Category Archives: Earth
FREE! Flat Earth eBook by APlaneTruth
FE Color FINAL Book 7.24.17
Dear Flat Out Truth Seekers,
I have spent two years doing research and putting together this book. I really hope you enjoy it and find it full of useful information that you can share with others. I apologize in advance for any grammatical errors you will assuredly find. Please let me know so I can correct in the next editions.
Either way, please share this with all.
Peace and Light to the Flat Out Truth,
Aplanetruth
***
Order Books with these links and I get a little more cheez..thanx.
Black and White Book/Color https://www.createspace.com/6921591
Full Color Book https://www.createspace.com/6894644
Available at Amazon on Kindle as well
https://www.amazon.com/James-W.-Lee/e/B06XBXMGP2/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1500861590&sr=1-1
***If you do buy a book on Amazon, please post a comment. It will help spread the word
New Flat Earth Books
This book is like no other book about our modern history. For open minds, it may begin a whole new awakening as to our understanding of who we are, where we came from, and a very profound and powerful re-connection to our common Theocosmology, that has been occulted from most for over 500 years.
Black and White Book/Color https://www.createspace.com/6921591
Full Color Book https://www.createspace.com/6894644
Earth Central
Heliocentric = Hell lie centered
How can anyone beLIEve that we are not centered under the stars in heaven? oh yea, TV Programming and social indoctrination and cognitive dissonance…and apathy, lethargy and general willful ignorance…
Flat Earth Ultimate Memes; Dome is all Our Home
UN Convention Center…Does it get any clearer the message???
Oh, the irony!
Google Knows Flat Earth
What A Real Space Program Looks Like in the Dome
this is very cool
NASA’s “Blue Marble” Earth is a fake
NASA’s “Blue Marble” Earth is a fake
When we think of Earth, this iconic image of the “Blue Marble” immediately comes to mind.
We’ll call the above image “Blue Marble I”.
From Wikipedia:
The Blue Marble is a famous photograph of the Earth, taken on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft, at a distance of about 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles). It is one of the most iconic, and among the most widely distributed images in human history….
The image is one of the few to show an almost fully illuminated Earth disk (slightly gibbous), as the astronauts had the Sun behind them when they took the image. To the astronauts, Earth had the appearance and size of a glass marble, hence the name.
The photograph was taken about 5 hours and 6 minutes after launch of the Apollo 17 mission, and about 1 hour 54 minutes after the spacecraft left its parking orbit around the Earth, to begin its trajectory to the Moon.
Or maybe that’s not the Blue Marble you have in mind. Maybe it’s this iconic image of a more vividly-colored Blue Marble which was released by NASA in 2002. Let’s call it “Blue Marble II”.
Blue Marble II is so familiar to us in part because it was the default image on the first iPhone.
But some sharp-eyed geeks discovered “anomalies” in Blue Marble II, specifically duplicate clouds, as you can see in a cropped section of Blue Marble II (below):
The discovery of duplicate clouds has led to accusations that not only is the 2002 image (Blue Marble II) a fake, the original Apollo 17 image (Blue Marble I) was likely a fake as well. That, in turn, has led some to question whether everything NASA did and said was fake. See, for example, this post from Plane Not A Planet blog.The problem is that, in the years after the first Blue Marble photo was taken by Apollo 17, NASA has released many Blue Marbles, “Blue Marble II” being one of the best known and most popular.
As NASA explains about the 2002 “Blue Marble II”:
Metadata
- Data Date: February 8, 2002
- Visualization Date: February 8, 2002
This spectacular “blue marble” image is the most detailed true-color image of the entire Earth to date. Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet. These images are freely available to educators, scientists, museums, and the public.
Much of the information contained in this image came from a single remote-sensing device-NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, or MODIS. Flying over 700 km above the Earth onboard the Terra satellite, MODIS provides an integrated tool for observing a variety of terrestrial, oceanic, and atmospheric features of the Earth. The land and coastal ocean portions of these images are based on surface observations collected from June through September 2001 and combined, or composited, every eight days to compensate for clouds that might block the sensor’s view of the surface on any single day…. The cloud image is a composite of two days of imagery collected in visible light wavelengths and a third day of thermal infra-red imagery over the poles. Global city lights, derived from 9 months of observations from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, are superimposed on a darkened land surface map.
In other words, rendered in simple English, NASA is saying that the 2002 “Blue Marble II” is not a photo. Instead, the image is a COMBINATION and COMPOSITE of many “satellite-based observations” (whatever that means), which were “stitched together” (whatever that means) by scientists and “visualizers” (whatever that means).
In other words, Blue Marble II is a fake — which would explain the duplicate clouds.
Here’s an admission by Robert Simmon, one of the “visualizers” who “stitched together” Blue Marble II, as related by David Yanofsky in his March 27, 2014 article for Quartz, “The guy who created the iPhone’s Earth image explains why he needed to fake it“:
As it turns out, much of what one might assume about this beautiful image is not true…. It isn’t actually a photograph of earth. And that blackness surrounding it? That’s not space, either….
Simmon, a data-visualizer and designer at NASA’s Earth Observatory, created the image in 2002. He told Quartz it’s not a photograph, but a sophisticated visualization.
Images of the earth may seem commonplace, but there are actually very few pictures of the entire planet. The problem, Simmon said, is all the NASA earth-observing satellites are in low-earth or geostationary orbit, meaning none of them are far enough away to see a full hemisphere. The most familiar pictures of the entire Earth are from the 1960s and 1970s Apollo missions to the moon.
As realistic as it looks, the image is a composite of four months of light data collected in 2,300 km (1,429 mi) wide bands as NASA’s Terra satellite orbited from pole to pole, and the earth rotated beneath it.
That data was then stitched together and applied to the surface of a digital ball, then modified in Photoshop.
Simmon readily admits there are numerous fakeries in his image. The atmosphere is Photoshop blur. Some of the clouds are collaged together using Photoshop’s clone tool to cover gaps in the satellite’s coverage. The black area around the earth is not the void of space. It is simply a background of black color that Simmon placed the earth on top of. (This is standard practice, Simmon says: most actual “photographs” of the earth—including the Apollo images—present the planet on a black background).
Without these alterations, the image wouldn’t look very earth-like. Simmon said he based his manipulations on reality, “in the sense that I’ve looked at a lot of imagery to see how thick should that be, how blue should that be.” But, he later added, “It’s more hyper-realistic than realistic.”
“Without these alterations, the image wouldn’t look very earth-like.”
That’s a doozy of a sentence, because our visual images of earth all came from NASA in the first place as none of us has flown into space to actually see the entire Earth.
Given the admission that Blue Marble II is a fake, we have every reason to wonder about other NASA fakeries and lies, such as the 1986 Challenger explosion (see “Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive?”) and whether those photos taken on the Moon are real.
How Flat Can A Planet Be? ~ Forbes Magazine 2.14.17
Looks like Forbes is attempting to deflect Flat Earth knowledge and reason and defend round ball heliohead theory and inference. Note, there is STILL not one single full photograph of our Earth from space. Not one! Why?
Is this article setting the tone for a “discovery ” of a flat planet in space? hmmm.
Two-hemisphere global composites of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data, taken in 2001 and 2002. Observations show that Earth is nearly perfectly round, but must all planets be? Image credit: NASA.
We know that the Earth isn’t flat, and have known this for hundreds of years. There are many ways to demonstrate this, from ships’ masts disappearing as they sail out over the horizon, to your ability to see farther at higher altitudes, to the longer shadows cast by the Sun at higher latitudes, to measuring the shape of the Moon’s shadow on the Earth during a solar eclipse, to actually going to space and seeing the shape of the Earth for yourself.
But just because the Earth isn’t flat doesn’t necessarily mean a planet couldn’t be. In fact, there are many observations that we make that would be consistent with a flat, circular Earth.
The two ways Earth could cast a circular shadow on the Moon: by being a spherical object (bottom) or a disk-like object (top). Lunar eclipse observations cannot determine the Earth’s sphericity on theirown. Image credit: Windows to the Universe Original (Randy Russell), under a c.c.a.-s.a.-3.0 unported license.
So how close could we actually get to a flat planet? One strategy would be to take a solid slab of material — stone, steel, or something even harder like diamond or graphene — and build the largest flat disk you could. If you used conventional materials like this, you could create a thin, flat disk many hundreds of kilometers in radius that was stable. In other words, you could make a flat world that was larger than any object in our asteroid belt, and possibly even nearly the size of our Moon.
The line for a planet vs. a non-planet is mass-dependent, and making a thin, rigid body fails on that account. You can have a flat “thing” in space, but it wouldn’t be a planet if you did. Image credit: Margot (2015), via http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.06300.
But it wouldn’t be a planet if you did it that way. Back in 2006, we famously set forth the three criteria for defining a planet. (That definition has since been extended to exoplanets, too!) In order to be a planet, a world:
- must be in orbit around the Sun (and not any other body like another planet),
- must have sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (round, or oblate/prolate in the case of a rapid rotation), and
- must clear the neighborhood around its orbit (so that there are no other comparably large bodies also in/near its orbit).
That second part of the definition is what fails for our specially-created flat, thin world. If it isn’t massive enough to pull itself into hydrostatic equilibrium, it can’t be classified as a planet.
The rotations of the planets (and Pluto) in our solar system. Image credit: NASA / Calvin J. Hamilton (1999).
But there is a way to create a relatively flat planet: have it spin. Here on Earth, our planet is a relatively slow spinner: it takes 24 hours for us to rotate a full 360°. This means that a person living on the equator, the maximal distance from the Earth’s axis of rotation, experiences an extra speed of 464 meters per second (about 1,000 miles per hour) compared to someone at the poles. This extra speed affects the entire shape of the Earth, and causes it to elongate into a shape known as an oblate spheroid: a near-perfect sphere that’s flattened at the poles and elongated at the equator.
An oblate spheroid is compressed at the poles and elongated around the equatorial axis. Image credit: Sam Derbyshire of Wikimedia Commons.
The diameter of the Earth at the equator is 12,756 km, while at the poles its only 12,714 km. You are 21 kilometers closer to the center of the Earth standing at the North Pole than you are at the equator. This doesn’t seem like much, but there are worlds out there that rotate far faster. The gas giants all rotate quite quickly, with Saturn’s poles compressed by 10% relative to its equator.
(more)
Recent Comments