When you see it

When you see it...

So this is pretty epic...

What would it mean for us as a people?
What can we do about this?
At what point do we accept something as truth?

looking forward to replies



Remember these are allegedly PHOTOGRAPHS!
news.nationalpost.com...




www.echalk.co.uk...

Don't think it's the angle...

If the 2012 photo is true, then Canada would wrap halfway across the far side...

I'm sure the 2007 has problems as well...

That 2012 pic from NASA.gov…

you be the judge

a reply to: SKurtle

2 "photos" taken 5 years apart and it appears the USA has tripled in size.
Not sure how your questions fit to the image.

Your own answers to your own questions may help the flow of this thread and give people, including myself, some understanding of what it is you are trying to point out here.

Like a cancer it grows!

a reply to: chelsealad

if these iconic photos of earth from nasa are inaccurate or false, then what else is?

originally posted by: SKurtle
a reply to: chelsealad

if these iconic photos of earth from nasa are inaccurate or false, then what else is?

Yes, including most posts on this site...?

a reply to: Lazarus Short

One thing when a Joe is talking nonsense, it's something else when it's NASA/G0V

a reply to: SKurtle

Apparently, the Southern Hemisphere doesn't exist, so NASA had to stretch out the rest of the world to fit it over the globe.

originally posted by: SKurtle
a reply to: Lazarus Short

One thing when a Joe is talking nonsense, it's something else when it's NASA/G0V

Quite so....NASA/GOV has such a fantastic record of telling us the truth.

a reply to: olaru12

now we have photographic evidence its BS!

WHAT'S OUR NEXT MOVE PEOPLE!?

a reply to: SKurtle

The breeders are spreading the actual lay of the land.

a reply to: MagesticEsoteric

Maybe... Prolly Propaganda

I can't believe that in 2016 people still believe they live on a spinning ball! We will never learn

a reply to: SKurtle

The differences between the images relate to how the images map to a spherical surface.

Things that are more perpendicular to the camera (like the center of the view) appear larger than things disappearing over the limb of the globe. If you imagine a horizontal line between two points on a ball facing straight before your eyes. As you rotate the ball around horizontally, the view of the line becomes foreshortened as it rotates around towards the edge of the ball. The line appears shorter.

Because of the focal depth of the image being adjusted by the NASA guys, to keep the whole image in focus, it tricks our eyes to 'flatten' the image, making it appear more like a flat disk rather than seeing it as a ball.

So America 'looks' smaller in the 2007 image compared to the 2012 image but the actual sizes of things don't actually change on the surface of the spherical Earth, just the angle with which we view them.

Come on... Seriously?!

Give it a break man!?

Clearly we are dealing with CGI Composite images and this is just one of NASA's many foul ups... They are allowed a few mulligans... It's not like it's brain surgery. What's next the Kanewter Valve on the 2007 camera failed to reintrifricicate the imaging functiation frequency modulation which confused the relay of America's relative size in relation to the amount of blow hards per capita ratios?!?

Haha bet y'all thought I was gonna say it's not rocket science.a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: wastedown
Come on... Seriously?!

Give it a break man!?

Clearly we are dealing with CGI Composite images and this is just one of NASA's many foul ups... They are allowed a few mulligans... It's not like it's brain surgery. What's next the Kanewter Valve on the 2007 camera failed to reintrifricicate the imaging functiation frequency modulation which confused the relay of America's relative size in relation to the amount of blow hards per capita ratios?!?

Haha bet y'all thought I was gonna say it's not rocket science.a reply to: chr0naut

No, everyone knows that Kanewter valves are only used in septic reticulation and would freeze up in space.

it is more due to the plenary oscillations of bi-frangial stabilizers within the imaging mechanism (VIISI), which is not a conventional lens and sensor array, as is usually encountered, but is gravimetrically stabilized and gimballed set of frequency-optimized individual sensory instruments, each sending separate data streams relating to the different frequency ranges of the relevant sensor, to be reconstituted in a generated image stripe, which itself is further composited into the Blue Marble image.

... the government is paying an absolute fortune for it, so you know it has to be real.

Let us not forget m.youtube.com... a reply to: chr0naut

a reply to: SKurtle

Fun fact, the last low orbit picture taken of the Earth was in the 1970's. Since then every "picture" of the Earth has been created from data. Trying to find the official Nasa interview I read this information from, will EDIT this post when I do find it.

EDIT: Found it.

The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17.

My role is to make imagery from Earth sciences data. I turn data into pictures.

I think I found this by researching the Flat Earth Theory, something I've never thought to look into but decided too one day because I was that bored. Some quite interesting theories are put forward, but as with everything I read about I like to keep open minded

But...the early image is clearly focused on South America, which means that the widest part of North America isn't even visible in the image...what are we supposed to be looking at here?

Rotate that 2007 image down and to the right a bit and then you will have the same image.