It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mandela Effect - Kidney Proof - Internal Organs Changed Position

page: 39
19
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




The reason people may not have seen an image like that in the past is because the type of computer processing required for the average joe to stitch together composites like that has only become mainstream in RECENT history.


also the rainbow effect is possible by simply using a simple PANORAMIC capture of the sky

My first successful panorama of the Milky Way. Thought you guys would enjoy it!



how can you explain that ?




posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: heineken
a reply to: Greggers




The reason people may not have seen an image like that in the past is because the type of computer processing required for the average joe to stitch together composites like that has only become mainstream in RECENT history.


also the rainbow effect is possible by simply using a simple PANORAMIC capture of the sky

My first successful panorama of the Milky Way. Thought you guys would enjoy it!



how can you explain that ?

Yes, that's essentially the same effect. An object too large to fit in a single photograph is stitched together in a panorama, and in this case an algorithm is selected that keeps the horizon flat.


If you're honestly asking me to explain that, you need to go back and re-read that blog post again.
edit on 24-8-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers
Yes, those are all perfectly normal images. Notice the individual images are straight, which is what I thought you said you expected initially.


i said the line was straight rising from right to left at an angle of +- 130 deg

stop trying to hold on to your explanation which does not by any way explain how you can get an arch like this of the milky way..



this aint no composite, no panoramic, no stitching...this is just how the milky way looks now...

and this aint normal to me...is it normal to you?



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

bro just dont wake up



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
the milky way as seen in Stellarium >



sry if not so clear, here is outlined



I hope no one refutes the precision of this software.

this is how the milky way looks now, no composite, no panorama, no time lapse

just a rainbow milky way

if you are still in denial, get the Stellarium software and see by yourself.


edit on 24-8-2016 by heineken because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: heineken

The curve isn't there, what are you not understanding. The curve is only caused by the type of imaging being done. I already told you to research how the curve happens in that type of photo.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: heineken

Source your image. What is a matter with you? Look at the foreground, the railing against the sidewalk, you can clearly see the distortion caused by either the type of lens or the sign of a composite image.
edit on 24-8-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Look, it's one thing to have faith in one's memory despite all evidence to the contrary, but it's quite another to completely disregard the reasons why a specific image looks the way it does, when it's plainly obvious. The Panorama CAUSES the curvature.

The Milky Way is not curved.

This is pretty much what it looks like:


As far as the angle, don't you think that's going to depend upon where on the surface of the earth the image is being taken?

You can't be serious about this. Are you pulling my leg?

The Milky Way as seen in those panorama shots cannot fit into a single frame (it's essentially a 180 degree view of the sky), so the photographer had to snap multiple photos from one horizon to another and then stitch them together in a way that curves it.

In that other photo we've discussed, it's either a very poorly done panorama showing a portion of the disk (maybe only two or three images stitched instead of 8 or 10) or it shows the curvature of the central bulge. My money is on the former because the dust clouds look curved in that image, and you clearly see in the individual composite images that they are NOT curved in actuality.


Although, as I said before, if you want to know for sure, you need to hunt down the source of that image and ask the photographer what processing was done to it. Certainly you must realize the problem with trying to glean information of this nature from unsourced images with no processing information.

You must realize that your insistence on this irrational argument calls into question all the other claims you're making.

Like, for example, your claim that we've changed positions in the Milky Way, when I have plainly pointed out several times already that astronomers found a new outer arm in our galaxy, in addition to discovering that we are slightly further in than previously thought, the net effect of which is the change in relative position that troubles you so, especially when combined with the fact that those particular images are artist's renditions and many of the original images may not have ever been available on the Web to begin with.
edit on 24-8-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Oh, and by the way, on that Stellarium image, can you tell me what the FOV is set to? Because that's adjustable, and it looks a lot like 120 to me. If you set it to 60, you'll get a much more reasonable looking image. Typically the zenith of the night sky is at the top of the image (you know, that's the thing you see when you look STRAIGHT UP). The software can be adjusted so it's all on the screen at the same time.

Think about that for a second.

To fit it all on one screen, everything gets curved.

There is also a setting in Stellarium that you can use for projection onto a curved surface. Unless you can show me the properties page in Stellarium for that screen shot, it's impossible to say what's causing that. But the former is a good bet.
edit on 24-8-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

That sometimes it ends that way, and sometimes it doesn't. He always had a long pause there in live shows, and that didn't translate well to radio so it was dropped on the records. SOME STATIONS would indeed play the live version, but it depended on the jockey.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: heineken

You are disproving your own point and just looking ignorant...



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
By the way, I've used Stellarium for years.

If you want to see for yourself that the ANGLE of the Milky Way changes depending upon where on Earth you're photographing from, just use the software to jump around the globe and see for yourself.

And yes, there is definitely something goofy going on with that image you're so hung up on, although I couldn't see it clearly until I went out and searched for the original and saw it in much higher resolution. As I'm sure you know, that's a stock photo. There is very clear distortion. I'm not sure if it's caused by a lens or computer processing, but it's clearly there.

You might not want to use unsourced stock photos to prove your point.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: heineken

Lol.
Once again the me effect just shown to be a case of ignorance.
Good work Greggers.
edit on 25-8-2016 by TheKnightofDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:39 AM
link   
none of you ignorant arrogant fools explained this



edit on 25-8-2016 by heineken because: (no reason given)


WE WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO SEE THE ARM BENDING AND TOUCHING THE HORIZON FROM 2 POINTS IN SUCH A SMALL DISTANCE THAT YOU CAN TAKE A PANORAMIC RAINBOW MILKY WAY

this chnaged and you are only denying it
edit on 25-8-2016 by heineken because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: heineken

The curve isn't there, what are you not understanding. The curve is only caused by the type of imaging being done. I already told you to research how the curve happens in that type of photo.


type of imaging being done ????

Many of the picture posted are simple panoramic technique



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers
By the way, I've used Stellarium for years.

If you want to see for yourself that the ANGLE of the Milky Way changes depending upon where on Earth you're photographing from, just use the software to jump around the globe and see for yourself.

And yes, there is definitely something goofy going on with that image you're so hung up on, although I couldn't see it clearly until I went out and searched for the original and saw it in much higher resolution. As I'm sure you know, that's a stock photo. There is very clear distortion. I'm not sure if it's caused by a lens or computer processing, but it's clearly there.

You might not want to use unsourced stock photos to prove your point.





There is very clear distortion.


what distortion are you talking about



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: heineken

Are you serious? I already said where it was. And a panoramic shot DOES distort the view. It uses an algorithm to stitch together multiple images and it absolutely causes distortions.

You look very, very willfully ignorant right now.

Edit: the point is if you look up at the milky way it's straight. It is not curved. You are just too dense to realize this. It makes us laugh at everything else you claim about the ME.

You've been shown unprocessed images that show the actual view of the Milky Way, and you were shown how the curve happens when creating a composite image. Why are you defending an on obviously erroneous view concerning these images?
edit on 25-8-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The dust clouds in that picture are curved. In the individual composite images I showed you earlier, they are not. That's the distortion I'm talking about.

I went out of my way to explain all this to you. I have explained it. You continue to show your lack of awareness about basic astronomy. This is really, really silly. Do you want to have a serious conversation about this or not? Because right now, you're being willfully ignorant.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Look at the railing and sidewalk. The area where it curves is the pivot for the images.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greggers

Look at the railing and sidewalk. The area where it curves is the pivot for the images.


Yes, that appears to be the case.

My best guess is that it's a panoramic image, and the algorithm used allows some distortion of the horizon so the sky will be LESS distorted than what we see in the other panoramic shots.


edit on 25-8-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
19
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join