There's something wrong with the Earth!

[Rissole25]

So before I begin, I'd like to thank Fu for creating a thread regarding the Moon textures, and cjdog for delivering the textures to him. As well as Tac, Bus and Mac for the discussion.

Bear with me, I know that you've all probably heard this before, but now with the actual textures of the earth, it needs to be discussed.

I was looking at the overlay's of the Earth itself, the one's Fu had asked for and cjdog had delievered. Specifically the one before it's destruction/before the overlay is added.

Obviously something just seems off about it. The land mass is somewhat recognizable, but not completely. I brought this up with Tac, Mac and Bus, and discovered that there is more land. I edited the texture to show the land up top and down below more easily.

Now that you can see the land more clearly, it's obvious now. This earth's landmasses are different to those on our actual earth. With the revealing of land up top and down bottom, they've got a darkish-greenish tinge to them, suggesting bushland and tropical area's.

If this was like our earth, we should notably be able to see the Arctic and the Antarctic. The cloud cover could possibly be disguising and camouflaging them, but I don't believe that due to how the land is up top and down below.

So I believe this isn't our earth...of today at least. Some people say it might be Pangaea, which if you don't know, was what the land was called when all land was joined as one, millions of years ago.

However, there just seems to be TOO MUCH landmass to say it is Pangaea. One could argue that this is when Pangaea was splitting up, but even so, you put all the landmass back together, it would be to big to be Pangaea.

Not to mention that we know Moon takes place after 1950-60+. Area 51 didn't exist on Pangaea, so that doesn't work either.

So what else do we have? It's not geographically correct to our world or Pangaea, so could Treyarch have mucked up? That was my next thought...

But surprisingly, the answer is NO!

Why? Because if you look closely at the original texture and the two edited parts, you'll notice light blue areas in the sea close to the land in many areas. These are essentially small oceans/seas. I'm not sure if that is what you'd call them, but if you don't know what I'm talking about, here is a real life example.

The light blue part up top and bottom left is what I'm talking about. You can see those in the textures.

But how does that show that Treyarch didn't muck up? Well it shows that they put a lot of detail into designing these. Detail that we would not see through the scope of an L96A1 or by even no-clipping. If they had put this much detail into it, than surely they would've realized that they've designed it wrong.

Unless they designed it like that... :twisted:

But why? Well that's what I want to discuss, as well as whether you think they've designed it differently, or I'm just seeing things.

TL;DR. The earth they designed is geographically incorrect to our earth. It also cannot be Pangaea. But Treyarch haven't stuffed up either, as the texture has to much detail to be an overlook. Which means they possibly could've designed it like that on purpose.

[MixMasterNut]

I see clouds

[Rissole25]

Which area specifically? I know there are, but do you mean as in you see clouds instead of a landmass? The parts marked definite land do have land there as I made sure.

[MixMasterNut]

I don't see landmass. I see dense clouds

[Rissole25]

Which part? Up top is definitely land mass albeit a little scattered, and down bottom right is definitely some because there is a small ocean/sea (a light blue part), that stands out in the darker parts.

Anyway, regardless of whether it is clouds or not, there's no denying that it's not geographically correct to our earth.

[MixMasterNut]

OMG!!!!

I'm saying the parts that you have clearly outlined as "Definite Land", I see as dense cloud coverage. I'm looking at what you want me to see. It's cloud mass, not land. That's my opinion on it.

I'm out...

- Mix

[MexicanIlluminati]

I'm not sure if theory has been said before but what if when we travel from Area 51 to the Moon were actually traveling backwards in time to the time of Pangaea? And the rockets we launch are actually the driving force that causes Pangaea to separate???

[Rissole25]

OMG!!!!

I'm saying the parts that you have clearly outlined as "Definite Land", I see as dense cloud coverage. I'm looking at what you want me to see. It's cloud mass, not land. That's my opinion on it.

I'm out...

- Mix

Right, sorry. You didn't give enough information as to what part you were talking about, which is why I kept asking.

But I'm confident there is landmass there. The top right is no doubt landmass. Top left, you can see some dark shades which I believe is more landmass (as the clouds are all white), top middle is a little sketchy, but there are some parts that are the same colour as the top right land, which is why I put it as land.

Bottom right, I already explained. The possible land one's I only put on because it's to dark to tell, but there's some interesting shapes there so I don't know about them.

I'm not sure if theory has been said before but what if when we travel from Area 51 to the Moon were actually traveling backwards in time to the time of Pangaea? And the rockets we launch are actually the driving force that causes Pangaea to separate???

I actually did read that. There were some theories on here which I can't seem to find, but I don't think that one was said.

It does seem to fit at first, but when you think about it, it doesn't really make sense. I mean, what's causing the American MDT, and essentially the Der Riese MDT to time-travel backwards millions of years onto the Moon? Not to mention, sending up the rockets millions of years ago would've caused a paradox. Plus Area 51 has the after-explosion, and that's at least after the 60's.

[MysteryMachineX]

Since it isn't Pangea, nor do I think it is some other landmass from the distant past,(http://www.bevpease.force9.co.uk/ki.maps.Cont-Drift.htm), I think it is a result of continental drift in the future. It makes sense. After all, I claim the time for Moon to be between 1960 and the future. Millenia in the future is a bit unexpected, but completely possible. I don't put too much effort into this train of thought though, at least for now. I don't want to if BO2 acts as if that thing IS current Earth, which would make it a goof on Treyarch's part. Although, if this does turn out to be correct, it solves the whole paradox of the issue. How do you have a sequal to a game where you blew up the world? Well, you blew up the world in the really distant future, so it really doesn't affect anything.

[Rissole25]

Your representation of definite land is probably closer than mine Milo haha! I just think I assume there's land in certain spots because there's a dark patch there.

And yeah, they've put a lot of shallow seas in their earth. Just by looking at it, you can tell a lot of work went into designing this, so it's no mishap by Treyarch. I'm sure of that.

MMX, I'm thinking something similar to that as well. You know, maybe it is what the world looks like in 2025? Highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened before. Even though I'm sure Treyarch haven't goofed-up, I still get that feeling that they could've. I mean, we all saw what happened with the second earth on Area 51. Poor placement of the Hangar 18 building still couldn't hide it from us.

But I just really hope a reasonable explanation is given as to it's appearance.

And that marks my 1000th post! ;)

[Tac]

You know, maybe it is what the world looks like in 2025? Highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened before. Even though I'm sure Treyarch haven't goofed-up, I still get that feeling that they could've. I mean, we all saw what happened with the second earth on Area 51. Poor placement of the Hangar 18 building still couldn't hide it from us.

But I just really hope a reasonable explanation is given as to it's appearance.

And that marks my 1000th post!

Gratz on 1k

Does anyone know where exactly the 3 rockets hit? If we could pinpoint those positions on the image of Earth it may help with theories about where continents may have moved to and how they may have broken up since the impact.

I'll be honest and say I can distinguish one continent from another on that Earth

[MysteryMachineX]

The three missiles have nothing to do with it. The Earth looks like that before it is even blown.

[Tac]

The three missiles have nothing to do with it. The Earth looks like that before it is even blown.

Yes, but the question wasn't if the Earth looked like that beforehand. It was about the future of the Earth after the impact.

Does anyone know where exactly the 3 rockets hit? If we could pinpoint those positions on the image of Earth it may help with theories about where continents may have moved to and how they may have broken up since the impact.

[BlindBusDrivr]

alternate universe

that's my best guess for now.

[MysteryMachineX]

But it's a meaningless piece of info. The Earth that is shown is completely altered by continental drift. You find where the rockets hit... and then what? You see where they hit the continents that have no names? And are you supposing they make the continents drift even further? That's highly unlikely.

[Rissole25]

Well, they do have names; take a look at Rissole's pic of what people think Earth will look like in the future

Waffles I think you misinterpreted the picture. It's what's believed Pangaea looked like millions of years ago, before the continents drifted apart.

But still, it doesn't take away the interesting question of where the lands seperated too after the nukes. Well that is IF they will separate.

Fu453 created a discussion about where the rockets hit. He's managed to put the earth texture and the destroyed overlay texture in the right position to how it is on Moon.

And his thread: Discussion & Evidence of where the rockets hit!

In regards to familiar continents, I think I can see something similar to Africa South-south East of the center. And that looks like part of the impact zone according to Fu453's picture.

I think I also see Asia and also possibly a bit of Europe (Eurasia? ) on the western land. However I'm unsure on this one.

[Tac]

I personally am thinking that we blew a hole in the Earth, that there is just now one big-ass gaping hole there. Why do I say that? Because there is a huge black spot in the middle which looks like there is a hole, not to mention it would have huge implications for the story in terms of the Hollow Earth theory.

[Tac]

I personally am thinking that we blew a hole in the Earth, that there is just now one big-ass gaping hole there. Why do I say that? Because there is a huge black spot in the middle which looks like there is a hole, not to mention it would have huge implications for the story in terms of the Hollow Earth theory.

By hole, do you mean we have a sort of entrance and exit wound on Earth? Like it's now ruptured all the way through?

I can't be sure. On the image above, in the OP, you can see a huge round-ish black hole. Now, I can't be sure which of the following has occurred:

- The hole goes all the way through the Earth and is showing the outer space behind the Earth, given the size of the explosion and how some of the red mist looks like it's coming from behind the Earth.

- The hole is just an entrance wound as we only blew the crust off of that section of the Earth, revealing the insides.

It is one of the two in my eyes, but I can't tell which I believe more.

[MysteryMachineX]

Tac's right. There is a hole, like a depression in the surface, i.e. a crater. No, not a doughnut hole.

But I'm tellin' ya. The idea of the explosions simply shifting continents around is ridiculous. It'd obliderate them. Any lateral movement, even if it did exist, would miniscule compared to the vetical movement of everything that's chucked into space!

Imagine punching a sandwich really hard and expecting the bread to fly off horizontally.

[Tac]

Tac's right. There is a hole, like a depression in the surface, i.e. a crater. No, not a doughnut hole.

But I'm tellin' ya. The idea of the explosions simply shifting continents around is ridiculous. It'd obliderate them. Any lateral movement, even if it did exist, would miniscule compared to the vetical movement of everything that's chucked into space!

Imagine punching a sandwich really hard and expecting the bread to fly off horizontally.

It would obliterate whatever it hit and certainly, in my opinion, move anything that wasn't hit just based off of the vibration and the impact alone.

[MysteryMachineX]

But vibration nor impact would cause a plate to shift so dramatically. It doesn't matter how hard to blow it up, the continent isn't going to move. It will sooner crumble before it moved.

[Fu453]

Wow, I actually made a thread on my thoughts in the Moon section weeks ago. And this is basically my theory as well.

[Rissole25]

Yes I saw your thread before I posted it. I deliberated whether it would seem like I was copying yours or not. I didn't think I was, as yours is centered around discussion of where the nukes hit, while mine is just talking about how pre-nuked earth doesn't look like our earth, and that Treyarch have done it purposely.

If you feel like I was stealing yours, I'm sorry. You only touched on it for about 2 lines, and I didn't think you were going to discuss it further since the main idea behind the thread was just to discuss what area the nukes hit.

I did give thanks to you for asking about the textures, as well as linking your discussion thread if that helps.

[ZombicidalManiac]

I just realized after reading this thread that the map is called "Moon." Not "The Moon." So this could mean that it's another planets moon from another part of the galaxy. Who know's where they've been teleporting to.

[Matuzz]

I honestly believe Treyarch was lazy and didn't make Earth perfect.