## Shuttle Astronaut Story Musgrave Comes Clean "UFO's Exist"

Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:45 pm

OK Frutty,

I broke out the old slide rule and sharpened the pencil.
Here are my findings.
With the Earth having a radius of 6,378 a Dia of 12,756 and the supposed picture at maybe 394km, you should get the following based on conical equations. At 395km all visual lines no mater where you look go tangent at a radius of 2,144 and a diameter of 4,288. So at that vantage point the best you could see would be a very small portion of the Earth. 39 Degrees in all. The remaining 321 degrees of the Earth are out of tangent sight.
That's in the math and I hope everyone is in agreement. So the only question is? What is the radius in the photo. If the photos radius is above 2,144 then the photo is fake. If it is 2,1444 then it might be real.

Have you worked out the last detail, the photos diameter? if so please post your results.
At this moment I am not sure if I can calculate that radius from the print, but I will give it a try.

Waiting for you,
Deuem

Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:21 pm

For those interested in reality:

Accurate representations of the respective positions of the Hubble Telescope and the ISS in respect to the Earth in Celestia the astronomy program.

http://www.shatters.net/celestia/features/images/iss-new.png

http://www.shatters.net/celestia/features/images/hubble-planetshine.png

And if you're so inclined, you can download the program yourself and fly up virtually to the orbit height of the ISS and Hubble to see the curvature of the earth, in real time, in a virtual program representing accurate scales and distances.

Videos from the ISS

And last but not least, a spacewalk

But hey, if you want to be like some people and only focus on the limitations of photos to support your fruitbasket claims and claim videos are fake too, by all means, carry on.

Five Finger Death Punch
"I'd rather you hate me, for everything I am than ever love me, for something that I'm not."

Lowsix wrote:Seriously dude..you're trash.
Always have been.

Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:45 pm

deuem wrote:OK Frutty,

I broke out the old slide rule and sharpened the pencil.
Here are my findings.
With the Earth having a radius of 6,378 a Dia of 12,756 and the supposed picture at maybe 394km, you should get the following based on conical equations. At 395km all visual lines no mater where you look go tangent at a radius of 2,144 and a diameter of 4,288. So at that vantage point the best you could see would be a very small portion of the Earth. 39 Degrees in all. The remaining 321 degrees of the Earth are out of tangent sight.
That's in the math and I hope everyone is in agreement. So the only question is? What is the radius in the photo. If the photos radius is above 2,144 then the photo is fake. If it is 2,144 then it might be real.

Have you worked out the last detail, the photos diameter? if so please post your results.
At this moment I am not sure if I can calculate that radius from the print, but I will give it a try.

Waiting for you,
Deuem

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Again,
In the mean time I took the picture as is and imported it into auto cad. I overlaid it on my math model.
In the gif below the first picture is the original we are talking about
The second is the auto cad model
Number 3 is a close up of the tangent points and limits of view of 39 degrees.
In picture 4, the red line, I did my best to match up the Full Earth sphere with the picture by scaling the picture.
In picture 5, the blue line, I did the same but used the conical limitations worked out before.

Results so far, No mater what I did, I could not line up the radius of the Earth at full scale with that of the picture, they are 2 different radii.
When I lined up the photo with the smaller radii, they went together like hand in glove.

I would say after doing the experiment the picture looks like it was shot at the given altitude of around 350km. Rather it is fake or not is still in question but I believe the proportions are correct. Please feel free to show data otherwise and I will look at it.

So the proportions are correct but the picture is in question. 2,144 seems to be a lot closer than the full radii. Over to you....
Deuem

Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:45 pm

@ Frutty again, I see no reason why I can't use this same type of model to look at some of the moon pictures to see if the horizon lines are fake. What do you think.

Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:45 pm

Also just ran the math on the Moon, If you were standing on the moon with a camera at 2 meters and the ground was a flat like a calm sea, your field of vision would stop at 3km. If you were to see anything past 3km (1.86 miles) it would need to be at a greater height. So the horizon line has a 3km radius from ground level. I feel confident that we can use this against pictures to see if they got them right. Technically we have a 6km or 3.7 mile diameter circle to work with. This is not as large as I thought it would be. If we can pin point where the photo was taken on the moon and then overlay a 6km circle on a moon map, this should show the minimum of what should be in the picture. Now if a mountain is in the picture and not in the circle you can calculate how far the mountain was away from the camera.
Deuem

Posts: 3454
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:35 am

deuem wrote:OK Frutty,

I broke out the old slide rule and sharpened the pencil.
Here are my findings.
With the Earth having a radius of 6,378 a Dia of 12,756 and the supposed picture at maybe 394km, you should get the following based on conical equations. At 395km all visual lines no mater where you look go tangent at a radius of 2,144 and a diameter of 4,288. So at that vantage point the best you could see would be a very small portion of the Earth. 39 Degrees in all. The remaining 321 degrees of the Earth are out of tangent sight.
That's in the math and I hope everyone is in agreement. So the only question is? What is the radius in the photo. If the photos radius is above 2,144 then the photo is fake. If it is 2,1444 then it might be real.

Have you worked out the last detail, the photos diameter? if so please post your results.
At this moment I am not sure if I can calculate that radius from the print, but I will give it a try.

Waiting for you,
Deuem

Hey Dauem did not have time to check your response until now.

Here is a scaled model of the solution.

The clouds should be on your toes. Recalculate the arc subtended by the ANGLE (which is much lesser) and extrapolate to the graphic. The atmosphere of earth is not visible from that altitude.

I'll be posting the whole solution soon.

Deception in life is nothing but a lie reduced to practice

Posts: 3454
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:35 am

In the meantime enjoy more fakery (hope you find the image eloquent enough)

North Africa at night, ISS image. C007/6439

Deception in life is nothing but a lie reduced to practice

Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:45 pm

frutty wrote:
deuem wrote:OK Frutty,

I broke out the old slide rule and sharpened the pencil.
Here are my findings.
With the Earth having a radius of 6,378 a Dia of 12,756 and the supposed picture at maybe 394km, you should get the following based on conical equations. At 395km all visual lines no mater where you look go tangent at a radius of 2,144 and a diameter of 4,288. So at that vantage point the best you could see would be a very small portion of the Earth. 39 Degrees in all. The remaining 321 degrees of the Earth are out of tangent sight.
That's in the math and I hope everyone is in agreement. So the only question is? What is the radius in the photo. If the photos radius is above 2,144 then the photo is fake. If it is 2,1444 then it might be real.

Have you worked out the last detail, the photos diameter? if so please post your results.
At this moment I am not sure if I can calculate that radius from the print, but I will give it a try.

Waiting for you,
Deuem

Hey Dauem did not have time to check your response until now.

Here is a scaled model of the solution.

The clouds should be on your toes. Recalculate the arc subtended by the ANGLE (which is much lesser) and extrapolate to the graphic. The atmosphere of earth is not visible from that altitude.

I'll be posting the whole solution soon.

I am not sure what your going to post as your results, I will wait. But as far as I am concerned the photos I posted are an exact mathematical model of this event. At that altitude you would most definitely be able to see the entire atmosphere. Looking straight down you are looking through all of it and looking to the horizon you would see it hovering over Earth. I like your enthusiasm in the subject and it did open a door for me with moon photos. I hope when you post your findings you can elaborate in a little more detail. I am using Auto Cad to draw my models. It is a perfect math solution for this and every thing I posted is in exact proportion to the question. Maybe another member can also choose to join this question. Remember I am not saying if the photo is fake or real I am just saying that the proportions look correct to me and my math. I will check back later.
Deuem

Posts: 3454
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:35 am

deuem wrote:OK Frutty,
... So at that vantage point the best you could see would be a very small portion of the Earth. 39 Degrees in all. The remaining 321 degrees of the Earth are out of tangent sight. ...
Deuem

Purported true photograph of Africa at Night by The International Space station at a height not above 394 km over the Earth.

From the above chart. Africa covers 80 degrees from East to West and 75 degrees from North To south, much bigger than in your "mathematical Model". Is that so difficult to notice?

Deception in life is nothing but a lie reduced to practice

Posts: 748
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:45 pm

frutty wrote:
deuem wrote:OK Frutty,
... So at that vantage point the best you could see would be a very small portion of the Earth. 39 Degrees in all. The remaining 321 degrees of the Earth are out of tangent sight. ...
Deuem

Purported true photograph of Africa at Night by The International Space station at a height not above 394 km over the Earth.

From the above chart. Africa covers 80 degrees from East to West and 75 degrees from North To south, much bigger than in your "mathematical Model". Is that so difficult to notice?

Hi Frutty, I took this picture of Africa and placed it in the model.
I have attached a gif of 4 prints.
1) I took a snapshot of the Earth from Google Earth, rotated it to Africa and then overlaid the viewing circle from an altitude of 394km. As you can see in this print it does cover quite a lot of the northeast.
2) is a close up
3) This is the actual view you should get. All of the blue surrounding the circle you would see as space. Since the distance is close to Earth the tangents are very short. So all of the light blue is sky or space depending on the time of day.
4) Is the math model with the photo overlaid. In this picture they are only showing 69% of what the total picture would be if they took a panorama photo. It seems to me that a fish eye lens might have been used for this picture because the radii is not exactly true. I did try and match it up to the full earth picture but the radii was way off.

Here's the gif , Number 1 is the full Earth, 3 is the blue

So as far as this picture being fake or not I did not take it myself and have to believe it is what it is. I also stand by the math and will say that the proportions are consistent with the altitude. If you were at 394km you could take this picture.

After doing a few of these I might mention that with out doing the math and overlays I had never noticed before that we were looking at such a small portion of the Earth at one time. Since all of the pictures have space in them our eyes try and tell us we are looking at the entire globe. Kinda of an optical illusion.

I also took a look at the pictures you provided, The world map of Africa and the space photo of the Nile Delta. The next Gif is a combination of the two and an attempt to overlay one on the other.

I am not exactly sure how you want to present the entire picture of Africa against just the Nile Delta space picture. I would have to calculate some numbers but I think one would have to be thousands of Km away to see all of Africa.

Deuem

PreviousNext

• Related topics
Replies
Views
Last post
LIKE DISCLOSE.TV