how come we dont have a real photo of earth?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: clevargenuis
Yep. Someone wrote SEX there alright.
In big red letters. Awesome photoshop skilz

I'm sure NASA could use those skills.

Go look up the word 'gullible'.

The only gullible ones are NASA fanboys who unquestioningly swallow every photoshop/CGI images that NASA releases.

a reply to: clevargenuis

we do [ have real photos of earth ] - several are in the ALSJ archive

shot on 70mm film stock and developed - copies can be ordered from US space agencies

awaits the spurious reasons to reject these images

a reply to: ignorant_ape

awaits the spurious reasons to reject these images

They are fake. So there.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

So far all I can seem to understand his reasoning is...cuz

a reply to: clevargenuis

I'm sure NASA could use those skills.

They do and here is why...

HOW PHOTOSHOP HELPS NASA REVEAL THE UNSEEABLE

blogs.adobe.com...

You should use that thing you want others to use...Google...it can help you find actual evidence other than a ridiculous youtube video that is clueless to what they are saying.

a reply to: clevargenuis

"You people who believe the photos released by NASA are genuine are being mislead because...."

Please finish this sentence - it will help us all understand what you are actually trying to say in this thread.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

awaits the spurious reasons to reject these images

Because they come from NASA...who everyone knows lies about space...and fakes pictures.

I know this because the OP has a youtube video saying it...and we all know whatever a youtube video says is right.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I don't even think he linked said video. Just said it was there. All I can remember from him is NASA faked it and Google it though.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: ignorant_ape

awaits the spurious reasons to reject these images

Because they come from NASA...who everyone knows lies about space...and fakes pictures.

thats true

I know this because the OP has a youtube video saying it...and we all know whatever a youtube video says is right.

And nasa fanboys seem to think "if nasa released it, it must be true".

a reply to: clevargenuis

Please link this groundbreaking, educational YT video for us fan boys so we can be swayed by its knowledge. Pretty please.

a reply to: clevargenuis

And nasa fanboys seem to think "if nasa released it, it must be true".

You're repeating yourself.

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: chr0naut

the earth photo taken from the "moon" is also questionable. the fact that you dont see stars gives it away.

the "moon" itself looks like a B-movie set roflmao

What exactly is questionable about photos of Earth from the Moon? Did you know that the cloud patterns seen in those photos match the weather satellite images taken on the same day?



You can google them and make comparisons.

You can do that with recent EPIC photos and ISS photos, too:



As for the abscence of stars, it's very simple - the camera used short exposure, because the sunlit earth is quite bright.

~~~

*sigh* why do I get a feeling we are being trolled?

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: clevargenuis

"You people who believe the photos released by NASA are genuine are being mislead because...."

Please finish this sentence - it will help us all understand what you are actually trying to say in this thread.

...because NASA has been caught lying and faking things before.
Im not gonna try to convince you of it but thats the truth.

Would you trust a reporter who fakes news footage? No. So why trust nasa?

a reply to: clevargenuis

..because NASA has been caught lying and faking things before.

Again. Examples please.

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: chr0naut

the earth photo taken from the "moon" is also questionable. the fact that you dont see stars gives it away.

the "moon" itself looks like a B-movie set roflmao

The brightness of stars is measured in apparent magnitude. The brightest star other than the Sun is Sirius with an apparent magnitude of -1.46 The apparent magnitude of the Sun is -26.72 which about 18 times greater than the apparent magnitude of Sirius. The moon reflects that sunlight with an apparent magnitude of -12.7 this means that its apparent magnitude is more than 8.6 times that of the brightest star.

Now, apparent magnitude is not a linear scale so, when calculated out [10^(0.4x8.6)], the surface of the moon is 2,754 times the brightness of the brightest star in the sky.

There us no way you could see stars and see the surface of the moon with the Sun on it.

You may have noticed that you can't see any stars on the Earth at midday? It's because the sunlight diffused through the atmosphere is thousands of times brighter than the stars. The same reason you can't see them from the moon when the horizon is in the picture.

The fact you can't see any stars indicates that the photo is less likely to be a fake than if they were visible like in a fake movie shot.

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: clevargenuis

2. You dont need to be a photographer to see that north america keeps changing sizes even wheb shot from the same angle.
3. create aesthetically pleasing images? I thought thats hollywoods job? oh wait....

# 2 That doesn't mean they are shot from the same camera and the same distance, on every picture.

# 3 They sometimes do it to exclude cloud cover.

#2. Continents shouldnt change sizes in photos

#3. so what if clouds are seen? why cant nasa give us an authentic photo, clouds or no clouds?

Obviously, the non-stitched photo DAVID64 provided addressed #3 more than sufficiently, being anon-stitched photo.

As for the continental size changes, how drastic are we talking? Could it be a tidal effect? Or are you talking about the well-explained apparent size changes compared across different photographic and image processing techniques (like here for example

a reply to: clevargenuis

And nasa fanboys seem to think "if nasa released it, it must be true".

They are more believable than most youtube videos, but the problem is you have proven nothing, but are accusing them of something that has been shown to you as to why they use it.

Now other than just saying they faked it, and using a screecap of something you saw on youtube doesn't prove they are faking the pics, but somehow you seem to believe it does...why is that?

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: clevargenuis
Yepkilz

I'm s.

Gole'.

The only gullible ones are NASA fanboys who unquestioningly swallow every photoshop/CGI images that NASA releases.

speaking of gullible astronot scott mckelly did an AMA on reddit. He actually said "I really am on the ISS, here is proof" and posted a pictue of himself supposedly on the ISS and the fanboys lapped it up. I asked Kelly "who else is there in the studio with you?" but I didnt get an answer roflmao

a reply to: clevargenuis

I asked Kelly "who else is there in the studio with you?" but I didnt get an answer roflmao

Yeah.
I guess he is hip to "don't feed the troll."

You've had enough treats from me. Bye.

a reply to: clevargenuis

Would you trust a reporter who fakes news footage? No. So why trust nasa?

If it's proven to be fake then no, but you have failed to show proof that NASA is lying...so until that happens there is no reason to believe they are lying.