how come we dont have a real photo of earth?

a reply to: Phage

An intriguing truth. Had this been posted in skunkworks it may not have even grown to 6 pages, but would have been received & responded too much more positively I think.

lol, make that 7 pages

originally posted by: clevargenuis
i know its getting a little hot in here for nasa defendants but why trash the thread? its only gonna prove my point lmao

Actually, in all the 6 pages of this thread, you haven't given us a single substantiated point. All I hear is "la la la la, NASA is lying, NASA is lying."

I've presented you with some ordinary photos of Earth from space, taken both with digital and film cameras. If your claim is that they're all fake, let's see some proof or at least analysis that would support that.

a reply to: SmurfRider

lol, make that 7 pages

Thanks to you!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: clevargenuis

i know its getting a little hot in here for nasa defendants but why trash the thread? its only gonna prove my point lmao

You're new here.
Certain forums have different parameters. It so happens that you have posted in a science forum. In this forum it is acceptable to ask for evidence for claims.

There are other forums which are not as...picky. So, if you don't like being asked for evidence, one of those forums would be more appropriate.
Your thread would not be trashed, it would be properly situated.

i actually posted this in general conspiracies.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: visitedbythem
Indeed. But that is not relevant to the question.

have iss astronats on space walks ever taken a picture in which earth is FULLY seen?????

Once again your lack of professionalism shows up, explain why it is not. You're not getting any credit for something someone else figured out so stop trying to look cool while keeping what you know 'secret', just as you keep repeating things you learned from someone else you have the duty of explaining the same things to someone that is just learning, you're only embarrassing yourself Phage.

a reply to: clevargenuis

If that's the case, maybe a request to relocate it would be in order.
But it would not negate the reasonable requests for evidence.

a reply to: WarriorMH
Me? It's Phage, not page.

But other than that (and that I don't quite get your meaning), this thread isn't about me, is it?

a reply to: Phage

I think the OP us doing some kind or multiple account thing. There's something fishy about this and his other post about god.

Of course. We could all just agree and say "Yeah man, all of NASA's images are fake."
That would be awesome.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WarriorMH
Me? It's Phage, not page.

But other than that (and that I don't quite get your meaning), this thread isn't about me, is it?

I knew you would fall for that

You are so simple. No it isn't about you but you enter a thread and try to make it about you and 'how much you know about everything'. Since you already replied and gave an 'explanation' that doesn't explain anything, you fail. You need to say 'no this isn't right, because...' but no Phage can't do. You're still making it about you with your useless responses that doesn't add anything new but a useless 'no'.

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: clevargenuis

Why does NASA rely on compositing and photoshoppery?

Why do you say NASA relies on compositing and photoshoppery?
You know that there are many forms of data which NASA utilizes, many of which have nothing to do with visual imagery.

as far as earth images are concerned nasa relies on photoshop/CGI.

you wouldnt trust a news agency that habitually shows you fake photoshopped images, so why do you trust NASA?

GPS maps also use altered images of earth mostly CGI and definitely composites.

GPS systems are a lies ZOMG !!!!!111one!!11

im telling you bruh the world is a LIE!! dont trust those GPS units!!!

ps. you know what else??

dont even think about trusting them digital cameras. they automatically digitally enhance images we take before we can even see them!! damn those sneaky snake-eyed overlards stealing all my fish.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Adding the fish eye idea to;

2002 composite image 443 miles above

2015 single image 930,000 miles above

Could that have something to do with it too?

Yes.

The 2002 composite is likely to be flatter on one hand because of the multiple exposures but even then, with the greater closeness, is likely to be more 'fisheyed' just to reduce the number of exposures required and photo-stiched (which also produces a fisheye effect).

Try doing a photo-stiched panorama yourself and you'll see what I mean.

a reply to: clevargenuis

There is more than what the NASA provides but you have to look for them, here's something from Russia.

www.universetoday.com...

Now i'm not claiming everything is 'for real' we just don't know unless you were able to go there and take the pic yourself, so we just need to either trust or not, even if you were to get a real one, how do you think you would know for certain?

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: clevargenuis
maps are a different story. I'm just asking for an actual photo of earth. they can give us hi res photos of friggin pluto but dont have the tech to give us an actual photo of earth roflmao

no its the same thing..

maps are meant to be real, so that we can read them to know where we are!!

photo of the earth and a map are two very different things.

Try harder. Why does NASA rely on compositing and photoshoppery?

Because the ISS is only 400 miles up. From 400 miles away, the Earth fills pretty much the entire sky looking in that direction. To fit it all means we have to either stitch a panorama or use a fisheye lens (or both).

To record it all in one photo would mean you'd nearly have to be out two-thirds of the way to the orbit of the moon. Orbital mechanics means that small objects that far away are unstable, so we don't orbit anything that far out, cause we'd most likely loose it.

a reply to: clevargenuis

You are the one who brought the topic up. Aren't you?

Let me check real quick...

...

Yep. Your OP. Seems to me, since you brought it up, you were intent upon "teaching" about something...

Well? When is the teaching going to start?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: clevargenuis
maps are a different story. I'm just asking for an actual photo of earth. they can give us hi res photos of friggin pluto but dont have the tech to give us an actual photo of earth roflmao

no its the same thing..

maps are meant to be real, so that we can read them to know where we are!!

photo of the earth and a map are two very different things.

Try harder. Why does NASA rely on compositing and photoshoppery?

Because the ISS is only 400 miles up. From 400 miles away, the Earth fills pretty much the entire sky looking in that direction. To fit it all means we have to either stitch a panorama or use a fisheye lens (or both).

AHA so nasa never made it high enough to photograph earth?!

a reply to: clevargenuis

AHA so nasa never made it high enough to photograph earth?!

The Moon is quite a bit "higher" than the ISS.
After a while "high" doesn't mean much.

a reply to: clevargenuis

also how come NASA dont have footage from their rocket showing the journey from earth to space??

maybe,its cos all rockets fly back to earth when the cameras stop rolling lol

a reply to: clevargenuis

also how come NASA dont have footage from their rocket showing the journey from earth to space??

Are you claiming that going into space is not possible?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: clevargenuis

AHA so nasa never made it high enough to photograph earth?!

The Moon is quite a bit "higher" than the ISS.

lmao the moon landing is questionable but I'll save it for a different topic