NASA's first ever "Full Face" Illuminated Earth image.

NASA is commonly critiqued on the quality and the number of their images of the Earth. Critics say that images should be easy enough to take. Suspiciously, it has taken NASA over 50 years to get their first "Full Face" image. What this means, is that the entire face of the globe is lit for the image.

I am skeptical of this image for several reasons.

1) Why has it taken this long? If we have SOHO stereo satellites taking images of the sun, why has it taken so long to get images of the Earth?

2) How from so far? This image was taken from 1 million miles away. In order to get a full face, the satellite and the sun would need to be in near perfect alignment. It would take incredible chance to capture this from that distance

3) because they look fake when I manipulate and evaluate the image.

Here is a screenshot of my edited images - imgur.com...

Notes about the edits

1) You can see the sun spot that is in the general center, but not perfectly centered. This is circled in the original image, and then also with contrast and brightness boosted so that it is more apparent.

2) Both when dropping the contrast out, and with both boosted, you can see the lit left edge, top and bottom. To me, this is a physical impossibility with the sun spot that is in the center of the globe. I believe that I can also see a sunspot on the left side, at about the 9 o'clock location.

This image can be found online from many websites. Simply google NASA Epic Full Face July 20, 2015.

I am curious what you all think. Is this more proof of NASA's lies? I personally think so.

If you are interested in my methods and seeing the actual manipulation and evaluation, it is archived in the video at www.youtube.com...


Thanks - Will B

You do know that that image is composed of many images and is also most likely touched up to provide even illumination across the entire surface, right?

originally posted by: ShadowLink
You do know that that image is composed of many images and is also most likely touched up to provide even illumination across the entire surface, right?

I don't know about a composite, but I can see that the atmosphere is capable of refracting light across the visible hemisphere.

originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
I am curious what you all think. Is this more proof of NASA's lies? I personally think so.

No, this is more proof that you'll go to ridiculous lengths to try to claim NASA lies.

I'm always perplexed when somebody says "I messed around with the picture and decided it's fake." Well yea, you messed around with the picture because you thought it was fake to begin with so why bother saying it? You messed with the image and then used your own "messing" to support your idea.

1) who knows "why now?" But what does that have to do with whether it's fake or not?

2) I'm confident that literal rocket scientists can put a satellite at a specific point in space at a specific time on a specific date. It's sort of their thing.

3) doesn't look fake to me, but then I didn't manipulate anything.

4) the earth still isn't flat.

5) ISS isn't at the bottom of a pool.

.


I was under the impression that this was a single image, but "The color images of Earth from NASA's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) are generated by combining three separate images to create a photographic-quality image. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used in these Earth images."

Still, being composite images in my opinion does not account for the large flare on the left side. This is impossible when factoring in the 3d geometry of a sphere errr a pear shape

Here is the source for reference.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
I am curious what you all think. Is this more proof of NASA's lies? I personally think so.

No, this is more proof that you'll go to ridiculous lengths to try to claim NASA lies.

You could just say that you disagreed. And spending two minutes boosting contrast and brightness in Gimp is not "ridiculous lengths", but thanks for making it seem like a difficult process.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: ShadowLink
You do know that that image is composed of many images and is also most likely touched up to provide even illumination across the entire surface, right?

I don't know about a composite, but I can see that the atmosphere is capable of refracting light across the visible hemisphere.

This is what I was perplexed about. If it was simple refraction, we would see signs of it from the sunspot out to the edges. The contrasted photos show (in my opinion) that there is more light at the edges than between that edge and the sunspot. Considering this is not just the rim lit, and it is bled over well into the globe, this is why I see the signs of it being sunlit on the left portion. In my opinion I see a composite with multiple sun positions, trying to be passed as one.

So what about images taken by Elektro-L, a Russian satellite?

Are these images fake too?

Cool pic, but how come there is never any stars in these pics? Do they block them out on purpose? I just don't understand how no stars can be visible at a million miles away, we should be seeing tons of them in this pic but not one. I smell something fishy.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

The images are exposed for too short of a time to capture star light.

Starlight is so faint, that you have to expose frames for many seconds to capture their light. If you did that while pointed at the sunlit side of Earth, the reflected sunlit would over expose the images badly.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Ok thanks, that's makes sense.

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

1) Why has it taken this long? If we have SOHO stereo satellites taking images of the sun, why has it taken so long to get images of the Earth?

Because we have pics of the Earth whether you believe it or not.

I am curious what you all think

I honestly doubt that as it seems your mind is made up already.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
I am curious what you all think. Is this more proof of NASA's lies? I personally think so.

No, this is more proof that you'll go to ridiculous lengths to try to claim NASA lies.

It isn't necessary to go to any lengths to claim NASA lies. They do lie sometimes. They have lied many times. They will lie again. Same as the Air force having lied so many times to the public and congress as well as lying to Senators.

People lie... get over it or do something about it, or remain in denial, it's your choice.
Government agencies lie and will continue to lie when it suits them. No one does anything about it except either whine, or claim they didn't lie..

NASA pays for all their lies by giving you lots of goodies so you will forget the lies, and even defend them as being innocent. This is the game you play, and the game that NASA plays.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So you agree with the OP that the image produced by them is fake?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Uh-huh. And what have they lied about?

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So you agree with the OP that the image produced by them is fake?

No.. It doesn't appear to be fake to me. Obviously NASA doesn't always lie, as I already said. It seems pointless for them to lie about everything, and if they did, people would be able to show that without much effort.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Okay, thanks for the reply.

Not sure what Nasa has lied about, as I've yet to see anyone actually prove that they've lied about anything during my time here on ATS, but that's a subject for another thread, as we don't want to derail this thread.