Thursday, 10 March 2016

172)” If you pick any cloud in the sky and watch for several minutes, two things will happen: the clouds will move and they will morph gradually changing shape. In official NASA footage of the spinning ball Earth, such as the “Galileo” time-lapse video however, clouds are constantly shown for 24+ hours at a time and not moving or morphing whatsoever! This is completely impossible, further proof that NASA produces fake CGI videos, and further evidence that Earth is not a spinning ball.





I notice that Dubay sometimes attributes diabolical cleverness to “the conspiracy”, far beyond what is actually plausible or technically possible. Then he claims that they are  so stupid that they blow the whole thing! 

The funniest example of that is coming up in Point 173, the next point after this.

Although it was not addressed to Dubay's claims, there's an interesting response to this point here:: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/

"But what of the more unusual suggestion that the images are fake, because they show the continents being different sizes. Like many such things, it's all about perspective, and the way our brains work. We look at these images of the Earth, and our brain thinks of it as a flat object. You'd think if you get close to something, then it will get bigger, but not change shape. But this breaks down for three dimensional objects. If you get close to a globe, then you can see less of it, so the visible objects seem a lot bigger relative to the visible disc of the globe. The part of the globe in the middle is also a lot closer to your eye (relative tot he edges) so seems bigger, like it's bulging out more than it actually is. You can verify this yourself with a household globe and your eyes (or a camera) 

[​IMG]
When the camera is just a few inches from the globe, then North America seems to take up nearly all of the hemisphere. But as the camera moves back, then you can see more of the globe, and so the true relative size can be seen."
As for the different colour and contrast in images, Metabunk's matt West explains:

The contrast color saturation is something you can arbitrarily pick after the raw image is created. Most consumer cameras boost this to make the images look better, but the more washed out image is the more realistic. Here, for example, I've adjusted the contrast and saturation of the 2015 DSCOVR image:[​IMG]
It's the same image, just adjusted to be more pleasing to the eye, in a similar way to what was done with the 2002 images.
Different cameras take different images, which will vary in color and contrast. For example, here's there photos of the same scene with the same lighting, taken with three different cameras:
[​IMG]
Each image is unaltered, with just three default camera settings ("P" mode on the two Canon cameras). The histogram in the corner of each image shows the brightness distribution across the image. Notice the S110 has the most saturated colors with dark yellows and reds, but the iPhone has the deeper contrast in the blues and greens. The Canon 7D seems almost washed out by comparison, but it's actually the most accurate of the three. A photographer can take this, and adjust it any way they like afterward.
So given the vast difference between the camera systems of the 1967, 1972, 2002 and 2015 images, there's simply no way to make any kind of direct comparison between them.


[​IMG]

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/

The article goes on to explain in detail how such images are created. yes, most are composites of many individual photos, just like the panoramas you can take with your smart phone camera, or like Google's Street View; and we don't believe that the pictures of our home streets are "fake" because they are composite images.

To consider Dubay’s point with the brevity it deserves; the ISS has an orbital period of about one and a half hour. Given the time it has to look at one piece of the sky, I don't find it weird that most movement isn't visible.


Yet again, the facts directly contradict one of Mr Dubay's claims:

Galileo Timelapse (1990)
The Galileo time-lapse (from 1990!) does show moving cloud fields, but you have to look closely. Remember, those are global weather patterns, not local ones; the local ones are not resolvable by the cameras onboard of that spacecraft a quarter century ago. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJOBFj3hKs


No comments:

Post a comment

(Please make your comment reasoned and based on evidence . Abusive comments will be totally ignored.)