It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
originally posted by: Nyiah
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.
originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
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.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
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?
O.o
Oh my god......
Reminds me of a convo I had once of someone who said they didn't believe that it could get "that" cold in space (close to absolute zero). He asked "Where is the supposed 'Cold Source' ? ". I almost died laughing.
It's Heat Source, and the lack of heat is where you get cold from!
Guess what? The lack of light makes: Shadows. Dark Areas. Places that are "not lit".
Where do you think night comes from?
Get a ball (any ball). Hold it up at at light bulb. Look at how one side is lit, and the other side is much darker. There is even a terminator line. And if you look close at that line, you'll see that it gradually goes from light to dark.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: ThreeDeuce
No.
Any object of solid mass that is blocking light will have a shadow. You can see the shadow if it's cast on to something, yes, however, the shadow is always there, even if something is not there for it to be cast upon.
originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
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
At this location it will have a continuous view of the Sun and the sunlit side of the Earth
originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
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: 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.
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
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.
originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
Suspiciously, it has taken NASA over 50 years to get their first "Full Face" image.
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.
A NASA camera on the Deep Space Climate Observatory satellite has returned its first view of the entire sunlit side of Earth from one million miles away.