Full Earth view from ISS Cupola Impossible 100 percent Fake

Okay, I went through the entire thread and tallied up two lists. People who realize (or seem to realize) that it's not fake and likely the result of a wide angle lens, along with people who seem to think it's fake. There is also a ???? list for posters who are hard to call.

Not Fake: 58 total
DrWily
Zaphod58
TrueBrit
chrismir
Chadwickus
MacK80
Shamrock6
mikell
eriktheawful
superluminal11
moebius
Sillyolme
elephantstone
DBCowboy
intrptr
hutch622
rockintitz
EartOccupant
DJMSN
smurfy
redbore
yuppa
SaturnFX
TarzanBeta
tornhill
Roningarou
Limbo
Tucket
ParanormalGuy
ziplock9000
Xtrozero
TheScale
Jokatgulm
NAVSEA
MteWamp
puzzlesphere
Shamrock6
Argus100
Elzon1
OrionHunterX
andrew778
Donner
thedigirati
AtomicKangaroo
Uberdoubter
Soylent Green Is People
face23785
Davg80
UltraMind
EvillerBob
Leonidas
Rob48
LostonEarth
Jobeycool
Dawgishly
OneBigMonkeyToo
arcnaver
dragonridr

Fake: 13 total
WaxingGibbons
Raggedyman (seems to think it's a composite image, specifically thanks WaxingGibbons for posting)
Spacespider (seems to think it's a interior and exterior photo photoshopped together)
YouSir (seems to think it's a composite image, specifically thanks WaxingGibbons for posting)
TruthsSword (seems to think it's a composite image)
bobs_uruncle (seems to think it's a composite image)
Neith (could have been a sarcastic comment, taking literally)
samara11278 (seems to think it's a composite image)
tigertatzen (unclear, but seems to support fake to make a point)
MysterX (Openly supports WaxingGibbon, makes vague claims about other fake photos)
underwerks (seems to think it's a composite image)
AlexandrosTheGreat(Seems to generally think NASA is fake)
eugenics(Seems to generally think NASA is fake)

????: 9 total
darkstar57
GBP/JPY
tayton
ManufacturedDissent
Crumbles
carewemust
ExtraDouble
mangust69
ParasuvO

That works out to the following:

NOT FAKE: 72.5%
FAKE: 16.25%
????: 11.25%

Nearly 3 out of 4 people agree that the photos are not fake and just over 1 in 6 think it's fake. I had actually hoped for a higher percentage on the "not fake" side, but I think it's safe to say that this post has been debunked.

And now time for some laser thumb action

a reply to: WaxingGibbons

Yeah, I was really confused when you said you could see the whole earth. All I see is a window sill. I was looking too, this thing has picked up do much news that I almost want it to be true, but I'm still pretty sure that's the sill around a window (or whatever the space equivalent to that is).

Reminds me on the "little planet" pictures..

You focus the center point and wrap everything around it.

Either way, I got for real - meaning no, NASA did not cheat - they actually took this picture and it works with our understanding of physics and earth mechanics.

originally posted by: DrWily
Okay, I went through the entire thread and tallied up two lists. People who realize (or seem to realize) that it's not fake and likely the result of a wide angle lens, along with people who seem to think it's fake. There is also a ???? list for posters who are hard to call.

Not Fake: 58 total
DrWily
Zaphod58
TrueBrit
chrismir
Chadwickus
MacK80
Shamrock6
mikell
eriktheawful
superluminal11
moebius
Sillyolme
elephantstone
DBCowboy
intrptr
hutch622
rockintitz
EartOccupant
DJMSN
smurfy
redbore
yuppa
SaturnFX
TarzanBeta
tornhill
Roningarou
Limbo
Tucket
ParanormalGuy
ziplock9000
Xtrozero
TheScale
Jokatgulm
NAVSEA
MteWamp
puzzlesphere
Shamrock6
Argus100
Elzon1
OrionHunterX
andrew778
Donner
thedigirati
AtomicKangaroo
Uberdoubter
Soylent Green Is People
face23785
Davg80
UltraMind
EvillerBob
Leonidas
Rob48
LostonEarth
Jobeycool
Dawgishly
OneBigMonkeyToo
arcnaver
dragonridr

Fake: 13 total
WaxingGibbons
Raggedyman (seems to think it's a composite image, specifically thanks WaxingGibbons for posting)
Spacespider (seems to think it's a interior and exterior photo photoshopped together)
YouSir (seems to think it's a composite image, specifically thanks WaxingGibbons for posting)
TruthsSword (seems to think it's a composite image)
bobs_uruncle (seems to think it's a composite image)
Neith (could have been a sarcastic comment, taking literally)
samara11278 (seems to think it's a composite image)
tigertatzen (unclear, but seems to support fake to make a point)
MysterX (Openly supports WaxingGibbon, makes vague claims about other fake photos)
underwerks (seems to think it's a composite image)
AlexandrosTheGreat(Seems to generally think NASA is fake)
eugenics(Seems to generally think NASA is fake)

????: 9 total
darkstar57
GBP/JPY
tayton
ManufacturedDissent
Crumbles
carewemust
ExtraDouble
mangust69
ParasuvO

That works out to the following:

NOT FAKE: 72.5%
FAKE: 16.25%
????: 11.25%

Nearly 3 out of 4 people agree that the photos are not fake and just over 1 in 6 think it's fake. I had actually hoped for a higher percentage on the "not fake" side, but I think it's safe to say that this post has been debunked.

And now time for some laser thumb action

I came across this. I thought I'd seen the name before.

Are you the guy referenced in this video? (0:16)
www.youtube.com...
Limbo

You can add me to the "not fake" list.

WaxingGibbons, you've lost the plot.

This thread is a joke.

I'm also for the "Not Fake" list.

I would be interested to know why anyone who thinks it is fake might think that. Do we have anyone here who actually believes in FE and think the ISS etc is all faked?

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
With all this talk about fisheye I wanted to test something out.

Here's one of the original pics posted.

Here's the same pic after I ran a fisheye correction filter on it. (In this case a correction for a Gopro Hero 4 camera)

While no doubt not corrected for the right camera (I have no idea what the image was taken with) it will hopefully give OP and others an idea of what others are trying to explain when they talk about fisheye distortion. As the 'corrected' image looks more like what one expects from LEO images. Hope this makes a bit more sense for them.
e.g fish eye adds curvature. correcting it makes things appear as they should and less spherical.

This pic though, if taken with a fisheye lens, does not show a 360 view of and from the cupola, like the pics in the op, why does it show the field of view of a normal lens and why would they use a lens that distorts everything if they don't intend to make a 360 shot?

In the shot you corrected for fisheye lens the inside of the cupola now looks distorted, especially the angle of the big window compared to the side window.

Can you do the same for this pic?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
I'm also for the "Not Fake" list.

I would be interested to know why anyone who thinks it is fake might think that. Do we have anyone here who actually believes in FE and think the ISS etc is all faked?

I think the general idea is to try to get us to admit this shot is impossible as some kind of proof that NASA has to doctor photos taken from space in order to avoid revealing that the earth is really flat...

Transpolar flights.

Indeed.

Polaris.

Common sense.

Etc.

I applied the lens correction for a Go Pro 4 to this pic.





The 2nd one is the corrected pic showing the curvature of the Earth like it is supposed to be.

Notice anything?

When we make the horizon look correct, we mess up the proportions of objects in the foreground of the pic.

You would almost think it is a composite of at least 2 different pictures.

a reply to: WaxingGibbons

You said that NASA admitted that they edit these pictures in order to provide a full view of earth ?

so your issue is that these ones are fake because they provide a full view of earth when its physically impossible from that height and angle of view

yet they have said that its impossible to create a full disc and that they needed to piece together months of data to make a full image of earth from those satellite missions

so clearly then this also applies to this photo

case closed ? no biggie they explained that all earth shots accept the apollo ones are digital composites !
is your main problem that they didnt disclose this in the photo description
or are you using the angle that since they didnt disclose the correct details about this image that they must be telling lies to everyone about everything and the children !

a reply to: Starbunks

who the hell are you ?
when did you join ?
why don't you have any stats ?

where's my coffee....?

WaxingGibbons is correct about one aspect of the pictures though. They do not show a complete hemisphere of the Earth. They only show a portion of it.

originally posted by: Mogget
WaxingGibbons is correct about one aspect of the pictures though. They do not show a complete hemisphere of the Earth. They only show a portion of it.

Yeah, but the image never claimed to be of a full Earth. I think WaxingGibbons got confused over the fact that the image of the Earth was a full circular ball (a full circle caused by the 360 degree fisheye lens) and from that confusion incorrectly assumed that the images of the Earth out that window was supposed to be an image of a full disk of the entire Earth.


I've posted this image below a couple of times, but I think it is important because it clarifies exactly what the OP's image was showing. Just like the image below, the image in the OP was simply a 360 degree fisheye image of a small portion of the Earth (out to a horizon) that was visible from the ISS. Not the whole Earth, but just a part of it.

The difference between the image below and the images in the OP is that the OP's image is taken from a higher altitude (thus showing more Earth -- but STILL NOT the full disk) , and the OP's image had the cupola in the foreground.

Nobody complains that the image below is not the entire Earth -- or claims that it is an "impossible picture; therefore fake".

originally posted by: Starbunks
I applied the lens correction for a Go Pro 4 to this pic.

The 2nd one is the corrected pic showing the curvature of the Earth like it is supposed to be.

Notice anything?

When we make the horizon look correct, we mess up the proportions of objects in the foreground of the pic.

You would almost think it is a composite of at least 2 different pictures.

That distortion is a common and could be caused by the use of a wide angle lens. Usually, a wide angle lens image is shown as on a "flat plane", and thus foreground objects look distorted, as in the images below (and your 2nd image above).

The fisheye lens is ultra wide angle, but when the images are arranged to match the curvature of the fisheye, the outer parts (usually the background) are distorted, but the foreground center objects look less distorted. However, if the fisheye is stretched to fit a "flat plane" (is in your 2nd image above), the background "edge" objects look less distorted, but then the foreground objects distort.

originally posted by: Limbo

I came across this. I thought I'd seen the name before.

Are you the guy referenced in this video? (0:16)
www.youtube.com...
Limbo

lol... Yeah, that's the same Dr Wily my avatar references. Dr Wily is a recurring villain in the Mega Man video game series.

a reply to: Starbunks

I was just trying to highlight the impact of fisheye to the OP and how it distorts the vision. I did say the filter used was not appropriate for the camera used, I possibly should of highlighted this included the environment for those a bit slower on understanding context.

Just trying a practical lesson to help the OP understand what others were trying to get across to him.

Actually what I will say to doubters is look up the path of the ISS, live feed on YouTube will help and determine where the ISS is and when it is over your region go look at the damn thing with your own eyes (or telescope) You'll see for yourselves it exists.


Simples.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Starbunks
I applied the lens correction for a Go Pro 4 to this pic.

The 2nd one is the corrected pic showing the curvature of the Earth like it is supposed to be.

Notice anything?

When we make the horizon look correct, we mess up the proportions of objects in the foreground of the pic.

You would almost think it is a composite of at least 2 different pictures.

That distortion is a common and could be caused by the use of a wide angle lens. Usually, a wide angle lens image is shown as on a "flat plane", and thus foreground objects look distorted, as in the images below (and your 2nd image above).

The fisheye lens is ultra wide angle, but when the images are arranged to match the curvature of the fisheye, the outer parts (usually the background) are distorted, but the foreground center objects look less distorted. However, if the fisheye is stretched to fit a "flat plane" (is in your 2nd image above), the background "edge" objects look less distorted, but then the foreground objects distort.

In the images you posted, the objects near the camera are distorted. This is not what we see in that original NASA pic.

In the original NASA pic the horizon is distorted and the foreground with the astronaut isn't.

Show me an example that actually compares.

The astronaut is lined up with the curvature in the pic, if the curvature is affected by lens distortion then she would have to be too. But she isn't, and vice versa after fisheye lens correction.

Even though we don't know the type of lens, if we use a corrector that makes the curvature look correct, then the correction should be about right for the whole pic, if it is one shot taken by one camera.

And it is not even a wide angle shot from the cupola, so why should we assume that the view from inside the cupola was shot with a wide angle lens?

We can see that it is not a wide angle shot, and we can see that it is not distorted. The shot of Earth is distorted.

It's two different shots.

You can try all sorts of different lens corrections but not one will give you a result that shows both the astronaut and the horizon looking correct.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And the distortion in your pics seems to be an optical illusion for the most part, caused by perspective and in the case of the wagon, the different sized wheels.......