Flat Earth Photography

In a different thread I was asked to provide evidence that photos were taken of a disc shaped Earth from space. The demand was brought up after I made this claim:

The reason we believe its flat is because there is evidence for it. There have also been Flat Earth Astronauts that have confirmed this theory with photographic evidence. There's also the multiple experiments done by well-known scientists that support flatness.

After much searching I have found the image in question. Keep in mind, this image was taken in the 1990s by amateur Flat Earth astronauts in one of the very first (perhaps only) visits to space that we have record of.



The photograph is blurry and low-quality, but it clearly shows a disc shaped mass far off into the distance. As many FE'ers know, the brave astronauts that made it into space did not account for Universal Acceleration. Once they exited the Earth's flatmosphere the Earth quickly accelerated away from the astronauts leaving them stranded in space to die. They sent these images back to Earth before we lost contact with them forever. We should all take a moment to reflect on their achievement. The brave souls lost in this expedition deserve our respect.

Enough with the history lesson though. I'm sure most of you will claim that this photo is a fake or a hoax, but I can assure you it is not. This is Earth from space.

Taking things into to scale, shouldn't the moon and the sun be visible here right above the planet?

Also, why does it appear that Earth has nothing but land? We should be seeing a lot more blue on that surface, should we not?

It is impossible to determine what angle this photo was taken from. Also, since the Earth is moving upward at a constant speed there is naturally going to be some blur, and the atmosphere will of course cause some light refraction and warping. That's not even taking atmospheric diffraction into consideration.

The size of the Sun and Moon discs are trivial when you consider the distance and scale of the photo. Also, without the Sun disc this photo would not even be possible. Since the photo was taken a great distance away from the Earth all you can see is the light of the sun disc reflecting off various Earth surfaces, and of course: the atmosphere.

So what happened to the sun and moon? The earth is clearly lit. In fact it seems that nobody is experiencing night at all. With all that illumination, the source of which should be visible.

Why is the earth nothing but land?

Also FE astronauts can't exist. Because you have to have technical expertise in things to make it to space. FE'rs are incapable of doing this. Sorry.

So what happened to the sun and moon? The earth is clearly lit. In fact it seems that nobody is experiencing night at all. With all that illumination, the source of which should be visible.

Why is the earth nothing but land?

Also FE astronauts can't exist. Because you have to have technical expertise in things to make it to space. FE'rs are incapable of doing this. Sorry.

Did you not read my post about light refraction and atmospheric lensing? As you can see in the photo: there is a lot of blue. This is persumably water. Like I said earlier: it is impossible to determine what angle the photo was taken from. This photo could have been taken from a sideways angle, making the image look distorted. The photo was literally taken thousands upon thousands of miles away from Earth so it's not going to picture everything with 100% accuracy. You have to keep that in mind.

Do you honestly think you'd be able to accurately point out every little thing from a photo taken from thousands of miles away? C'mon. You're starting to sound like us now. 

So then you are saying that this shot is of the underside of the earth?

Then why is the bottom illuminated at all? I thought the sun was over earth, not under it.

And if this the bottom of earth and that blue is the "ice ring" or something like that then why is it blue? The ice ring should be white.

You should have found a better photo to try and bullshit us with. Something consistent with the stuff you make up at least.

This photo is absolutely consistent with modern FE theory. I'm sorry if you were expecting some sort of glass dome around the Earth, because that is fantasy.

I am not saying anything in regards to what angle it was taken from. It is impossible to determine what angle it was taken from to begin with (third time I've said this). The rainbow effect you see is from an optical and meteorological phenomenon that is caused by both reflection and refraction of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. In this case, the rainbow is magnified by the sun disc and the atmosphere, making it difficult to accurately point out specific details. Please keep in mind that this photo was taken from a great distance.

Do you honestly think you'd be able to accurately point out every little thing from a photo taken from thousands of miles away? If so, how do you explain this photo? It is obviously some sort of celestial body in space. Rainbows don't just pop up in space for no damn reason.

No, it's not.

Your story also doesn't add up. Countless threads have been thrown around asking why we don't feel UA and the answer always is that we are shielded from UA. So then if these FE astronauts are flying away from earth then why does earth accelerate past them? They are no longer shielded so they should be merrily accelerating with the earth.

But I digress, given your story that earth accelerated past them, it doesn't follow at all that turning around to take a shot of earth should reveal a visible earth at all seeing as there is nothing to illuminate earths underside.

And quit blabbing about refraction and atmospheric lensing. I asked you questions about the sun. The atmosphere is small potatoes compared to your 3000 mile sun.

Talking about refraction is even more ridiculous because refraction only occurs very near to the earths surface.


And we can tell a bit about the angle. It's supposed to be of a disc. It doesn't take much to figure out what angle you would need to be at to make a disc look like this.

No, it's not.

It's not what?

But I digress, given your story that earth accelerated past them, it doesn't follow at all that turning around to take a shot of earth should reveal a visible earth at all seeing as there is nothing to illuminate earths underside.

Presumably this photo was taken of the topside of the disc, or at least top-ish.

Talking about refraction is even more ridiculous because refraction only occurs very near to the earths surface.

So you can confirm that Earth doesn't look like this from space? Whose the one with the pictures, here? That's right: Me. You have no evidence to back up your lack of scientific understanding. Please stop posting if you don't understand what it is you're posting about.

And we can tell a bit about the angle. It's supposed to be of a disc. It doesn't take much to figure out what angle you would need to be at to make a disc look like this.

Perhaps you didn't know this, but there is no up and down in space. The astronauts obviously drifted off course and lost their connection to the Earth which then sent them hurdling outwards with the Earth accelerating away from them at a distance. Now, if the photo was taken at a slight angle (seeing some of the bottom and some of the top) then it could easily explain some of the discrepancies in the photo. We could easily be seeing it at an angle similar to this:





Once again, do you have a better explanation for what is pictured here? I'd like to hear your theories since you are apparently an expert on the subject.

I know there is no up and down in space. We can at least tell that it isn't takend from directly above, directly below, or from right off the side of earth. Because the shape is an ellipse. Just like your penny.

Anyways, your photos has been destroyed. Fun game. Time for dinner.

Oh thanks for the laugh by the way about who has photos.

Anyways, your photos has been destroyed. Fun game. Time for dinner.

I'm not seeing how you disproved the photo. You said there were some inconsistencies. I explained why there might be some inconsistencies. You later claimed that my "photo has been destroyed". Do you usually debate like this?  Because it's weak form, my friend.

Despite your apparently lack of scientific understanding, I am still interested in what you think is pictured in the photo. You have conveniently skipped over several key points in my posts, this being one of them. What do you think this is a picture of, oh-great-one?

I know there is no up and down in space.

And no, apparently you don't know.

I think I found the simpler explanation.

Blurred out lighted frisbees.

http://www.gameview.com.br/Video/Light-Up-Night-Ultimate-LED-Flying-Disc-Golf-Glow-Frisbee.aspx?v=omqh

Except this looks nothing like the photograph I posted. Also, you can see blurred out stars in the background of my photograph. How do you explain that?

Good try, though.

Quote from: sandmanMike on June 14, 2014, 04:50:02 PM

Except this looks nothing like the photograph I posted. Also, you can see blurred out stars in the background of the photograph. How do you explain that?

Good try, though.

It's called taking a blurry picture with stars in the background... I didn't say this was the same picture, but I'm sure you can imaging those circumstances sound quite a bit more logical then a group of FE Astronauts that have made it into space, when the worlds space agencies supposedly haven't.

Fascinating. How do you know these astronauts?  How did they get to space?  Who funded them? FE astronauts raise many questions.

Fascinating. How do you know these astronauts?  How did they get to space?

...and why did they have such shit cameras?

It appears that you don't remember how the conversation went.

Here are your key points:

It is impossible to determine what angle this photo was taken from.

I addressed this by saying that the disc shape we are seeing is an ellipse. Out of 360°, we can tell that it is not directly above, below or at the sides. It could be at any other angle. From here we can infer whether it is the bottom of earth or the top by looking at the color of the visible surface. Since it is not mostly blue, then it must be the bottom.... but that is impossible because there is nothing to illuminate that bottom. You apparently agree with me since you posted a picture of a penny looking like an ellipse.

The atmosphere will of course cause some light refraction and warping.

I addressed this by educating you on how refraction actually works. You just don't understand it.

Without the Sun disc this photo would not even be possible.

Circular reasoning. This photo is possible because you are pretending that it is something that it is not. I don't know where you got it from. There are countless things that it could actually be.

Do you honestly think you'd be able to accurately point out every little thing from a photo taken from thousands of miles away?

Yes and I did.

This photo is absolutely consistent with modern FE theory.

No, it's not.

If so, how do you explain this photo? It is obviously some sort of celestial body in space. Rainbows don't just pop up in space for no damn reason.

Circular reasoning again. This photo is not proof that the photo is real.

Presumably this photo was taken of the topside of the disc, or at least top-ish.

Presumably. Look who thinks they know what angle it was taken from now?

Whose the one with the pictures, here? That's right: Me.

Maybe you missed the 1000's upon 1000's of photos RE'rs have shown you.

Here are my contentions:

Taking things into to scale, shouldn't the moon and the sun be visible here right above the planet?

You mentioned that we don't know the angel despite the fact that the ellipse shape tells us all the relevant details about the angle that matter here.

Also, why does it appear that Earth has nothing but land? We should be seeing a lot more blue on that surface, should we not?

Ignored.

In fact it seems that nobody is experiencing night at all. With all that illumination, the source of which should be visible.

Ignored.

Then why is the bottom illuminated at all? I thought the sun was over earth, not under it.

Ignored.

And if this the bottom of earth and that blue is the "ice ring" or something like that then why is it blue? The ice ring should be white.

Your response was refraction. I showed you why this is wrong.

Countless threads have been thrown around asking why we don't feel UA and the answer always is that we are shielded from UA. So then if these FE astronauts are flying away from earth then why does earth accelerate past them? They are no longer shielded so they should be merrily accelerating with the earth.

Ignored.

But I digress, given your story that earth accelerated past them, it doesn't follow at all that turning around to take a shot of earth should reveal a visible earth at all seeing as there is nothing to illuminate earths underside.

Ignored.

Talking about refraction is even more ridiculous because refraction only occurs very near to the earths surface.

Ignored. I mean, you wrote a response to this, but you didn't even mention refraction in it.

So yeah...

Also, I've said nothing that indicates that I have a problem with the fact that there is no up and down in space. Nice try though.


So yes. Your photo has been destroyed.

Your response can be summed up as either ignoring me or basically saying, "but, but, how do you know....!?!?!"

My responses were an onslaught of pointing out obvious inconsistencies, with the photo and your story of this alleged space trip. Most of them you ignored while the ones you addressed had you saying nothing of value other than, "we don't know this and we don't know that."

Nice to see you finally admit that we can go to space though.

Skipped through most of that adrenaline & testosterone filled post, but thanks for taking the time to type it up for me.

What I gather is that you're assuming I'm wrong (based on a shaky scientific foundation) and that you still have no idea what the photograph is of.  As you would say, my question has been ignored.

Quote from: Rama Set on June 14, 2014, 05:17:25 PM

Fascinating. How do you know these astronauts?  How did they get to space?

...and why did they have such shit cameras?

When there are cameras that have a digital zoom of over thousands of miles, I'll let you know... 


I give you evidence (that you're always asking for) and you ignore it and claim it to be faked. Hmmm...

I don't know what exactly the photo in the OP is, but it seems consistent with FET.  You would not see the bottom because the sun is on top.  Also, keep in mind that you would only be seeing the lit part of the Earth.  So, the Earth is likely larger than what is pictured.   

No no FE'r. You ignored my contentions. I addressed all your key points, as you called them.

The picture and your arguments are all a big fail.

I don't know what exactly the photo in the OP is, but it seems consistent with FET.  You would not see the bottom because the sun is on top.  Also, keep in mind that you would only be seeing the lit part of the Earth.  So, the Earth is likely larger than what is pictured.

So if its the top then where is all the water?

Quote from: jroa on June 14, 2014, 05:46:09 PM

I don't know what exactly the photo in the OP is, but it seems consistent with FET.  You would not see the bottom because the sun is on top.  Also, keep in mind that you would only be seeing the lit part of the Earth.  So, the Earth is likely larger than what is pictured.

So if its the top then where is all the water?

Refraction from the atmoplane would blend all of the colors together. 

No no FE'r. You ignored my contentions. I addressed all your key points, as you called them.

The picture and your arguments are all a big fail.

I didn't ignore any of your points. You can say I did something all you want, but I addressed each one of your points. Bendy light, refraction, and atmospheric distortion cover all your criticisms of the photo. If you figure out some other arguments, shoot. Until then, maybe you should stay in the lower fora?

Quote from: rottingroom on June 14, 2014, 05:47:18 PM

No no FE'r. You ignored my contentions. I addressed all your key points, as you called them.

The picture and your arguments are all a big fail.

I didn't ignore any of your points. You can say I did something all you want, but I addressed each one of your points. Bendy light, refraction, and atmospheric distortion cover all your criticisms of the photo. If you figure out some other arguments, shoot. Until then, maybe you should stay in the lower fora?

Of those three things, you didn't mention any of them but refraction. Which you were wrong about. The other 2 are made up.

Why do you invoke these made up excuses as to why things don't look the way they actually look. Our RE pictures look exactly how we present them.

If you are going to present ideas like bendy light then you need to make a prediction about it to give it credence. Kind of like how Einstein predicted the effects of what would happen during a solar eclipse because of gravitational lensing.

There is no reason to take bendy light serious until you can do something like that.

Quote from: rottingroom on June 14, 2014, 05:48:10 PM

Quote from: jroa on June 14, 2014, 05:46:09 PM

I don't know what exactly the photo in the OP is, but it seems consistent with FET.  You would not see the bottom because the sun is on top.  Also, keep in mind that you would only be seeing the lit part of the Earth.  So, the Earth is likely larger than what is pictured.

So if its the top then where is all the water?

Refraction from the atmoplane would blend all of the colors together.

What? Refraction isn't just some magical thing that makes things look the way you want them to. It has very distinct and predictable behavior.

There's one thing I don't understand... why were the astronauts lost? Why didn't they just accelerate with the Earth? Why didn't they send an unmanned spaceflight first to see how it would go? And, well, I see nothing in that picture that would make me think that is the Earth

In a different thread I was asked to provide evidence that photos were taken of a disc shaped Earth from space. The demand was brought up after I made this claim:

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 13, 2014, 06:12:15 PM

The reason we believe its flat is because there is evidence for it. There have also been Flat Earth Astronauts that have confirmed this theory with photographic evidence. There's also the multiple experiments done by well-known scientists that support flatness.

After much searching I have found the image in question. Keep in mind, this image was taken in the 1990s by amateur Flat Earth astronauts in one of the very first (perhaps only) visits to space that we have record of.



The photograph is blurry and low-quality, but it clearly shows a disc shaped mass far off into the distance. As many FE'ers know, the brave astronauts that made it into space did not account for Universal Acceleration. Once they exited the Earth's flatmosphere the Earth quickly accelerated away from the astronauts leaving them stranded in space to die. They sent these images back to Earth before we lost contact with them forever. We should all take a moment to reflect on their achievement. The brave souls lost in this expedition deserve our respect.

Enough with the history lesson though. I'm sure most of you will claim that this photo is a fake or a hoax, but I can assure you it is not. This is Earth from space.

So how did you come by this image? You said you searched for it - where?

I used Way Back Machine to pull up a cached post from this site around 2007. The post has since been deleted. It took me literally three hours to find.

I used Way Back Machine to pull up a cached post from this site around 2007. The post has since been deleted. It took me literally three hours to find.

3 hours of your life, wasted. A blurry picture proves absolutely nothing. This is bigfoot 101: 1) Take a crappy, blurred picture. 2) Claim you've proven something profound. 3) put fingers in ears and go "lalalalalalalala" when people point out the obvious fail.

With proper focus, we'd see (IF this is indeed a picture of the Earth) that this is nothing more than crescent-quarter phase with the sun being along more of the right X-Z axis away from our vantage point. Sorry, I don't know the correct name Cartesian coordinates for the position.

Also, if the Earth were accelerating "upward", why is the elongated blur along the wrong axis? And how are they so far away from the Earth in the wrong direction? If they Earth whizzed by them, we'd see the "bottom" side of the Earth, not an elliptical view of the"top".

And really? They only got one picture? Oh wait, you claim "They sent these images back to Earth before we lost contact with them forever." Where are the other photos they sent back?

You also claim "... taken in the 1990s by amateur Flat Earth astronauts in one of the very first (perhaps only) visits to space that we have record of." Yet we have plenty of records of visits to space before that time.