NASA's 'Images Of A Space-Time Odyssey' Will Make Your Jaw Drop (PHOTOS)

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by championoftruth
 


You, you are just mistaken its not like that, its not fake cgi its just to make something real we cannot see like uv or ir into a color we can see.

False Color




posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   

championoftruth

wildespace
reply to post by championoftruth
 


Do you have large infrared and ultraviolet telescopes? Do you have a range of narrowband filters and the experience in astrophotography?

Many amateur astronomers took amazing images that rival those of NASA's.



The point being those photos are not what you would see if you had not done post production cgi work afterwards.
When you take photos of your family or kids do you then use cgi/photoshop to make them look better then they actually are in reality?

Do you use uv/ir filters when you take family or your kids pictures?

When you look at your kids in the morning do you look at their cgi enhanced photos or do you actually look at your kids direct?


Looks like we have another image expert on here that doesn't have a clue about the subject, do you take pictures of the family with a light source that is 8,933,750,000 miles away, if you take a picture of your family outdoors your light source is the Sun approx 93 million miles away at Saturn the distance is shown above.

If the light level on Earth from the Sun was given the value of 1 at Saturn what do you think it would be I will save you the trouble of finding out it's about 1/100th.

False colours are used to show things contained in the atmosphere.

Here is a picture of a persons face in UV here are the reasons it was done.


The researchers studied the assumption that actual signs of susceptibility to melanoma cancer -- things like freckles, red hair, blue eyes, and/or pale skin -- would point to skin markings of a particular severity seen via UV photography.


The trouble on here is we have to many people here making comments on subjects they don't understand but worse still DON'T make an effort to.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by championoftruth
 


There are plenty images of space taken in visible light, without any CGI as you call it. Humans will never see this with their own eyes anyway, because our eyes don't see colour in dim light, and don't work that well in dim light anyway.

So there's no point in calling all those images "fake". They show us what's there, at various wavelengths. The resulting images have scientific value and look great, so what's there to complain about? Get your own telescope and astroimaging equipment, and see if you can do better.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

wildespace
reply to post by championoftruth
 


Do you have large infrared and ultraviolet telescopes? Do you have a range of narrowband filters and the experience in astrophotography?

Many amateur astronomers took amazing images that rival those of NASA's.



I am afraid you are involved in a self contradiction there.First you say you need a billion dollars then in the next line you say amateurs images rivals NASA's.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

wildespace
reply to post by championoftruth
 


There are plenty images of space taken in visible light, without any CGI as you call it. Humans will never see this with their own eyes anyway, because our eyes don't see colour in dim light, and don't work that well in dim light anyway.

So there's no point in calling all those images "fake". They show us what's there, at various wavelengths. The resulting images have scientific value and look great, so what's there to complain about? Get your own telescope and astroimaging equipment, and see if you can do better.


I am afraid you are missing the point.As champion of truth I am compelled to point out those photos you are so in awe of are no more real then the airbrushed pictures of semi clad models in glossy magazines.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

championoftruth

wildespace
reply to post by championoftruth
 


There are plenty images of space taken in visible light, without any CGI as you call it. Humans will never see this with their own eyes anyway, because our eyes don't see colour in dim light, and don't work that well in dim light anyway.

So there's no point in calling all those images "fake". They show us what's there, at various wavelengths. The resulting images have scientific value and look great, so what's there to complain about? Get your own telescope and astroimaging equipment, and see if you can do better.


I am afraid you are missing the point.As champion of truth I am compelled to point out those photos you are so in awe of are no more real then the airbrushed pictures of semi clad models in glossy magazines.


I'm afraid YOU are missing the point...
The photos may have been "doctored", but it is to help us see what is out there that we normally can't see, i.e., highlighted.
Therefore... these pictures are REAL... taken of real orbs and heavenly bodies in space.

Understand?



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

championoftruth

wildespace
reply to post by championoftruth
 


Do you have large infrared and ultraviolet telescopes? Do you have a range of narrowband filters and the experience in astrophotography?

Many amateur astronomers took amazing images that rival those of NASA's.



I am afraid you are involved in a self contradiction there.First you say you need a billion dollars then in the next line you say amateurs images rivals NASA's.


Well you do need billions of dollars to build and launch a probe with cameras to Saturn as for your other comments

Look HERE you will see pictures that 10 years ago would have to be done by professionals.

Or this the best Milky Way taken by an amatuer see how far you can zoom in on that.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

championoftruthI am afraid you are missing the point. As champion of truth I am compelled to point out those photos you are so in awe of are no more real then the airbrushed pictures of semi clad models in glossy magazines.

Since you are intent on using images of people as an example, what about CAT scan images? A CAT scan uses a computer that takes data from several X-ray images of structures inside a human's or animal's body and converts them into pictures or even a 3D model. What about electron microscope images of blood cells, viruses, and other things too small to see with the naked eye or even an optical microscope? All these examples produce "fake" images, but the subject is real, and the images give us valuable information and often look amazing.

To champion the truth, you first need to learn it.

As for equipment costing billions, it depends on what you want to achieve. You don't need billions to take great-looking images of space from Earth, but you do need billions (or millions) to go to Saturn, or Mars, or Jupiter, and study them upclose.

It seems your argument stems from ignorance. "I can't see anything like that through my telescope, so this means that all those pictures are CGI."



posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
You all liked Saturn's auroras. What do you think about Earth's auroras?




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

sled735
You all liked Saturn's auroras. What do you think about Earth's auroras?


Cool, Sled! That is a beautiful picture of Earth and the Auroras.
Thank you for posting it.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

wmd_2008

championoftruth

wildespace
reply to post by championoftruth
 


Do you have large infrared and ultraviolet telescopes? Do you have a range of narrowband filters and the experience in astrophotography?

Many amateur astronomers took amazing images that rival those of NASA's.



I am afraid you are involved in a self contradiction there.First you say you need a billion dollars then in the next line you say amateurs images rivals NASA's.


Well you do need billions of dollars to build and launch a probe with cameras to Saturn as for your other comments

Look HERE you will see pictures that 10 years ago would have to be done by professionals.

Or this the best Milky Way taken by an amatuer see how far you can zoom in on that.


the milky way photos looks fishy.as i zoomed in i saw WRITING in it nick risinger or something similar.
this proves it is not a original photo.

i mean we are supposed to be a part of the milky way and this genius has managed to take a photo of the whole galaxy as if he was outside it.where did he park his spaceship?

also it seems to very high resolution which again makes it fishy.how can you take such a high resolution photo and not have obstructions like birds and insects and random debris in front of it due to the long exposure needed for it?

also the atmosphere shimmers so his pohoto should be blurry but as you zoom in does not pixalate at all.

very suspicious.

very fishy.
edit on 17-3-2014 by championoftruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sled735
 


Very nice thread Sled, keep threads like this coming!
You probably the know the famous saying "Reality is stranger than fiction".



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

sled735
You all liked Saturn's auroras. What do you think about Earth's auroras?

I'm afraid that this time is is pure CGI aka an artist's impression. But there are real photos and videos of aurora from space, and they are very cool!








posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
[double post]
edit on 17-3-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

wildespace
reply to post by championoftruth
 


It's a mosaic of thousands of individual images. www.foxnews.com...
The view is from within the milky Way; that's how we see it in the night sky. The Solar System is located closer to the edge of our galaxy, so we get a good view of the galactic centre.

The full zoom doesn't go in that deep; at full zoom you could still fit about six or seven full moons vertically end to end.

Again, a little research goes a long way, especially if you set out to champion the truth.
edit on 17-3-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

championoftruth

the milky way photos looks fishy.as i zoomed in i saw WRITING in it nick risinger or something similar.
this proves it is not a original photo.

i mean we are supposed to be a part of the milky way and this genius has managed to take a photo of the whole galaxy as if he was outside it.where did he park his spaceship?

also it seems to very high resolution which again makes it fishy.how can you take such a high resolution photo and not have obstructions like birds and insects and random debris in front of it due to the long exposure needed for it?

also the atmosphere shimmers so his pohoto should be blurry but as you zoom in does not pixalate at all.

very suspicious.

very fishy.


No you are just being very lazy, Google is you friend YOU saw his name but didn't bother to look further here is a quote from his blog.


I’m at 6,200 feet in the Nevada desert capturing the first images of what will ultimately become a 37,440-exposure, 5,000-megapixel photograph of the entire night sky.


Here is a picture of him and his Camera Rig

The large letters on each camera position show the wavelengths they took pictures in.

More info here if you can be bothered to make the effort of looking.

Oh and you answered your own question about obstructions although you did not realise it LONG EXPOSURE!!!
edit on 17-3-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Ahhh... Sweet!! Yeah, I came across that one on Face Book. LOL It had nothing to do with the group in my OP.

Thanks for your pictures. They look much better.


ETA: AWESOME video!! Thanks!


edit on 3/17/2014 by sled735 because: add comment





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join