Full-Disk HD Images of the Earth from Satellites

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Oh and can you explain the glitch , just earth not the whole image ?
It's not a "glitch", it's a physical wobble. The car, and the camera attached to it, moves due to a vibration or impact of some sort, so the image of the Earth moves.

The video claims that it is suspicious that the Earth moves but the car doesn't. A moment's thought shows that that makes no sense. If the camera is fixed relative to the car, then any vibration of the car will also be moving the camera. The car doesn't move relative to the camera, but the car+camera system moves relative to the Earth.

It's like a GoPro shot with the camera mounted to a helmet. The helmet is stationary relative to the camera, so it doesn't move, but the rest of the scenery bounces all over the place. Quick example from a bike park I go to:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0D6-a5Wgyg
 

xena

Banned
Banned
Yes I've just been reading through the thread to see if I'd missed where the 100 mile figure came from

I said around 100miles it may have been a few miles higher but my point is that it’s no way higher than the ISS .
Look at the footage from the ISS , the Earth is always much larger . You’ve seen those live fly overs haven’t you ?
 

xena

Banned
Banned
It's not a "glitch", it's a physical wobble. The car, and the camera attached to it, moves due to a vibration or impact of some sort, so the image of the Earth moves.

The video claims that it is suspicious that the Earth moves but the car doesn't. A moment's thought shows that that makes no sense. If the camera is fixed relative to the car, then any vibration of the car will also be moving the camera. The car doesn't move relative to the camera, but the car+camera system moves relative to the Earth.

It's like a GoPro shot with the camera mounted to a helmet. The helmet is stationary relative to the camera, so it doesn't move, but the rest of the scenery bounces all over the place. Quick example from a bike park I go to:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0D6-a5Wgyg
Take a look a again it’s a glitch . The Earth clearly glitches moves and the car does not , it’s very simple to see it .
Your video is ridiculous attempt to prove me wrong .
 

xena

Banned
Banned
How do you know it was "100 miles up"? It sounds as if you are assuming this figure.

As already stated, it was an elliptical orbit:

Perigee of 180 kilometers - 112 miles

Apogee of 6,951 kilometers - 4,319 miles

If we are assuming, why not assume it was 4,319 miles up when the photo was taken?

I think you should educate yourself on what an elliptical orbit is, and what perigee and apogee mean.






The Epic satellite uses a telescopic lens and the camera in the Musk photo has a wide angle lens. Things look big in a telescope and small with a wide angle lens.

Is there something fishy about these birds? Or is the photographer just using a different lens in each shot?



First off one is just a few miles above Earth and the other is over a million miles away . So your bird comparison above is completely nonsense.
Explain this how the clouds never move over a long period of time in the images below ?
https://youtu.be/skIq1C_3VjI[url=https://youtu.be/skIq1C_3VjI]Source: https://youtu.be/skIq1C_3VjI
The [/URL]
 

DavidB66

Active Member
The video linked by 'xena' makes three claims about the footage from the Dscovr satellite:

a) the clouds do not move
b) the moon does not appear to be rotating
c) the axis of the earth's rotation is in the wrong place, because in mid-July the north pole should be angled towards the sun. which would also be towards the camera.

Points (a) and (b) have already been thoroughly debunked, and it is surprising that 'xena' is not aware of this.

(a) Anyone who looks carefully at particular cloud formations during the short duration of the transit will see that the clouds do move and change shape. Not by much, but one wouldn't expect them to move much in the course of a few hours.
(b) The moon does rotate. Again, not by much, but as much as would be expected. (Did the commentator expect it to rotate by as much as the earth??) Someone did a conclusive 'blink test' on this - possibly even in this forum. (I saw it either here or at VORTEX.)

Point (c) is more of a puzzle. If the footage was indeed taken in mid-July (which I haven't checked) I would have expected the north pole to be more obviously tilted towards the sun. But it is difficult to be sure exactly where the pole is, and the camera itself appears to be somewhat rotated relative to the axis of the earth. Also, mid-July is nearly a month after the (northern) summer solstice, and in that time the position of the axis would have moved significantly away from a 'full frontal' position. Bear in mind that in 13 weeks it makes a 90-degree turn, so in 4 weeks it would have moved by nearly 30 degrees. But I hope someone else has made a more sophisticated analysis.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member
Explain this how the clouds never move over a long period of time in the images below ?
https://youtu.be/skIq1C_3VjISource: https://youtu.be/skIq1C_3VjI
The
Getting into a bit of a Gish gallop here, but I addressed that issue in August of 2015: https://www.metabunk.org/nasa-lies-debunked.t6698/

(Many other issues are addressed as well)

- Clouds Don't Change


I tested this by isolating these images of Hurricane Dolores from the NASA video:




The first photo is from the very first frame of the video and the second is just before the Moon obscures this area, approximately 3 hours later. There is a problem with the perspective, because the Earth has rotated into a different position. I don't think that would make much difference considering the scale, but just to be as conservative as possible, I suggest that one look most specifically at the cloud patterns, because they are less affected than cloud positions in relation to the Earth's surface.

There are quite significant differences in the cloud patterns. Which is typical of time lapse satellite images of hurricanes. You see not just rotation, but more noticeably, clouds boiling up and dissipating.

These smaller versions make it easier to see overall changes.





Problems not taken into account:

- The image of Hurricane Dolores is small and hard to see.

- Scale: The Earth is big and the storm is big. The speed at which it is moving and spinning and changing isn't all that great compared to the scale of hundreds and thousands of miles. So even though this is time lapse, there is less movement than they intuitively think.

- The Earth is rotating, so it's very hard to track the movement of the storm. You're trying to keep track of two independent movements. It's really hard to do that.

You are relying on purely intuitive concepts about speed, scale and the accuracy of your own perception.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member
First off one is just a few miles above Earth and the other is over a million miles away . So your bird comparison above is completely nonsense.
You don't seem to be reading responses.

-We've already shown that your assumption that the Musk photo was taken at distance of 100 miles above the Earth is baseless. It was probably thousands of miles.

-Surely you can understand that if the EPIC camera (on the Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite) uses a telescopic lens, the Earth image could be any size. Why would it matter if it's a million miles away? Telescopes make distant objects look big. How more basic can you get?
 

Agent K

Active Member
Look at the size of earth. Look at the height Of orbit of the car around 100 miles up in space we are told . it’s miles lower than the ISS ...how come the earth is way smaller than any ISS image of earth . Total fake watch the glitch of earth at 42 sec s
Source: https://youtu.be/elkh38u5gow
The car looks much farther away than 100 miles but closer than Himawari's 22,000 mile orbit, just based on how much of the Earth you can see. The farther away the camera is, the more of the hemisphere it sees due to perspective.
Here's a visual explanation from Vsauce: "How Much of the Earth Can You See at Once?"
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxhxL1LzKww


If you know that the camera is a few meters away from the car, and you know the size of the car and the size of the Earth, you could do the math and estimate how far away the Earth is.

The glitch in the live-streamed video looks like an artifact of video compression that uses motion compensation. See how blocky the Earth looks on the right side during that glitch.
upload_2019-5-31_20-38-11.png
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Active Member
It's not a "glitch", it's a physical wobble. The car, and the camera attached to it, moves due to a vibration or impact of some sort, so the image of the Earth moves.
To me it looks more like a video compression glitch than vibration or impact of some sort, especially considering that it was live-streaming from space.
 
Last edited:

Nth

Member
To me it looks more like a video compression glitch than vibration or impact of some sort, especially considering that it was live-streaming from space.
Forgive my possible ignorance on the subject, but as the car isn't moving in the frame, regardless of any video glitches, it would not (and is not) affected, while something that is moving the frame (the Earth, in this case) would be affected, correct?

Edit: Either way, is there even a logical path to claiming that these sorts of video glitches are evidence of CGI? Pre-rendered CGI (which, in the case of the particular conspiracy theory, would be a "duh" choice for the conspirators) does not, in my experience, exhibit any sort of glitches like this.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Forgive my possible ignorance on the subject, but as the car isn't moving in the frame, regardless of any video glitches, it would not (and is not) affected, while something that is moving the frame (the Earth, in this case) would be affected, correct?

Edit: Either way, is there even a logical path to claiming that these sorts of video glitches are evidence of CGI? Pre-rendered CGI (which, in the case of the particular conspiracy theory, would be a "duh" choice for the conspirators) does not, in my experience, exhibit any sort of glitches like this.
I think some of the live-streamed video frames were received out of order. The moving shadow on the car wheel is affected the same way as the Earth.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member
I said around 100miles it may have been a few miles higher but my point is that it’s no way higher than the ISS .
Look at the footage from the ISS , the Earth is always much larger . You’ve seen those live fly overs haven’t you ?
The orbit varied between 111 and 4319 miles so at the point of its obit in your shot it could be anywhere between those heights.
 

Nth

Member
I think some of the live-streamed video frames were received out of order. The moving shadow on the car wheel is affected the same way as the Earth.
Ah, gotcha. And not saying that you are saying this in any way, but its curious to me that anyone could see a bit of video glitching like that and immediately jump to "CGI fakery". Have some people just not watched live TV from a digital transmitter in bad weather?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The topic here is:
Full-Disk HD Images of the Earth from Satellites

New topics in new threads, please!
 
Top