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.

 

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

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

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.




posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Seriously, how can anyone believe the earth is flat? Can a flat earther please explain to me how planes and ships can 'circumnavigate' the 'globe' and safely return to their original location without noticing that the earth is flat? To keep with the thread, certainly to take in a wide spectrum, NASA would have to blend multiple images. My cheap phone has panoramic imaging. It is quite amazing how it blends all those images together but it does show the important details, legitimately. I guess, I would be more suspicious if NASA tried to say their images were not blended and after cross checking the image it appeared that it really was an single instant shot. Such a photo under such conditions would be too miraculous!



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

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.

I wish it was that way, that's not always so, NASA can, and do, the same as other computer users, or if you like reverse the roles. The only way through is to go to the source's documentation to see exactly what was done.
Face value is not always the right direction.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   

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.


Is that "people who are not as observant" enough to understand the earth is a spherical like object, or people who think it's like a piece of paper?



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah, we call these self-fulfilled prophesies.

It works for things like the Bible, too, in order to show "proof" of its veracity. Not trying to step on anyone's anointed toes with that comment, just using it as an example.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

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.


Actually NO, shadows have to form on something, and there is nothing for shadows to form on in space..... I disagree with you, but you are welcome to your own opinion.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

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.




right, I agree, but how can we see a shadow in space when there is nothing to cast the shadow into?



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

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



What would actually take an incredible chance is NASA haters like you doing some homework


At this location it will have a continuous view of the Sun and the sunlit side of the Earth


So as YOU can see your assumption is WRONG !



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

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?


Well if YOU actually you what you were doing adjusting contrast can increase SATURATION, by adjusting contrast you are increasing/deceasing tonal range in the image that's why adding contrast to a digital image can make the image seem to pop.

Not many pro's or serious amateurs will use GIMP for image manipulation as it does not yet fully support 16 bit and 32 bit colour when it does it will be a great bit of software.

As for your comment re the sun in the middle of the globe here is an image from the ISS Sun reflecting off the Sea

They are in too close to Earth but as already stated the Satellite is positioned so FULL sunlight image is always seen.

So YOUR premise is debunked !

edit on 27-7-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   

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.


Why would you not think it may be something like this before jumping to "i smell something fishy"?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   

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.


Sure...care to list any of those lies? Got any proof?


Of course not.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThreeDeuce
Suspiciously, it has taken NASA over 50 years to get their first "Full Face" image.


Not true.

ATS-3 image from 1967:



Not to mention the Apollo 17 'Blue Marble photo.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

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.





I second this.........conspiracies do exist but this is not one of them. Also you mention NASA lies.....What are the NASA lies you can prove.......Please be specific.
edit on 30-7-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ThreeDeuce


I meant to post this earlier your thread title is actually wrong from the article this is what was said.


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.


It's NOT NASA'S first view it's the camera / satellites first view.

So you started your thread with a false assumption which because of your already biased view of NASA to start with has taken you in the wrong direction, so that will make others take your claims of spotting lies by NASA with a pinch of salt!

edit on 1-8-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join