Your Home Planet, as Seen From Mars

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: 23432

Raw data can be found here:

Earth
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

Moon
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

You'll need this to view the images:

pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...

Thanks for the links. I've made a couple of RGB composites using the data:

IR (red) / RED (green)/ BG (blue), same as the published image


RED (red) / BG (blue) with a fake green channel from averaging RED and BG (this probably represents the real colours better)

a reply to: wildespace

edit: you found it obviously - no need for my post!

Mostly black sky/space but where are stars?

Was there light interference from the earth and moon?

Was the shutter speed too fast?

originally posted by: InachMarbank
Mostly black sky/space but where are stars?

Was there light interference from the earth and moon?

Was the shutter speed too fast?

Yes. Stars are very faint, and require an exposure of at least a second or few. Typically, any sunlit objects like moons or planets are too bright for a starry image.

Here's the spacecraft's photo of stars: .mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

a reply to: wildespace

Fantastic work, mate. Would it be to much to ask if you could reproduce the Earth/Moon image with your colour correction technique? It's stunning, much preferred over what NASA released.

Thanks. Here you go, I used NASA's image directly:

It is Australia! I can see myself from here.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 23432

If they hadn't used separate images and stitched them together the Moon would not have shown up , they stated this.


Preemptive Prevention , philosophically speaking of course.

Your assertion that the image is photoshopped implies that the image is fake , which in a way it is but only to enhance the view of both bodies together , both images are genuine but have had to be married together to achieve a coherent picture .

I did say also that this is Art not Science if i remember correctly.
225 million miles away camera pointing out towards an object which is moving about 67,000 miles per hour .

I suppose the exposure times must have been rather suitable , after all we still get to see some details of the image , hardly any blurring at all .

originally posted by: gortex
This hauntingly beautiful image shows the Earth and Moon going about their business on Nov. 20, 2016 , the image was taken from Mars orbit using the MRO HiRISE camera.
(right click the image and open in new tab for full size)

The combined view retains the correct positions and sizes of the two bodies relative to each other. The distance between Earth and the moon is about 30 times the diameter of Earth. Earth and the moon appear closer than they actually are in this image because the observation was planned for a time at which the moon was almost directly behind Earth, from Mars' point of view, to see the Earth-facing side of the moon.
www.nasa.gov...

The red spot in the middle of Earth is Australia.

Gosh. I'm always amazed at how wonderful our planet looks compared to others.

Our planet looks alive.

a reply to: 23432

Nope, it's science.

Science helps you to work out how to compensate when photographing moving objects. You forget to mention that Mars is also moving - at 53979 mph. Science tells you that, just as science tells you how to process the images and compare them with other images taken at the same time.

Art is where people make stuff up.

Awesome post, looks like the deathstar from far away haha

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: 23432

Nope, it's science.

Science helps you to work out how to compensate when photographing moving objects. You forget to mention that Mars is also moving - at 53979 mph. Science tells you that, just as science tells you how to process the images and compare them with other images taken at the same time.

Art is where people make stuff up.

You are confusing Science with Scientism.

Your Dogmatic approach to matters of Science is troublesome , at least have some sceptical , sinical pinch of salt with your chips ; it would taste better .


Science requires 2 things above all ; Experiment & Observation neither of which YOU can demonstrate on this particular subject at the moment.

Scientism requires unquestioning obedience to authority which so far you demonstrated in abundance on this thread .

No skin of my nose but you would be better off if you were to display some scepticism towards NASA's claims .

Maybe you ought to start with statistical analysys of the images you so expertly photoshop ?

a reply to: 23432

I totally get that we should not trust NASA at face value and I love space/NASA related conspiracies.

My question to you: What do you think would motivate NASA to manipulate this photo? What are they trying to hide here?

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
a reply to: 23432

I totally get that we should not trust NASA at face value and I love space/NASA related conspiracies.

My question to you: What do you think would motivate NASA to manipulate this photo? What are they trying to hide here?

I would answer that the samething which motivated them long time ago is still valid to this day .



Besides , does anyone really believe that there is no commercial application to be monetise in going to moon , again ?



Something smells fishy to my nose allthough I suffer from partial anosmia .

originally posted by: 23432

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: 23432

Nope, it's science.

Science helps you to work out how to compensate when photographing moving objects. You forget to mention that Mars is also moving - at 53979 mph. Science tells you that, just as science tells you how to process the images and compare them with other images taken at the same time.

Art is where people make stuff up.

You are confusing Science with Scientism.

Your Dogmatic approach to matters of Science is troublesome , at least have some sceptical , sinical pinch of salt with your chips ; it would taste better .

Science requires 2 things above all ; Experiment & Observation neither of which YOU can demonstrate on this particular subject at the moment.

I suggest you go look at the images I posted on the preceding pages, then ask yourself precisely what effort you put in to prove your point.

Scientism requires unquestioning obedience to authority which so far you demonstrated in abundance on this thread .

Nope, that's your subjective interpretation based on your prejudice. Any time you want to present anything remotely resembling an intelligent rebuttal of the assertion that the image from Mars is genuine, be my guest.

No skin of my nose but you would be better off if you were to display some scepticism towards NASA's claims .

I think I'll decide where and how I'll direct my scepticism. For someone who doesn't like deference to authority you sure do like to tell people how and what to think.

Maybe you ought to start with statistical analysys of the images you so expertly photoshop ?

Off you go. Put some effort in that doesn't involve lazy knee jerk contrarianism.

a reply to: 23432
I'd like to know why it's so blurred out while pictures of Saturn are crisp and detailed in comparison.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: 23432

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: 23432

Nope, it's science.

Science helps you to work out how to compensate when photographing moving objects. You forget to mention that Mars is also moving - at 53979 mph. Science tells you that, just as science tells you how to process the images and compare them with other images taken at the same time.

Art is where people make stuff up.

You are confusing Science with Scientism.

Your Dogmatic approach to matters of Science is troublesome , at least have some sceptical , sinical pinch of salt with your chips ; it would taste better .

Science requires 2 things above all ; Experiment & Observation neither of which YOU can demonstrate on this particular subject at the moment.

I suggest you go look at the images I posted on the preceding pages, then ask yourself precisely what effort you put in to prove your point.

Scientism requires unquestioning obedience to authority which so far you demonstrated in abundance on this thread .

Nope, that's your subjective interpretation based on your prejudice. Any time you want to present anything remotely resembling an intelligent rebuttal of the assertion that the image from Mars is genuine, be my guest.

No skin of my nose but you would be better off if you were to display some scepticism towards NASA's claims .

I think I'll decide where and how I'll direct my scepticism.

Maybe you ought to start with statistical analysys of the images you so expertly photoshop ?

Off you go. Put some effort in that doesn't involve lazy knee jerk contrarianism.

Touchy touchy , eh ?

Anyone can photoshop , including you it seems.

This here is ATS and there is a tradition to have a healthy scepticism when it comes to certain subjects and NASA is definetely one those subjects .

I already have rebutted claims about these images being " real " science ; they are photoshopped and that fact is not in dispute .

Perhaps you would also like to perform fourier analytics and point out the statistical uniformity in those images .

Oh , I have been here on ATS for a long time, i don't think I am going anywhere soon .

originally posted by: PillarOfFire
a reply to: 23432
I'd like to know why it's so blurred out while pictures of Saturn are crisp and detailed in comparison.

Short answer : It's all photoshopped .

There are tons of issues to be debated when it comes to NASA and the information which NASA releases .

There is also the over-arching conspiracy about as to why Zuckerberg allows " flat earth " videos like free pop corn candy on youtube .

a reply to: 23432

Ah... I see.

So you don't think we made it to the moon, eh?

Do you think these photos indicate that we never made it to Mars as well?

ETA: to Mars with toys, that is

a reply to: 23432
Yeah I can believe it. You got to wonder what those nasholes are going to try next. Good Video.