Why don't we see any fake cgi images released by NASA of the oblate pear shaped earth as promoted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (see first and second images below)?  The fake cgi images by NASA don't even show an oblate earth, but are perfectly round with the continents changing sizes, shapes, and positions over time (see third image below)!  ROFLMAO!!!  You balling globalists debunk yourselves at every turn, lol.

Gravock

Why don't we see any fake cgi images released by NASA of the oblate pear shaped earth as promoted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (see first and second images below)?  The fake cgi images by NASA don't even show an oblate earth, but are perfectly round with the continents changing sizes, shapes, and positions over time (see third image below)!  ROFLMAO!!!  You balling globalists debunk yourselves at every turn, lol.

Gravock

Actually, you betray your own ignorance and gullibility with every post you make. The Earth deviates from a true sphere by slightly less than 1 part in 300. There is no way that you could even see that deviation on images like you have posted.

And it may be clear _even to you_ that images of the Earth taken at different times of the day, by different satellites in different positions, using different satellite imaging systems, color-processed by different people and copy-pasted and altered nobody knows how many times before they appear in your silly posts.... would look different.

You have presented YET ANOTHER utter fail, which not only does not support your silly contentions but also reveals your utter ignorance of photography, satellite imaging systems, geography and logical thought. Congratulations!

The simplest model for the shape of the entire Earth is a sphere. The Earth's radius is the distance from Earth's center to its surface, about 6,371 kilometers (3,959 mi). While "radius" normally is a characteristic of perfect spheres, the Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by only a third of a percent, sufficiently close to treat it as a sphere in many contexts and justifying the term "the radius of the Earth".
The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BC,^[2] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC. The first scientific estimation of the radius of the earth was given by Eratosthenes about 240 BC, with estimates of the accuracy of Eratosthenes’s measurement ranging from 2% to 15%.
The Earth is only approximately spherical, so no single value serves as its natural radius. Distances from points on the surface to the center range from 6,353 km to 6,384 km (3,947 – 3,968 mi). Several different ways of modeling the Earth as a sphere each yield a mean radius of 6,371 kilometers (3,959 mi). Regardless of the model, any radius falls between the polar minimum of about 6,357 km and the equatorial maximum of about 6,378 km (3,950 – 3,963 mi). The difference 21 kilometers (13 mi) correspond to the polar radius being approximately 0.3% shorter than the equator radius.

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



The difference is about the same, proportionally, as the difference between the thickness of the skin of an apple, and the entire diameter of the apple. Not something you are going to be able to detect on any ordinary-sized photograph.



Got any more silly interpretations and false claims about real data? Keep them coming, you are definitely low-hanging fruit, easy to pick off.

Well, let's look at a fake camera image of the full earth released by NASA during the fake Apollo 16 mission (first image below), and not some theoretical models on the figure of the earth, as shown on wikepedia.  This image of the full Earth released by NASA sure does deviate from a true sphere by more than 1 part in 300 and is easily detectable in the image!!!  Like I said before, the images of the earth as released by NASA aren't consistent with one another.  It's very obvious this image is not a photo taken with a hand-held Hasselblad camera, but is a composite, cropped and mashed together image (second image below). The fact that the cropping actually follows the supposed 'Earth shadow' shows that it was cropped - to make it look like there is a shadow there. Why would NASA do that? It makes no logical sense that anyone would crop an image in this way, if it was a genuine photo.   The image on NASA's site is now different (third image below).  NASA changed the original fake cropped image (first image below) after this video showing the cropping  (second image below) was uploaded.  However, the image on the web archive (first image below) still shows the old cropped image.

NASA admits the images are computer generated (CGI) from their so-called satellite data into a globe earth composite (video).  Their so-called satellite data is also fake!!!  So, if your reason for believing the earth is nearly a spherical globe was that you have seen thousands of pictures of the earth, then you better think again!  You globalists are being bamboozled and hoodwinked into believing a fairy tale.  You globalists are so gullible and so easily deceived into believing a lie.  ROFLMAO!!!

None of the NASA Photographs or footage of the Earth is real. Robert Simmons, a Data Visualiser and Information Designer for NASA freely admits that all the still images of Earth from space, (including his creation of the recent ‘Blue Marble' image), are simply composite images and not real photographs.  Check it out for yourself (video).  The video has rare audio of NASA's Robert Simmons as he explains using photo shop on earth pics. None of the pictures have ever been real.  All pictures of the globe earth are null x void!!

Gravock

Real data comes from real photographs, and not fake computer generated images from fake virtual satellite data!  You have the process completely backwards and inverted as always.

Gravock

No, it is you who continue to show your ignorance and lack of reasoning ability. Just as I have said, you simply deny the validity of any evidence against your silly claims.

In the first place, there is really no such thing as a "real photograph" of astronomical objects from satellites, or even earth-bound telescopes.
Modern satellites do not use film cameras and the images aren't developed at your local one-hour photo service! When an imaging system with
a narrow field of view is used to make an image of a larger object, multiple images are stitched together into a mosaic. Each individual image
is processed in various ways, and the final image is further processed to make a resulting overall image. This does NOT mean that the image is faked!
(Of course to YOU it does, since all data that refutes you is faked, according to you.) 

For example look at my own Lunar image attached below. This is a 5-frame mosaic. The original images of parts of the nearly-full Moon were taken
with a Canon Xti DSLR camera-- NOT a film camera. This camera uses an electronic sensor to capture photons of light. The charges on the pixels
of the sensor are then converted to something that the human eye can interpret as an image -- brightness levels of individual pixels. Then I take
the raw digital data from the camera and process it in various ways to enhance contrast, adjust color values, sharpness and etc. using a program
called PixInsight. Then the individual partial frames are matched and stitched together by another program called nip2. Then the overall full image is
once again adjusted and smoothed using PixInsight again, and further sharpened and resized by another program called gimp, which is essentially
a free PhotoShop. Then the _bits_ of data which represent the image are uploaded, stored, presented to you, then you see them through another
program which displays them on your screen. That program makes further guesses and alterations before presenting it to the software that shows
it to you, and your monitor alters it even further, based on your local settings for brightness, contrast, color temperature, and etc.
 
So does all of this "prove" that the image is not an image of the real Moon, taken from my backyard by me, and which "looks like" the real, actual Moon?
According to your weak minded attempts at reasoning, it's not a "real photograph" and therefore is fake. Oh... wait a minute.... I almost forgot... 
the Moon itself is faked, isn't it!!!

In the second place, you are rather inconsistent in your ramblings. NASA and all the other space agencies and telescope operators all around the world --
or all "across" the flat world according to you -- are smart enough to manufacture and continue this worldwide conspiracy but aren't smart enough to
make images that are consistent with your weak ideas of what a "real photograph" should look like.

I laugh out loud at your ignorance and feeble, futile attempts to bolster your fake theory with your made-up "facts" and misinterpreted out-of-context quotes.

(Image uploaded at full resolution on purpose, to show the detail and smoothness of the mosaic process.)

So if the earth is flat,and the stars are moving across the sky(from our perspective),then this flat earth must be spinning-right?
So it would be a must that you stay close to the center of this spinning mass,as the closer we get to the edge,the higher the risk of being flung of out into space

Oh i remember those days ,in the playground,on the high speed merry-go-round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWxwG7mato

Brad

No, it is you who continue to show your ignorance and lack of reasoning ability. Just as I have said, you simply deny the validity of any evidence against your silly claims.

In the first place, there is really no such thing as a "real photograph" of astronomical objects from satellites, or even earth-bound telescopes.
Modern satellites do not use film cameras and the images aren't developed at your local one-hour photo service! When an imaging system with
a narrow field of view is used to make an image of a larger object, multiple images are stitched together into a mosaic. Each individual image
is processed in various ways, and the final image is further processed to make a resulting overall image. This does NOT mean that the image is faked!
(Of course to YOU it does, since all data that refutes you is faked, according to you.) 

For example look at my own Lunar image attached below. This is a 5-frame mosaic. The original images of parts of the nearly-full Moon were taken
with a Canon Xti DSLR camera-- NOT a film camera. This camera uses an electronic sensor to capture photons of light. The charges on the pixels
of the sensor are then converted to something that the human eye can interpret as an image -- brightness levels of individual pixels. Then I take
the raw digital data from the camera and process it in various ways to enhance contrast, adjust color values, sharpness and etc. using a program
called PixInsight. Then the individual partial frames are matched and stitched together by another program called nip2. Then the overall full image is
once again adjusted and smoothed using PixInsight again, and further sharpened and resized by another program called gimp, which is essentially
a free PhotoShop. Then the _bits_ of data which represent the image are uploaded, stored, presented to you, then you see them through another
program which displays them on your screen. That program makes further guesses and alterations before presenting it to the software that shows
it to you, and your monitor alters it even further, based on your local settings for brightness, contrast, color temperature, and etc.
 
So does all of this "prove" that the image is not an image of the real Moon, taken from my backyard by me, and which "looks like" the real, actual Moon?
According to your weak minded attempts at reasoning, it's not a "real photograph" and therefore is fake. Oh... wait a minute.... I almost forgot... 
the Moon itself is faked, isn't it!!!

In the second place, you are rather inconsistent in your ramblings. NASA and all the other space agencies and telescope operators all around the world --
or all "across" the flat world according to you -- are smart enough to manufacture and continue this worldwide conspiracy but aren't smart enough to
make images that are consistent with your weak ideas of what a "real photograph" should look like.

I laugh out loud at your ignorance and feeble, futile attempts to bolster your fake theory with your made-up "facts" and misinterpreted out-of-context quotes.

(Image uploaded at full resolution on purpose, to show the detail and smoothness of the mosaic process.)

Yes, it's a "real photograph" of a "real image" of the moon in 3D space.  Why can't NASA release some nice photos of the earth like you did with the moon?  Oh, and your moon photo is consistent with other moon photos taken by other people, which is something NASA isn't able to do either.  You can even photograph the so-called Milky Way with a Smartphone.  Some Smartphones have better sensor technology than what you’ll find in your DSLR or mirror-less camera.  However, NASA isn't taking real photographs of real images in 3D space.  They're using fake data from fake satellites to create a computer generated image (CGI) of a fake image in 3D space.  They also like to use the cloning tool to paint the clouds.   For example, an unusual anomaly appears on one of NASA’s composite images of the Earth (first image below).  If you flip the image upside-down, you can see what looks strikingly like the word “s.e.x” written across a significant portion of the fake globe.  Step 1, download this image from NASA’s website.  Step 2, flip the fake image upside-down.  Step 3, look at the top right corner of the flipped image.  Step 4, observe what looks suspiciously like the word “s.e.x” plastered over the Earth’s atmosphere.  Step 5, reassure yourself that this is merely a coincidence and that NASA, a federal agency that receives around $18 billion of tax funding every year, would never deceive the public under any circumstance.

“It’s physically impossible for any NASA pictures to be manipulated,” says The Coincidence Theorist. “I imagine this is just a naturally-occurring cloud formation. Clearly-formed words spanning hundreds of miles must randomly materialize all the time. Coincidentally, I took this picture (second image below) on the very same day from my own back yard" (Taken from The Coincidence Theorist, nothing to see here)!

Gravock

So if the earth is flat,and the stars are moving across the sky(from our perspective),then this flat earth must be spinning-right?
So it would be a must that you stay close to the center of this spinning mass,as the closer we get to the edge,the higher the risk of being flung of out into space

Oh i remember those days ,in the playground,on the high speed merry-go-round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTWxwG7mato

Brad

You're debunking the fake globe model and don't even realize it!  You should refer to the video on rim velocity and the Machinery's Handbook, which was previously posted.  It's the fake globe that is rotating, and not the non-rotating flat earth!

Gravock