where were you when you realized they lied to you about The Sun?

>>18899769
Hey, where's the vid OP?

This is the dumbest thing I've seen on /x/ in a long time. And I've seen a lot of dumb stuff on /x/

File: grumman6gen.jpg (36KB, 1000x488px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1000x488px

Well wtf are they then?

>>18899783
Comes close the the mirror sattelite thing yesterday

> Well wtf are they then?

This, in summary, the "problem" with people today on the Internet. This problem is comprised of two parts:

1. A LEADING question by op...followed by
2. One or more irrational responses by morons who don't know what leading questions are, or don't care and like to be irrational anyway.

You see, when a moron responds to a leading question, the result is further irrationality of reasoning. The entirety of a troll's persona and intent: the desire to cause other people to work hard when they don't need to. A troll is simply a hollow shell of a person who finds an irrational thought that can be transmitted into another person. This behavior, trolling, is the practice of using leading questions, or irrational statements, to "lead" the victim into becoming further irrational.

The term "triggered" is shorthand for victims to identify their predisposition to being lead by a troll into being irrational. I am "triggered" by op and moron's response, but I refuse to fall into irrationality and present a rational argument that "busts a nut" into the irrationality.

Let's look at the original leading question, which is framed by an irrational statement that "our government told us the stars that are far away as the thing in the middle of our solar system".

> do ANY of these things resemble the perfect burning sphere that we have close up to ours?

The answer of "no" to this question, while factually true when limited to the observed image, is actually irrational when framed by the statements:

1. the government told us stars are similar to ours
2. this stranger on 4chan told us our sun is a unique ANOMALY and is rare

Stating a "NO" in reply results in the following options for said troll:

A. Well, then why is the government lying to us? (note this is yet another leading question)
B. Even though I am being irrational, the truth of my statements is now proven.

Stating a "YES" in reply to this question, again when framed with #1 and #2 above is clearly irrational, given the images of the stars below, when taken at a distance multiple orders of magnitude further than the star at the top, are factually "not looking the same".

So, a leading question is proven to be "unanswerable", which is to say it is irrational, which is to say it requires more work (perhaps an infinite amount of work) to determine outcome of truth.

The truth is, most irrationality, with intent is non-truth. If you enjoy non-truth, then by all means continue the conversation.

>>18899783
Tell me something?

Have you ever seen something different than the pictures depicted, with your own eyes?

Because I have a telescope and that's exactly what I see.

>>18899769
>you see stalker
>heavens are filled with artifacts
>artifacts forged by angels

>>18899887
>>18899892
Good on you dude. Thanks for keeping a level head.

>>18899896
nothing short of a massive satellite telescope is capable of seeing something as distant as a star as anything but a tiny, indiscernable dot,

are you saying you own a sattelite?

>>18899920
>make two incredibly autistic responses to people calling you out for being a retard
>samefag this hard

Are you even trying? I wanna call troll but it is too unsuccessful to convince me you aren't just a subhuman.

>>18899783
There's that guy that posts every once in a while and tried to convince people to drink their own pee.

>>18899769
>>18899896
Stars are really, really far away and even the most powerful telescopes can't resolve anything more than a point.

The reason they might look irregular like OP's photo is because of imperfections in the lens, and atmospheric distortion,

>>18900042

It's part of the whole piss campaign.

>>18899769
Every single one of those is a nebula anyway to begin with.

Please stop posting this shit and fucking up this board more. You people are so stupid, it hurts.

>>18899769
wow cool out of focus dots of light!

File: pepe.jpg (1MB, 1024x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x800px

>>18900058
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5vfHwBBMvI

After researching the supposed globe we live on I've become quite convinced it's not a sphere. Have not been able to find the supposed curvature with this tool

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

Is it flat? No idea,but the current model does not seem right.

>>18899769
So basically my own very eyes are lying to me, huh? Oh my noggin is really joggin right now.

My 2 cents that will be ignored because flat earthers are not open for dialogue and brainwashed by religious cuckoldery:

The earth isn't a perfect sphere, nowhere near as perfect as people make it out to be at least. It could be an ugly potato shape, it could be a fat discus shape, or maybe even a cylindrical turd

The famous "It IS photoshopped. But it has to be" quite refers to the fact that our planet is ugly and lumpy and they tweak it to make it more aesthetically pleasing

Whether that's due to some grand conspiracy or because a perfect circle earth is more pretty to look at/more marketable is a valid question

>>18900153
>religious cuckoldery
you mean religious snowflakism

>>18900122
The earth has to be a sphere, otherwise you could see across continents when on airplanes.

>>18900153
You know that ep of Rick and Morty where Pluto wants to still be considered a planet as propaganda to quell fears of the planet dying due to over-harvesting of resources?

I feel like that might be going on. Our planet is visibly dying from neglect and pollution and they keep it hush so the NWO elite don't get overthrown until they can hop to a backup earth and leave us to rot

>>18899769
Learn to focus your camera, retard.

Zooming in isn't the same as focusing.

>>18899922
I don't own a sattelite of course, how convenient would that be if I wanted to prove my point.

File: PERFECT SPHERE.png (917KB, 1020x1020px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 1020x1020px

>>18900153
"The famous "It IS photoshopped. But it has to be" quite refers to the fact that our planet is ugly and lumpy and they tweak it to make it more aesthetically pleasing"

It has to be photoshopped becuase there is no real picture of earth from space because it doesn't exist. That's why all we have is NASA artists paintings that does not fit with their new pear shaped oblate spheroid narrative.

>>18900188
show your pics then

>>18900206
Our planet is visibly spherical. It is beautiful from a distance. There are many real photographs of our planet from space.

>>18900220
Please show me some of these photographs.

File: 8sKwjgE.jpg (99KB, 600x535px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x535px

>>18899769
What's it like being this stupid

>>18900206
But you just posted a photo of an oblate spheroid.

>>18900207
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSqPbMoASM4

>>18899769
I am questioning your intelligence.

>>18899887
>>18899892
You sound dumber than op.

There are no full view images of the earth. What you see are composites of many images puzzle-pieced together. Satellites are not far enough away from earth to take a single image of the earth's circumference. So yes, every photo depicting a sphere earth is photoshopped.

>>18900309
Near earth satellites cannot take a full view of the earth, this is why they stitch together composites.

Which is fine. A composite picture of a very tall tree is still a picture of the tall tree, and is accurate.

Futhermore, there have been plenty of pictures of the earth taken from satellites and probes and capsules that were far enough away from earth in order to capture the entire thing in a single frame. Indeed the DISCOVR satellite needs to use a telescope, it's so far away from earth.

The photos of earth from the distant Voyager proves show only a tiny dot.

>>18900309
The photos from the moon captured the earth completely, I believe.

>>18900206
It has to be photoshopped because satellites can't can't take a photo of the whole Earth this close, they take several photos of different portions of the globe and then back on Nasa they piece it together like a puzzle.

>>18900348
That picture isn't a composite. It's a single photo, taken from the DISCOVR satellite. It's a million miles away, not a close satellite.

>>18900206
You know how gravity is made, right? The Higgs Boson creates a Higgs Field around a particle, which gives that particle its mass, which makes objects attracted to one another in all directions.

Sure, the earth's SURFACE isn't perfectly spherical, because of mountains and shit, but the atmosphere is, so the earth looks spherical because we are seeing the curvature of the atmosphere, not its surface.

>>18899769
Those closeups of stars were taken on earth, because the atmosphere distorts light when it is coming in, why we see the sun as having rays. Even if the atmosphere didn't distort light, it would still look a little distorted because of the light bending to the curvature of space-time.

File: Earthrise.jpg (41KB, 1041x833px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1041x833px

>>18900206
>>18900220
>>18900223
>>18900309
>>18900319
>>18900320
Perhaps the most famous photograph, taken on December 1968 from Apollo 8 while it was orbiting the moon.

>>18900362
I think you mean the DSCOVR satellite, which when it took >>18900206 that photo with the EPIC it was about a million miles away from earth.

>>18900319
Aside from satellites so distant that Earth appears as a little dot, there are no single images of Earth as a full-size image. That's all I'm saying. If I missed one somewhere along the line, let me know. I'd love to see it. The image of Earth from the moon was not taken by a satellite, that doesn't count.

>>18900366
If you don't know the answer, don't make shit up. That only makes things worse.

The atmosphere is even more oblate than the surface of the earth.

The reason the earth looks like a perfect circle in photographs is because the earth is almost a perfect sphere. The degree of eccentricity of the spheroid is too small to be noticed in photographs.

In real life the difference is measured in miles. In photographs, that distance is less than a pixel.

>atmosphere distorts light

True, but the problem with OP is his camera's out of focus. If he had focused on those stars, they'd be tiny points of light. The atmosphere would make them flicker.

>>18900378
No, that's a false statement.

There have been plenty already posted in this thread.

>the image of the earth from the moon was not taken by a satellite

Also incorrect. That picture wasn't taken from the surface of the moon, but the lunar orbiter. By definition a satellite.

Also you're moving goal posts. What difference does it make if it's a satellite or a crewed spaceship?

>>18900371
man please... grow up... or stop being a shill

File: elektro_small.gif (1MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x500px

>>18900223
Here, taken by the sat below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektro–L

>>18900392
*Not taken by a man-made satellite. Better?

>>18899769
are you too dumb to tell stars from galaxies from nebulae from gas clouds ? get glasses or kys.

>>18900400
Are you expecting natural satellites like the moon and asteroids to take photographs?

What the fuck are you talking about?

File: Stupid.jpg (141KB, 1110x832px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1110x832px

>>18900398
>I demand seeing evidence!
<Gets shown evidence
>It's not real! It's a concpiracy fabricated by the lizard people!

Grab some quality polarized sunglasses and look directly at the sun. You'll clearly see its a hole.

>>18900383
My mistake for saying the atmosphere is perfectly spherical, but its not more oblate than the earth. that would cause you not being able to breath at the pole, which people have done. There is air at the poles, its thin but its there. Yes, the atmosphere is oblate, but its more spherical than the earth, not counting the distortion at the edges of the atmosphere caused by solar winds.

>>18900425
Why none of that shows in the photos?

>>18900425
>that would cause you to not be able to breath air at the poles

I never said it was that oblate, just more oblate than the surface. air pressure gets lower faster with altitude at the pole than it does at the equator. Because the atmosphere is a gas, it's more fluid and thus more susceptible to centrifugal force than the crust of the earth.

Furthermore, when you look at pics of the earth from space, you're looking at the surface, and usually can't even see the atmosphere at all, except for clouds.

File: IMG_3398.png (54KB, 2320x3408px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 2320x3408px

>>18899790

The patent has a globe in it.

>>18900432
Its pretty hard to see the oblate-ness of Earth because the change is very very very very small. IIRC the change is 22 km.

>>18900439
Ah I see now. Thank you for informing me.

>>18900441
And it's spinning.

>>18900404
I misread the post. I missed the lunar obiter part. I assumed he was saying it was an image taken on the moon.

>>18900399
More perfect spheres of our pear shaped oblate spherical.

>>18899769
>they are not all that far away either
Nice try flatty

>>18900453
That's a photo of a pear-shaped oblate spheroid.

Again, the eccentricity is very small, so you wouldn't expect to see it in a photo.

File: IMG_1239.jpg (100KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 300x225px

>>18900303
It's pretty much dead on, DESU.

>>18900472
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEzhxP-pdos

File: Whizzard of pee.jpg (676KB, 1073x1694px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 1073x1694px

>>18900085
>>18900042

File: crepuscular_rays.jpg (532KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 2560x1600px

Is the sun 149,597,870,700 meters away?

Worst case, they faked the first moon landing, to beat the Russians in the press. Which they didn't do. They beat us. But that will never, ever be revealed. Not ever. We did go eventually, we simply faked being first.

>>18900206
There was a mythbusters episode, where adam got a chance to fly in a jetplane almost in space. The horizon was flat a long time before it started to go round. Sooo, there was a footage where earth was flat and round.

>>18900398
>using ad hominem

>>18900501
James May from top gear flew in a U2 spyplane too, same shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIJRoj2qwsc

File: IMG_3419.jpg (118KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 640x640px

>>18900484
/pol/, killing people for fun since 2015.

File: interference_pattern.jpg (7KB, 270x262px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 270x262px

You'll need a really really REALLY big telescope mirror (or lens) to be able to have enough angular resolution to resolve the surface of a distant star. With small optics they will only appear as concentric rings of interference patterns and the pattern will be more pronounced if you're out of foucs.
If it wasn't for the atmospheric turbulence the stars in OP's image would look exactly like the picture I've posted.

>>18899956
Different guy, bud. But if you want me to pretend I can play pretend. Just get me a skirt.

File: images.jpg (6KB, 195x258px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 195x258px

>>18899769
This is so far beyond retarded that I don't know where to start. Surely you're trolling?

File: 5-Stars-2-494x317.jpg (21KB, 494x317px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 494x317px

>>18900531
For example, here's a special flashlight used to check if the optics in a telescope are properly aligned. The light is placed far away from the telescope to simulate a distant star and as you can see the interference pattern is clearly visible when the flashlight is put of focus. It's in focus in panel number 1.

File: GHT48q.jpg (773KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 1920x1200px

>>18900486

File: sunrays.jpg (1009KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 1920x1200px

>>18900486
Is the sun 20 meters away?

>>18900383
Despite things like Mount Everest and the Marinas Trench, if you blow a bowling ball up to the size of earth, the earth would still be smoother.

File: 1489873897273.jpg (102KB, 910x885px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 910x885px

>>18899769
>/x/ talking about how science is wrong once again
>decides to use computer

>>18899769
Even with just basic knowledge of stars you can see the major flaw of your argument. Do some research and thunk for yourself

File: 4564646.jpg (92KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 480x360px

>>18900042
>tfw I drink my pee since a couple of months ago
I will be searching for this pee based guy comments

File: hot-desert-road.jpg (52KB, 1000x492px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x492px

>>18900664
Unfocused Venus being distorted by turbulence in the air. No different than watching something behind the air above a roof of a car on a hot sunny day. Same principle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dICIKYn5w4w

File: 6263465051_23a0b63024_b.jpg (182KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x683px

>>18900664
>>18900716

>>18900122
>https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
Earth curve calculator doesn't take into account light refraction due to moisture and heat changes. Its pretty neat though.

>>18900564
I have the Key. Don't bother looking for it.

>>18899769
My eyes are 20/600. This means that when I am standing 20 feet away from the eye chart I see it the same as a person with normal vision who is standing 600 feet away from same the eye chart. These blurry splotches of light are exactly what I see when I look at city lights at night without my glasses.

>>18900371
>Implying that happened

>>18902571
>>implying it didn't

>>18902575
>Implying it did

File: earthsats.jpg (158KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1280x720px

>>18900399

Yeah except that looks like total shit.

Also, it seems to be insanely rare that any satellite captures a pic of the Earth while *gasp* another satellite is in the way!

Which is no big deal - except that we have hundreds orbiting the Earth so you'd expect to see dozens in every shot!

But you dont - because its so heavily edited.

Take a look at the following.

https://youtu.be/xarDoeONlPw

Thats according to the Goddard Space Flight Center. Pic related, the truth is that the Earth looks like its infested with space herpes but its literally hidden in almost every single heavily edited image apparently.

>>18900399
>>18902647
>that looks like total shit.
It's a highly compressed image with reduced color range.

>>18902647
>nsanely rare that any satellite captures a pic of the Earth while *gasp* another satellite is in the way!

You realize that satellites are relatively tiny? It's like expecting to see Volkswagens driving around from 20,000 miles away!

>>18902647
You understand that those images are not to scale? Earths diameter is 12700km while most satellites are smaller than a school bus and really close to earths surface.

>>18902668

So of 2,000 of them not a single satellite catches the sun and reflects even a slight glimmer?

There are loads of images I can upload - even closer ones than that .gif and none show satellites around the Earth.

>>18902678

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjVgP23AmNM

Here is a nice video of 1 satellite crossing the moon on a clear night.

Now you mean to tell me that in the images of the Earth we cant see any of the 2200 satellites representing black specks?

>>18902688
Are you serious? There are millions of cars on the streets of earth, yet you can't see them from space. Guess why? It's because earth is fucking huge.

HOLY SHIT.

IF THEY are lying to us about the cosmos then they must be lying about human biology.

I just bet that we're not even fucking real like the "vast" amount of "stars" in the "cosmos".

So basically nothing anyone tells us is true since it could all be set up by the government to cause confusion and dissent.

So who am I to trust, if I cant trust you guys, and I cant even trust myself because I dont even know if Im real. And if I am real how do I know what is "real" and that this "real" isn't being manipulated.

Fucking help me.

>>18902937
I've always felt I was being lied by my conscience, so I know something about trust.

Everybody lies. Everybody doesn't trust. A double lie is a truth.

>>18899769
If you don't focus something right it will look like that. Nigga, have yo ever tried to take a picture at night without flash?

>>18900565
You are too smart to be on this board. Why are you here?

>>18899769
The sun is a slight anomaly of a star but it IS still a star.
A lot of photos from nasa are artificially colored because the cameras don't take pics in color (Or this is the case with older photos at least)
The sun is white-hot so it appears more white in reality because it's so hot as the name implies, other stars aren't as hot so they look different
The sphere look is likely from the radiating heat and light rather than it literally being a spherical shape.

Op is retarded, a lot of this can be rationalized with absolutely basic knowledge of space like what i have.

>>18902681
On any images you might post a satellite will be smaller than a pixel. Satellites are of the scale of a car.

>Ey guyz I posted a picture of Earth taken 36 000km away but I cant see any car even though I thought there were million on earth, cars are a scam

Also you can clearly see the ISS when it flies by with any $400 telescope.

File: 1491777178068.gif (455KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 256x256px

>>18900371
There's only one problem with that photo, where are the stars in the background?
They said that we can't see the stars here on earth because of the light of the cities or something, but there are no cities on the moon so you should be able to see the stars and the galaxies without problem, right?

>>18900042
Bear grylls frequents /x?

>>18902986
Because of sunlight.

>>18902986
Exposure contrast. The Earth and Moon are very bright.

If they opened the camera aperture wide enough to capture stars, the planet surfaces would be completely washed out.

Do you know how far away those stars are compared to our own?

By the time their light got to us, all we'd see is the average frequency of its light being produced in some form of pattern.

>>18900366
>You know how gravity is made, right?
not like you described

>>18902986
>seeing stars during the day
k

>>18899892
>>18899887
great writeup, anon

>>18900206
thats not a perfect sphere

>>18900472
what is this supposed to prove?

>>18900486
Do clouds reflect sunlight?

File: satelite.jpg (107KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 500x500px

>>18902647
Here is a picture of a swamp.

There are no mosquitoes visible in this picture.

Does that mean that the mostquitoes were edited out? Or that mosquitoes don't exist?

>>18903535
That i like sucking onto phallic objects ;)

File: moon.png (169KB, 714x948px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 714x948px

>>18900472
You can do this with any picture of the night sky, retard

WHOOPS, I GUESS THE MOON ISN'T REAL

>>18903649
>I GUESS THE MOON ISN'T REAL
You say this as something obviously ridiculous, but the sad thing is, that this is actually what they are believing. Depending on which flattard you ask, the moon is either extremely small or a hologram. It is actually kind of hard to mock flatties.

Yeah I doubt that the sun is even a burning mass of plasmatic fire like some of the idiots believe.

To the magicians, gold is a symbol of the sun. Take the example of the great work where base metals are turned into gold and I think the master plan becomes clear; The earth will eventually become as bright as the sun.

>>18903681
yeah anon, surely the other people are idiots

File: OP.png (33KB, 515x359px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 515x359px

>>18899769

>>18903688
They are blind fools, to call them idiots is actually a euphemism.

>>18903701
I wish I could be as woke as you. Truely you totally reflected on everything you know. wow

>>18903708
Petty creature.

>>18899769
Fake pic. How? Well you can actually see star shape or anything its made up, only its light intensity, there is no way in hell anything we have today, can zoom in to give this kind of detail.

>>18902703
>>18902974
>>18903552

Yeah, except what you said is wrong.

Consider the following - I linked a video of a satellite clearly moving in front of the moon. The moon is 238,000 miles from Earth.

In other words, any satellite CLOSER THAN THE MOON should display fellow satellites as similar black dots if its optics are comparable to the camera that youtube video required.

So, either you are claiming that youtube video is a mythological magical camera that nobody can recreate or I'm correct in stating that - although all of our satellites are in fact closer than the moon and indeed pass in front of it visibly to our surface telescopes - none of these same satellites are capturing images of each other speckling the Earth in space herpes like dots.

Please use your brain and think about my post before you reply - a freakin' kid could have put together that I linked a sat IN FRONT OF THE MOON meaning FROM EARTH ITS VISIBLE AGAINST THE MOON so satellites inside the moons orbit are MUCH CLOSER.

Seriously guys, see cars? Mosquitoes? Jokes are jokes but you're making /x/ look stupid not crazy.

>>18903919
You totally can see a lot of satellites if the conditions are right. You dont even need a telescope or something

http://www.heavens-above.com/

>>18903919
But the mosquitos in that picture are closer than the swamp. So you should easily be able to see mosquitos.

Unless of course mosquitos don't really exist.

This is the face of /X/, everyone, this is why people think we're fucking morons

>>18903948

No, not from Earth with a walmart telescope, we have all seen that before.

I'm using the lack of satellites in photos of the Earth as proof of general editing.

In photography there is a term 'SOOC'.

It means basically 'straight out of camera'.

Its what you call a picture that received no editing whatsoever, as in it went straight from the camera to viewing wherever.

There isnt any real reason why we shouldnt be shown the raw composite photos taken from satellites. Its not like its top secret, its no different than a shitty blooper reel or behind the scenes video.

200 goddamn vids of a guy on a space station but I cant go download the raw composite frames of ANY SATELLITES pics of the damn planet?

I'm not the one making NASA sound like a huge fucking liar with shit to hide.

It doesnt take a tin-foiler to think LOSING THE RAW RECORDING OF THE MOON LANDING is suspicious.

If our government said that the original video of JFK's assassination was 'lost by accident' and then later claimed they accidentally sent it to another country to be recorded over - nobody would believe it.

On the other hand when NASA claims that about a shitload of magnetic reels some people just deep throat that shit.

>>18904098
>No, not from Earth with a walmart telescope
Yes, even with your naked eye. Try with the ISS, the brightest one of all the satellites. Look up when and where to look.

>I'm using the lack of satellites in photos of the Earth as proof of general editing.
Thats no proof. Thats you having an unreasonable expectation. While there are photos of satellites made by other satellites, this is an EXTREMELY rare event. This is obvious considering the vast amount of space and how orbits work. I am actually a bit baffled why you expect to see them in photos

>>18900122
>aw damn we accidentally allowed the release of technology which would debunk the whole thing!!!11

erm no,

50/50 years ago we still had some decent threads about this

>>18899897
underrated reference
>get out of here stalker
>cheeki breeki

>>18900486
All those sunrays should be completely vertical?

>>18899786
The pictured "stars" are either nebulae or computer renders of nebulae. The sun is one of many innumerable stars.

>>18904733
All those rays are parallel but he doesn't understand that perspective gives the illusion of them converging.

for example

>>18900574


>>18904751
No. OP's pics are stars. They're just completely out of focus. You can get the same effect from street lights or christmas lights or whatever by just unfocusing.

>>18900378
>Aside from satellites so distant that Earth appears as a little dot, there are no single images of Earth as a full-size image. That's all I'm saying. If I missed one somewhere along the line, let me know. I'd love to see it.


https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Why does this link have to be given EVERY SINGLE TIME?!? Why are flat tards so absolutely stupid and ignorant?? It's one thing to be a lying troll that pukes out "photoshop" every time they realize they've been proven wrong, but to be so dense as yo say "There's never been a pic of the full Earth" when the EPIC camera takes about a dozen pics of the entire Earth every day just shows how lazy and content with being oppressed sheep you are.

>>18904774
That's how you start.

You first call them sheep and then you join the ranks, good luck.

>>18904779
I call them sheep - specifically the flatanon saying he's never seen a non-composite full-earth pic - not because of his beliefs, but because he has obviously done ZERO work or study in regards to the topic.

People can believe what they want. I think it's stupid, but that's fine. What disgusts me, and what I'm insulting, is the complete lack of effort to act on these beliefs beyond worse-than-crap YT vids and bitching on online forums. Where are the marches and protests against NASA? Where are the requests for information or support from ASAN? Does anyone here even KNOW what ASAN is? I doubt it.

>>18902986
Seriously - being this bad at understanding how cameras work...

>>18900508
?
It looks like a sphere desu

>>18902986
Every fucking time someone asks this dumb question. It gets an explanation every time and I bet you are going to ask the same thing next time.
I am convinced that this is some sort of meta "trolling" at this point, where the bait is to have extremely poor bait

>ask a question
>get the correct answer
>lolitrolu!

Yeah, no, that's not how trolling works.

>>18904763
>All those rays are parallel

Do you even know what parallel means?

>>18904897
they are for all intents and purposes parallel. Shall we post a picture of a railroad track again?

>>18904905
Lay off the crack, friend.

>>18904939
ok, convinced. Perspective doesnt exist and parallel things arent a thing either.

>>18904951
Do the rays in >>18900486 look parallel to you?

File: railway-track-pic.jpg (547KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1440x900px

>>18905010
Oh, you really made me do it.
pic related:
Do these tracks look parallel to you?

I always find the "It looks like A to me, therefor it absolutely has to be A" a bit amusing and childish desu.

>>18904849
>I am convinced that this is some sort of meta "trolling" at this point,
100% agree

>>18905019
>Still doesn't understand how perspective works

>>18905068
You arent making any points. Apperently perspective only factors in when you need it, right? Why woudnt sun rays be affected by perspective the same way the tracks are? Why do these sun rays still seemingly converge, even if the sun is behind/above me?

Dont bother to reply. Your lack of self awareness and understanding of basic fucking shit is boring me

>>18899769
Watching TV. They said the planet wasn't getting hotter because of global warming. Last year was the hottest summer on record.

>>18905133
climate =/= weather

come on now, this ancient fucking topic and people still make that fallacy?

File: IMG_3450.jpg (18KB, 256x144px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 256x144px

>>18899769
Nigger, those are not stars but nebulas.

Aka, huge clouds of gas that either:
- will contract and form a star
- have been ejected from a supernova explosion

Again: they're not fucking stars.

>>18905189
but that's wrong your retard.

>>18905189
You give OP way too much credit. He is not just confusing nebulae with stars. It is much dumber. He sheepishly believes some other retard who was too retarded to focus his telescope properly and instead of going "thats out of focus" he went "huurrr look diffrent, scientist lie to me!"

>>18899769
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Like the "kids on the short bus make fun of you" stupid.

>>18905341
And he's probably the kind of person who simultaniously cries "MUH PREPROGRAMMED NASA CGI IN MUH TELESCOPES!", knowing the average /x/ space conspiracy fuckwit.

>>18905019
Are those train tracks coming down from space ? No. Take your denial elsewhere. Practice your trolling, and try again next week.

>>18905730
>Are those train tracks coming down from space ?
Whats the point here exactly? Does perspective only apply to things on the ground?
So, the buildings in this pic actually are leaning towards each other and shrink in size at the top.
You just blew my mind, anon. Never looked at it this way

File: looking-up-skyscraper-perspective-high-39856020.jpg (146KB, 1300x953px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1300x953px

>>18905730
>>18905753
aww shit. I am so woke right now, that I forgot my pic

Too lazy to read the entire thread to see if someone already did but OP should have really posted one of these videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnNWdJwNJas

>>18905753
>>18905759

Were you monitoring the thread all those hours waiting for me to reply? Because that answer was fast.

>>18900423
Black hole sun

File: IMG_20161219_113645.jpg (622KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 2592x1944px

Earth is not flat bois

>>18905817
Yes, thats exactly what happend. It is because you are the most important thing in my life and I fell in love with you, anon.
Not like anybody would take hours to point out the obvious flaw in your gibberish or anything. Nice dodging btw.

>>18905853
I see, fed. Instead of monitoring me, why don't you give me a job?

And im not dodging. Im making you expose yourself.

File: earth-image-450x270.jpg (22KB, 450x270px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 450x270px

>>18899769

>>18905891
>Im making you expose yourself.
O-oh a-anon baka! Such lewdness after I just confessed my love. But sadly our relationship will be like those skyscrapers. We get closer and closer as we go on, but we will never actually touch.

>And im not dodging
Well, you certainly didnt adress why you think it makes such a big difference in how vertical/horizontal things are when it comes to perspective. You didnt address anything really. But I am ok with you being so personally interested in me.

>>18905916
>We get closer and closer as we go on, but we will never actually touch.
So close we can feel each other's warmth. Staring into our eyes, talking with no words. Knowing we'll never be together because love has been corrupted.

>You didnt address anything really.
Why would I? You'd just deny everything I say, and then proceed to tell me how correct you are.

>>18900122
>get massive helium balloon
>attach camera with lots of memory
>point it downwards
>release balloon with plans for recovery of footage
>recover and watch footage
>notice how no matter where you release balloon, you always appear to be at the center of the earth
>notice how the earth doesn't look at all like a gleason map

Seriously it's that easy to prove the earth isn't flat. Only a sphere is it possible that any and every given point can be considered the centerpoint relative to the perspective of that point. This is impossible on a disk earth/only possible from the center aka north pole.

>>18900153
No, the photoshop quote refers to the fact that we have to take composite images and combine them together sections at a time.

>>18900508
Beautiful

>>18905903
I'm guessing that's the Earth without it's oceans.

>>18899769

When I was young (10-ish), I stared at the sun for a couple of minutes. It looked very similar to those stars you posted, kind of rippling in a manner similar to electricity. I'd bet the sun in picture is not accurate, but what do I know.

>>18905903
>>18906081
No, it's a map of Earth's gravitational anomalies, with the elevation greatly exaggerated (obviously)

>>18906004
>and then proceed to tell me how correct you are
Well, I even posted pictures of what I mean. Dont act like I am blindly stating that I am correct. Where exactly do you disagree with my observations that perspective both applies to vertical and horizontal things? Where exactly do you disagree with my observation that parallel things can appeatr to converge? Thats all I argued and unless you are blind I cant really imagine how you could deny these simple observations, even if we disagree on the sun rays

File: Venus Telescope.png (140KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 700x595px

>>18900664
>pictures of space come out autistic because of using a camera for birds 15 feet away not a camera for 25 million miles
>must be because of god
Kek

File: 1490461911672.png (178KB, 1190x906px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1190x906px

>>18900664
GG

Stop posting in this thread and sage this shit.

Stop giving newfags attention.
Stop giving idiots attention.
Restore our board.

SAGE THIS SHIT

>>18899769
Read your Bible. The sun is one of a kind, as is the moon. Everything else in the sky is considered a star and is either an angel or is governed by an angel (difference of translation) so in no way are they planets or stars like earth or So respectively. Look at telescope images of planets and stars and you'll see they are much closer than we are told and they lumin independently of any other star. The earth is the center of the universe, it may be flat and you have been lied to your entire life. I defy you to find 1 photo of earth from space that isn't a composite image or direct CGI

Holy shit, /x/.

>>18906874
>The Bible
>A reliable source of factual information
Choose one and only one.

>>18902647
You have no idea the size of a satellite, the size of the earth, and most importantly, which most don't realize, how far away from the earth you actually have to be to get a complete full photo. We don't even have very many complete full photos of the earth because we haven't been out that far very often.

Most images of the earth are heavily edited composite images because of this.

File: interference.jpg (52KB, 591x549px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 591x549px

>>18899769

That's what a point of light looks like when it's out of focus. The watery effect is from the turbulence in that twist and distort the image.

>>18902681
>So of 2,000 of them not a single satellite catches the sun and reflects even a slight glimmer?
So... there might be a pixel here and there that is a shade lighter than it otherwise would be. Even if you went through these pictures with a fine tooth comb, you probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between a potential satellite and noise. Satellites are really tiny against the earth.

>>18902688
>video of 1 satellite crossing the moon on a clear night.
Those are really difficult to see even though the image is highly magnified. Furthermore the people that make them are tracking specific satellites, and do the calculations to catch them in front of the Moon.

>>18900206
>It has to be photoshopped becuase there is no real picture of earth from space because it doesn't exist.
NASA literally has an entire database filled with pictures of the earth from all sorts of angles and orbit distances. Are you fucking retarded?

File: tumblr_n6wtrgi2XF1r6jnjdo1_400.gif (2MB, 400x310px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x310px

>>18905903
>>18906081
>>18906337

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly

File: 1490709160567.png (554KB, 743x745px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 743x745px

>>18910249
Gullible people that still believe NASA after the big hoax called the moon landing

>>18911505
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

File: 1487633106375.jpg (107KB, 715x715px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 715x715px

>>18911505
Not convinced that the moon landing was a hoax.

>>18911580
Go read up on the van allen radiation belt.

>>18911580
There's a video. Shows the astronauts discussing how to fake the pictures. It was out years ago. Just a couple of vague references to staying believable. Just to beat the Russians. They went eventually. It's the first landing that seems off. British narrator, can't remember what it was. Used to be on YouTube. 2006-07

195 people thought this was thread worth responding to.

>>18911584
The astronauts travel through the belts at high speeds, limiting their radiation exposure.

>>18911505
You weren't particularly blessed in the intelligence department, were you?
>But...muh Stanley Kubrick!

File: nasa.webm (733KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 720x576px

>>18911615
>>18911619
People will rationalize anything to not let go their beloved concept of space.

>>18911635
And this clip proves...what, exactly?

>>18911635
What is that clip supposed to be?

>>18911635
>I don't understand basic science stuff, but I'm totally an authority on the subject

File: fakenasa.jpg (3MB, 4095x4095px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4095x4095px

>>18911729
Shills on suicide watch.

>>18911706
>Pointing out bubbles
>In clips where they're clearly training under water
>This proves that space is fake

>>18911733
Nope.

File: ActorChrisHadfield.webm (342KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 720x576px

>>18911741
Wouldn't be surprised if you believed this was filmed in space
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo

>>18911757
you people are why this board is hot garbage
>hhhuuurr things cant move DOWN in space ddduuurrrr oh my god im fucking retarded
>look at this water droplet BOOM the space station is fake and ur all sheeple even though you can literally look at the space station with a telescope

>>18911797
ill "refute" this for you.

>hhuuurrr its fake, even people in observatories and people that have telescopes at home are paid shills to keep up the lie of uh space for reasons

its mindblowing you people are able to hold jobs or even feed yourselves

I love when arguing stops and people only call each other names after that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2vEp4lZ4sQ

This is sirius through telescope. Looks just like the sun eh?

NASA shills and globers btfo

>>18911838
Is this Opposite Land?

>>18902647
>those fuckhueg satellites
Any full-scale shot of Earth wouldn't picture any individual satellites, they're too small relative to Earth.

>>18911838
I think these are children.

>>18903919
>how do shadows work
Please grow up.

>>18903919
>>18904098
Kids, this is what confirmation bias looks like. See how he viciously defends his flawed premise in spite of overwhelming evidence and arguments to the contrary.

Literal autistic screeching.

File: 2point perspective.jpg (11KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 259x194px

>>18905010
>Do the rays in >>18900486 look parallel to you?

Yes. In perspective, any set of parallel lines in space will appear to converge on a distant vanishing point. It doesn't matter whether the lines point upwards or downwards.

The sun''s rays coming through the clouds are essentially parallel to each other, the apparent vanishing point is on the sun.

>>18911660
>>18911661
>>18911665

Thou all protest too much.

File: 7e064c144738bdbcf203f0e009b81b97.jpg (53KB, 492x415px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 492x415px

>>18911741

>Admits to being a shill.

They seem to take a real team player attitude approach to their job, and deny anything without thinking due to that appeared mentality. An "us versus them" and "side of angels" typical brainwashing. They don't think, but obey. Then they fall into their role.

>>18911881
how do you know he's screeching at his computer

>>18904897
Yes

>>18911832
You're still forgetting to focus

>>18899779
Naturally there isn't one because OP being a faggot just dumped some old shit he saved.
https://www.google.ro/search?q=stars+are+not+suns&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSkwEJz9pKVBF-pIkahwELEKjU2AQaAggADAsQsIynCBpgCl4IAxImyQPLA8oDmxe6DOUWCJoXYo8ZjDTnM_1Ao_1Tz9KIU9gSf-PI00_1DwaMIlYl_1z0fNl_1oMiq3pGVReU6odZ9vYPwUxxyD3p_1wRojRaxQkDnVFM0aNMscd8xGTCAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIEm_1Koiww

>>18911832

See
>>18907893
>>18900531
>>18900565

>>18911981
They're not "protesting" anything. There was no explanation given for posting this video >>18911635
of a spacewalk. What mission is it? What are the astronauts working on?

>>18912067
What should i focus on?

>>18912728
Well if you want to take pictures of stars or planets, then you focus stars and planets. That is, you keep adjusting the focus until the image becomes as sharp as possible, just like you'd focus on anything else.

In this case you'll probably need to focus to infinity.

>>18912605
They're referring to the flappy cover of insulation they have on the outside of the airlock.

Flat earthers think that NASA has maintained this massive 3,000 year old international conspiracy to make people think the earth is round.

But they skimped and put a cardboard door on their fake airlocks on their fake ISS videos. Which proves that NASA is fake. And therefore the world is flat.