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

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Obviously NASA doesn't always lie,

Only most of the time...right?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Uh-huh. And what have they lied about?

One of the NASA employees was 30 minutes late back from his lunch .. he said he was involved in a car accident ... but he was seen messin around with one of the other employees in the car park .. and his car was fine ..

and teh list goes on ..
one of their other employees stole a pen from work .. that says nasa on it ...
and we are supposed to trust these liars ??

a reply to: Segenam

One of the NASA employees was 30 minutes late back from his lunch .. he said he was involved in a car accident ... but he was seen messin around with one of the other employees in the car park .. and his car was fine ..

and teh list goes on ..
one of their other employees stole a pen from work .. that says nasa on it ...
and we are supposed to trust these liars ??

Well since none of that is space related I guess we can trust what they say about space.

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?

is it definitely tho ? .. you say that with certainty ..
but the BBC wording here strongly suggests one pic .. mainly the use of the wording 'full snapshot' anyway .. i know thats not exactly evidence either way

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
I know eriktheawful already responded to your post questioning why stars are not seen in the pic. I just wanted to add a link showing the distances of our nearest stars to earth. Seeing these distances should allow one to realize why our own star, the sun, will block out other stars lights in photo imaging. Basically, ask yourself why you do not see all of those stars when you step outside during midday and look up at that pretty blue sky?

Edit add: Oops....forgot my link: 26 stars nearest to Earth

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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.

The only way to truly prove an image is fake is to mess around with it. If something is photoshopped you break it down into layers in order to see what has been retouched. If something has been altered then by adjusting contrast and using different filters and so on, it will help pinpoint certain aspects of features in the picture that are not normal.

You think the only way to know if a photo is real or not is just to view it as it is given to you? Not very forensically astute. If you do not believe a photo is fake or altered then there is no reason to look into it, but when dealing with a corporation that tends to fudge data and has undeniably lied about certain aspects of their past endeavors, then why take all data from them as truth unless you want to just believe what you are told, as if NASA was no different than MSM.

a reply to: iDope

Yea I'm aware of that. What I'm not understanding is when a person makes changes to an image and then points to those changes as proof.

Pointing out evidence of Photoshop is not the same thing as taking an image, making your own alterations to that image, then pointing to YOUR OWN alterations as proof of something.

a reply to: iDope

And any photographer or digital artist who are worth their salt in terms of photographic alteration software use can do the same, say something's legit or fake, and there's still going to be a bunch of people pulling a Rainman anyway, "No, fake/real. Definitely fake/real. Yeah, fake/real. Definitely fake/real."

Point is, I'm more liable to believe the people that actually took the photograph than a novice on a forum. Their idea of image legitimacy is no more valid than mine is.

re - Elektra-L

Ummm, I covered these in another thread, but yes I think they are fake also. Just look at the shadow to the left of the Earth. It's obvious without editing. Shadow in space?

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
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.

This is one question about MANY of the pictures from NASA. In many of the moon pics, you can blow out the contrast and brightness and see what seems to be stars in the background. If I was good with star location, I would try and locate the position from those.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
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.

They said the same about the Apollo missions, but that just isn't true. You can see stars in many of the pictures, just have to manipulate them.

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

And I can offer my own pictures submitted to the astrophotography thread as a counter. Tweak mine and you get the same saturation variations. It doesn't prove fakes, unless you just want to argue about pictures because you don't understand how taking a picture works.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: iDope

Yea I'm aware of that. What I'm not understanding is when a person makes changes to an image and then points to those changes as proof.

Pointing out evidence of Photoshop is not the same thing as taking an image, making your own alterations to that image, then pointing to YOUR OWN alterations as proof of something.

Altering the contrast and brightness is not changes - it allows you to see the differences that you can't normally dilenate with the thread. You seem to act like I changed them and that I'm calling proof to the changes? NOPE, you can simply look at the left side and see the sun spot, it's right by those clouds about 8:30. Contrasting it high shows it much better for people who are not as observant or with less image expertise.

a reply to: Nyiah

who is talking saturation about this image? I'm talking about lighting around the edges, when the sun is in the middle, and this would be an impossibility on a globe. This image manipulation thread talks nothing of saturation, so where are you making this up from?

originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
re - Elektra-L

Ummm, I covered these in another thread, but yes I think they are fake also. Just look at the shadow to the left of the Earth. It's obvious without editing. Shadow in space?

Yes, it's called a terminator. And why wouldn't there be shadows in space? There's light in space, is there not? Smh

Could this be the unedited version that NASA used to create their image?

Something doesn't seem right with the original photo…

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

Pardon me, I'm getting kids tucked in for the night & a little distracted. I mean contrast, not saturation.
You're still going to have to do better than pointing out contrast variations along the edge of the atmosphere to prove anything. The EPIC image IS a composite after all. Kind of like how they did the Mt Everest monster, a bunch of single images stitched together to make one gigantic one. How is this escaping you? Do you really think someone sat there at the same time every day for months on end & mapped out angles to match the sunlight angles? No, they didn't. Levels were certainly tweaked in effort to give you a uniformly lit mountain to zoom in on there.

originally posted by: Segenam
is it definitely tho ? .. you say that with certainty ..
but the BBC wording here strongly suggests one pic .. mainly the use of the wording 'full snapshot' anyway .. i know thats not exactly evidence either way

www.bbc.co.uk...

The image was 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 color images.

NASA states that it's composed of at least 3 images.

NASA also states that it is altered.

This Earth image shows the effects of sunlight scattered by air molecules, giving the image a characteristic bluish tint. The EPIC team is working to remove this atmospheric effect from subsequent images.

"EPIC" Earth.