Ultra High Definition (4K) Crew Earth Observations

a reply to: wildespace

Here's a pic I found with a view 52Km across the lake to Toronto where the whole of the buildings can be seen.

The pic is from a FE forum forum.tfes.org... , stated as taken from a viewing stand at Beamer Memorial Conservation Area, 2km inland from Grimsby beach. The poster misrepresented their figures, so found the lookout on google earth I got my own figures to work with.

Distance to CN tower = 52.67km
Camera Elevation = G.L. 192m + 5m tower + 2m tripod= 199m asl
lake elevation = 74m asl
G.L. of CN tower = 83m asl or 9m above lake level
so G.L. at CN tower is 190m below camera

Online curvature calculator says that horizon should be at 49.2Km and that less than a metre of the tower should be obscured by the horizon.

I found a 2nd pic, taken I think, from a building site down in Grimsby urbantoronto.ca... , ~50.6Km from the tower.

I'm assuming (guessing) that camera height is 9m above the lake, same as G.L. of the tower and the calculator says that horizon should be at 10.7Km and that 124.9m of the tower should be obscured by the horizon.

I scaled both pics so that the tower/adjacent buildings match heights and drew a horizontal line on the lookout image which accurately represents the horizon line on the low-level image (I did superimpose them and confirmed scaling and line placement accuracy). Heights of the buildings at extremities don't quite marry but these are probably at varying distances, so perspective effects from differing heights/bearings would explain it.

Calculator obscured height values look to be well in the ballpark. Skydome roof height for example is 84m + 9m(G.L.) = 93m above the lake and is obviously well below the horizon in the low-level pic.

I thought it interesting to find images showing these buildings over the lake horizon taken from different heights but similar distances and bearings .

Cheers,

Bob


Two views of Toronto across the lake from different altitudes


Sceenshot of google earth paths


Viewing platform at Beamer

a reply to: Bob52

There you go. This is the sort of thing I was asking semperfried for. A known vantage point, with known heights (or at least close) of the camera.

a reply to: Bob52

Can you provide one that is from the same distance and not half of what is being discussed?

That source you provided from the flat earth society is fun reading...especially the part about Tesla being responsible for the Tanhusta meteor...comedy gold from flat earth believers.

a reply to: Bob52

Distance to CN tower = 52.67km Camera Elevation = G.L. 192m + 5m tower + 2m tripod= 199m asl lake elevation = 74m asl G.L. of CN tower = 83m asl or 9m above lake level so G.L. at CN tower is 190m below camera

Shouldn't that be 199-83= 116

116m below camera.

Not that it really changes your point, but just sayin'.

a reply to: SemperFried

Thanks for that. Good call.

So for lookout photo, calculator now says;

Horizon distance = 38.45 Km
CN Tower base is 15.88m - 9m (G.L. above water) = 6.88 metres below horizon

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I was replying to a posting made on June 4, which asked "So are there any pictures or videos where all of Toronto is visible from the far shore? I'd like to see some.", and so thought it was relevant.

I found those two images from searching-by-image on google and was happy to find a pair of shots showing virtually the same view but from different heights. The effect would be much the same at 52 Miles as it is at 52 Km.

They're not in space

they're recording through a window on the iss which is circular using only the top part though, they use the whole window when u want a video of the entire earth, appearing as though they're outer space.. Just watch the video while covering the black part where we should see stars, it's easier to see that way.

a reply to: ssenerawa

The cupola through which most filming is done has several windows, including those looking across Earth as well as the big one that can be made to look straight down.

They are in LEO. Whether that is 'space' or not is open to interpretation.

originally posted by: ssenerawa
they're recording through a window on the iss which is circular using only the top part though, they use the whole window when u want a video of the entire earth, appearing as though they're outer space.. Just watch the video while covering the black part where we should see stars, it's easier to see that way.

I'm not sure what you mean by "entire earth", but they can't see the entire earth from a single line of sight, nor can they photograph or video the entire Earth from the cupola and get the entire Earth all in the same photo frame.

The ISS is too close to the earth for that, considering it orbits at only 200 miles above the surface. From that height, they can see large areas of the earth that could fill their camera frames, but they are too close to get the entire disk of the Earth in one picture -- no matter what window they use, and even if they are outside the ISS requiring no window at all.

a reply to: ssenerawa

they're recording through a window on the iss which is circular using only the top part though, they use the whole window when u want a video of the entire earth, appearing as though they're outer space..

There is not one window you look out that would give you a vantage point to see the whole Earth in one view.

Just watch the video while covering the black part where we should see stars, it's easier to see that way.

WHy should you see stars there?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

The cupola through which most filming is done has several windows, including those looking across Earth as well as the big one that can be made to look straight down.

I don't think they have one that they can see a whole view of the Earth out of the cupola windows. I don't think their altitude gives them that opportunity to see it.

originally posted by: ssenerawa
Just watch the video while covering the black part where we should see stars, it's easier to see that way.

The video camera exposure settings would need to be set to high in order to see stars (set for taking video in darkness). If stars were visible in the video, the earth would be an over-exposed blob of brightness. To properly expose the Earth, the exposure settings are too low to see any stars (the exposure settings would be similar to daylight exposure)

Consider this thought experiment (and even an experiment you can do yourself): If you had a camera that had manual settings, and you set that camera to take daylight pictures, and THEN tried to photograph stars on a dark and starry night using that daylight exposure setting, it's likely that no stars would show up in the image (except maybe Sirius or similarly bright objects such as Venus) -- even if you could see a lot of stars with your own two eyes.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I would do anything to float around space and experience the overview effect.

I think its called the overview effect.

Either way I'd love to get off this rock for a minute.

In fact I think everyone needs an off world vacation for a minute seems like everyone is starting to go crazy.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You're right and that isn't what I meant

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

You're right and that isn't what I meant

I was just trying to point out to a certain member that you would be unable to see it from the cupola, I got what you were trying to say though.

Although it seems you have to hold the hands of those who believe the Earth is flat so they don't walk right off the edge.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Although it seems you have to hold the hands of those who believe the Earth is flat so they don't walk right off the edge.

It's a shame this thread has descended into nonsense instead of celebrating the magnificent achievement of the ISS and the views it affords us - a spacecraft passing over my house on a regular basis at the moment in an entirely predictable way in an orbit only possible around a sphere.

I've said it before: in my view flat earthers don't believe the earth is flat, they believe in their own intellectual superiority. They aren't interested in proving the earth is a plane, they are interested in proving how clever they are.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

It's a shame this thread has descended into nonsense instead of celebrating the magnificent achievement of the ISS and the views it affords us

I almost wish I would have made this a FE thread, as I knew that is where it would end up going.

Some just can't leave the world of conspiracies long enough to see the beauty of the planet we call home...and that to me is a sad way to live life.

Very nice CGI from NASA.

What? it isn't CGI?

oh please, come on now.

Clouds are not moving, everything is static.

In the second video, they enter the dark side of the Earth and there are absolutely no lights coming from the dark side.

Where is the green halo above Earth that we see in other ISS videos?

fake, fake, fake...

originally posted by: masterp
Very nice CGI from NASA.

YOu do know that more than one space agency is involved in the ISS right?

What? it isn't CGI?

Any evidence that it is?

oh please, come on now.

Clouds are not moving, everything is static.

How much do you expect the clouds to move in the few seconds each segment is on display? Have you actually checked to see that they don't move or are you just assuming they aren't?

In the second video, they enter the dark side of the Earth and there are absolutely no lights coming from the dark side.

They are over the ocean. Why would there be city lights in the ocean?

Where is the green halo above Earth that we see in other ISS videos?

Find an image with the 'green halo' (otherwise known as the atmosphere), then read up on the differences between that and the video on display here. You might learn something.

fake, fake, fake...

Ranting about it being fake and it being fake are two different things. Prove it's fake.