Man.

 

[_harris]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: 0harris0
Date: 2019-03-12 15:06:13
Reaction Score: 1

I just want a single picture of earth that was taken from space. Or perhaps a picture from the edge of the earth, whichever NASA might be able to provide, that'd be great.

don't always look to nasa... japanese satellite images from 2014!

Meteorological Satellites -Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)-

yes the main photo is a composite, but just below are all of the original, single, uncomposited images used to make said composite

And just to spoil it for everyone, it's not round or flat... it's a simulation. You go east far enough, you come out the west. You are the Pac-Man.

if you turn round in a circle fast enough, you end up following yourself

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2019-03-12 16:12:10
Reaction Score: 1

Meteorological Satellites -Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)-

yes the main photo is a composite

Then toss it in the bin, it's shite. I want a very simple photo taken from one snap of a camera.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Moriarty
Date: 2019-03-12 23:27:46
Reaction Score: 0

Then toss it in the bin, it's shite. I want a very simple photo taken from one snap of a camera.

I agree. Such a lot of conceit on this subject from those that sucked in the globe nonsense. Its a shame to be so single minded and NONE of those pictures look anything approaching genuine

 

[_harris]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: 0harris0
Date: 2019-03-14 01:33:20
Reaction Score: 1

Then toss it in the bin, it's shite. I want a very simple photo taken from one snap of a camera.

so do you think composite only means "a photograph reconstructed from segments of other photographs"?

that can be (but isn't always) the case, in this instance they use several different lenses/filters, different ways of capturing the same image, and make a composite to make details more visible and the colours more (or less) "realistic". If you aren't aware of this, then your idea of composite image production is very low and kinda invalidates your "anti-composite" stance towards imaging.

AND.... I you actually bothered to read my whole post, you would have seen the next thing I wrote:-

just below are all of the original, single, uncomposited images

so, I attempted to show you exactly what you were asking for and you knee-jerk about the least important part of what i posted.. I guess it's easier to do that then actually bother with counter evidence, right?!?!

jeez man I thought this forum would be a safe haven, away from knee-jerking flat earthers

Post automatically merged: 3/13/19

I agree. Such a lot of conceit on this subject from those that sucked in the globe nonsense. Its a shame to be so single minded and NONE of those pictures look anything approaching genuine

no conceit from my part, did you explore the link i posted?
you would see many NON-COMPOSITE photographs of earth

[I'm all up for the concept of flat earth btw, but I'm still waiting for some direct, observable proof of it]

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Moriarty
Date: 2019-03-14 16:33:49
Reaction Score: 0

so do you think composite only means "a photograph reconstructed from segments of other photographs"?

that can be (but isn't always) the case, in this instance they use several different lenses/filters, different ways of capturing the same image, and make a composite to make details more visible and the colours more (or less) "realistic". If you aren't aware of this, then your idea of composite image production is very low and kinda invalidates your "anti-composite" stance towards imaging.

AND.... I you actually bothered to read my whole post, you would have seen the next thing I wrote:-

so, I attempted to show you exactly what you were asking for and you knee-jerk about the least important part of what i posted.. I guess it's easier to do that then actually bother with counter evidence, right?!?!

jeez man I thought this forum would be a safe haven, away from knee-jerking flat earthers

Post automatically merged: 3/13/19

no conceit from my part, did you explore the link i posted?
you would see many NON-COMPOSITE photographs of earth

[I'm all up for the concept of flat earth btw, but I'm still waiting for some direct, observable proof of it]

I am waiting for proof of either to be honest. So far I have seen nothing

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-03-14 16:52:51
Reaction Score: 1

As it stands, with Hubbles and alike photographing galaxies and what not, there is exactly ZERO excuse for the lack of a non composite photograph.

Stuff is weird.

 

[anotherlayer]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: anotherlayer
Date: 2019-03-14 17:47:34
Reaction Score: 1

so do you think composite only means "a photograph reconstructed from segments of other photographs"?

Yes. And I think you took me the wrong way. I'm your friend, we are not on opposite sides of the fence. There is no difference between a "reaction" and a "knee-jerk reaction" on the internet.

 

[Worsaae]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Worsaae
Date: 2019-03-14 18:19:59
Reaction Score: 1

This forum is so refreshingly polite.

On topic: I've got to admit I didn't understand the experiment in this thread and I find it weird that there is zero non composite photographs. I do however believe that the earth is round, although I find the idea of it not being round very "gravitating"

 

[realitycheck]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: realitycheck
Date: 2019-03-14 18:55:20
Reaction Score: 5

I am not into flat Earth - I would sooner say Matrix like simulation if we are not on planet/globe. But as I use PS daily and do photomontages when needed etc. as designer so few things in hi-res Earth photo of JMA caught my eye.

• Google maps is considered as accurate representation of Earth? (correct me if I am wrong)
• what first caught my eye was size of Australia and position of rest so I did quick compare with google maps
• I tried to align upper tip of Australia on both screens as most visible and closest to center and did quick outline of most visible parts - Australia and Korea peninsula as main points (images 01, 02, 03, 04)
• when you have both layers with outlines active difference is huge, Australia is smaller in satellite photo, Korea is closer and at different angle - in short or google maps is way off or satellite image is faked (image 05)
• now moving in closer, looking by illumination of earth and reflection on sea by tip of Australia at moment of photo Sun should be right behind us, maybe little lower from center, so shadows should be away from the sun but on some parts shadows just don't make sense (also taking in account shadows should be on a globe shape so closer to edge is at lower angle so they should be much longer)
• on image 06 shadow should be on other side of cloud or snow mountain (arrow is approx. direction light is coming from)
• on image 07 it is even more noticeable - green arrow is direction of light in photo and red one should be correct direction (away from viewer), and that close to edge shadows should be longer
• image 08 is of some clouds that look to me just like when you make brush strokes in PS - maybe better visible in max res photo, but looking at clouds they just don't feel right in so many areas, like upper clouds are more gray (why if they are first in a way of light?) and some look too stretched and distorted that are close to the edge, but other in same area are not (layers?), shadows don't align with Sun position... etc.
• just interesting find on satellite photo - looks like a giant hole in Asia - image 09

So if somebody asked me do you think JMA image of Earth is real untouched photo - I would say not real, or if real photo than it was edited to in many areas.

I don't know if we are on a globe or plate or simulation or in snow globe but thing is on almost any official photo of Earth there are edits and mistakes - why? Why if we have so many satellites and Hubble and James Webb Space Telescope and companies launching cars into space, why is such a problem to give us normal, unedited photo of Earth from every possible angle?

 

[Worsaae]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Worsaae
Date: 2019-03-14 22:06:47
Reaction Score: 1

Very interesting find! That's some good detective work

Are the pictures of the earth at the same time? I could imagine that the atmosphere could distort the picture slightly, but I'm not an expert

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Moriarty
Date: 2019-03-14 22:19:54
Reaction Score: 0

As it stands, with Hubbles and alike photographing galaxies and what not, there is exactly ZERO excuse for the lack of a non composite photograph.

Stuff is weird.

I concur

Post automatically merged: 3/14/19

A

I am not into flat Earth - I would sooner say Matrix like simulation if we are not on planet/globe. But as I use PS daily and do photomontages when needed etc. as designer so few things in hi-res Earth photo of JMA caught my eye.

• Google maps is considered as accurate representation of Earth? (correct me if I am wrong)
• what first caught my eye was size of Australia and position of rest so I did quick compare with google maps
• I tried to align upper tip of Australia on both screens as most visible and closest to center and did quick outline of most visible parts - Australia and Korea peninsula as main points (images 01, 02, 03, 04)
• when you have both layers with outlines active difference is huge, Australia is smaller in satellite photo, Korea is closer and at different angle - in short or google maps is way off or satellite image is faked (image 05)
• now moving in closer, looking by illumination of earth and reflection on sea by tip of Australia at moment of photo Sun should be right behind us, maybe little lower from center, so shadows should be away from the sun but on some parts shadows just don't make sense (also taking in account shadows should be on a globe shape so closer to edge is at lower angle so they should be much longer)
• on image 06 shadow should be on other side of cloud or snow mountain (arrow is approx. direction light is coming from)
• on image 07 it is even more noticeable - green arrow is direction of light in photo and red one should be correct direction (away from viewer), and that close to edge shadows should be longer
• image 08 is of some clouds that look to me just like when you make brush strokes in PS - maybe better visible in max res photo, but looking at clouds they just don't feel right in so many areas, like upper clouds are more gray (why if they are first in a way of light?) and some look too stretched and distorted that are close to the edge, but other in same area are not (layers?), shadows don't align with Sun position... etc.
• just interesting find on satellite photo - looks like a giant hole in Asia - image 09

So if somebody asked me do you think JMA image of Earth is real untouched photo - I would say not real, or if real photo than it was edited to in many areas.

I don't know if we are on a globe or plate or simulation or in snow globe but thing is on almost any official photo of Earth there are edits and mistakes - why? Why if we have so many satellites and Hubble and James Webb Space Telescope and companies launching cars into space, why is such a problem to give us normal, unedited photo of Earth from every possible angle?

View attachment 18902View attachment 18903View attachment 18904View attachment 18905View attachment 18906
View attachment 18907View attachment 18908View attachment 18909View attachment 18910

And I concur with this too

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Obertryn
Date: 2019-04-10 17:04:03
Reaction Score: 1

I am also done arguing flat earth with anyone.

If anyone is still unsure and would like to test the model for themselves, see if you can re-create this scene in AutoCAD or any other CAD program. Draw a ball with a radius of 3959 miles, go 1000 feet up in the air right over the pole, take a screenshot of the horizon and see if the result matches the photographic evidence.

View attachment 9541View attachment 9542

To be fair, there is another explanation for the horizon being flat - the Earth is simply far, FAR bigger than what the current consensus says. Like, probably five to seven times bigger, which means you'd need to go up way higher to see the curvature. Alternatively, it could be like how light is both a wave and a particle and the Earth actually exists in some kind of quantum state where it exhibits traits of both but I can't even begin to wrap my head around how that would even work.

Flat Earth seems like a pretty deliberate psy-op with how suspiciously well-organized it is and how it conveniently appeared right around the time more and more people started realizing that not everything is alright at the National Aeronautics and Space Agency. It still has the benefit of revealing some of NASA's BS because they needed a way to sucker people in with some legitimate info.

 

[wild heretic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: wild heretic
Date: 2019-04-10 18:11:34
Reaction Score: 0

Yeah the lack of real photos of earth is an eye opener and should make anyone suspicious something is wrong.

I think the only actual supposed photos of Earth are from the moon missions. And they are dodgy, not to mention the moon missions themselves, obviously lol.

All satellite images are composites. All that means is each pixel is a photo if you know what I mean. More weirdness is they need mega super sensitive light sensors for each pixel... like ridiculously state of the art sensitive. That in itself is extremely odd.

I think it ties into why the stars aren't seen on cameras at high altitude and the moon always looks tiny.

My theory is that they physically can't take a picture of the Earth even if they wanted to. They could make the earth look like a globe if they wanted I guess, but light receptivity seems to be extremely diminished at very high altitude. Why? I've no idea. I'm sure some of us could come up with interesting postulations such as light needs a certain density of ether/matter on a very large scale to be detected for example.

Maybe our physical eyes need a certain physical density of atmosphere to detect the permutations of the light-wave, whereas satellite sensors can detect such disturbances in the finest of ethereal mediums?

That would be my guess.

 

[Rhayader]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Rhayader
Date: 2019-04-10 21:07:28
Reaction Score: 0

To be fair, there is another explanation for the horizon being flat - the Earth is simply far, FAR bigger than what the current consensus says. Like, probably five to seven times bigger, which means you'd need to go up way higher to see the curvature. Alternatively, it could be like how light is both a wave and a particle and the Earth actually exists in some kind of quantum state where it exhibits traits of both but I can't even begin to wrap my head around how that would even work.

Flat Earth seems like a pretty deliberate psy-op with how suspiciously well-organized it is and how it conveniently appeared right around the time more and more people started realizing that not everything is alright at the National Aeronautics and Space Agency. It still has the benefit of revealing some of NASA's BS because they needed a way to sucker people in with some legitimate info.

Yes! When we realise the quantum world, it's quite irrelevant if the earth is flat or round, but my personal belief would be along these lines...it can exist as both depending on who is observing! I'm inclined to call flat earth a psy-op also or at least a distraction, perhaps it's just very strong indoctrination but the evidence just doesn't fit for me.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Mondea
Date: 2019-04-10 23:10:20
Reaction Score: 1

Im sort of conflicted by the evidence on both sides. One one hand, NASA seems to be creating flip-flops every other day. Everything from their ex-astronouts saying they would go too the moon in a heartbeat if they would have the technology, to some absurdly ridiculous excuses for not retaining the original moon landing footage.

On the other hand. There are certain things that just arent physically sound with the flat earth model either. There are plenty of flat earth debunkers out there on Youtube ( and i sure hope nobody here suggests that all of them are government NASA shills ) who show the certain complications of the FE model, like real life plane flights and their insane long routes they would need to take in order to travel the same path over the FE model. Not to mention Wolfie6020's channel filled with "evidence" pertaining against the FE model. Wolfie is a pilot and therefore has access to information regarding flight paths and intricate details about navigation. I will note however that in some of his videos it appears so as he might have access to high altitude planes, that is some spy planes if im not mistaken, so there is certainly room for speculation of his integrity.

TLDR: After over more than a year of observing the emerging evidence from both sides, i havent yet been convinced by either side. The evidence seems to be conflicting and it would seem as though neither of the FE or globe models are correct.