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.

 

Full Earth view from ISS Cupola Impossible 100 percent Fake

page: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: DrWily

Simple question, if it's a camera lens, why is the cockpit not more prevelant, if it's fish eyed Windows, why are they all showing the same image, not multiple fish eyed images for each individual fish eyed window

It's a wide angle lens (fish eye) fairly close to the windows (which are not fish eyed, but may be shaped to bend light none the less). It's not 2 meters back like WaxingGibbons says. THIS is 2 meters back:

www.nasa.gov...

edit on 25-3-2017 by DrWily because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: WaxingGibbons

I dont get your point , if i take a picture of a person i cant see their back , are you suggesting i did not take a picture of a whole person .



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: WaxingGibbons

I really don't see why people are arguing about this. The earth as viewed in the cupola is framed by space, not cupola frame as you can see external equipment overlaying space and the composite image of earth. In addition, a fish-eye lens, like a 17mm could only see as far as the horizon. In order to even stand a chance of getting an optically distorted ball, the camera lens would have to be placed against the surface of the cupola glass and this is obviously not the case. BTW, the type of camera doesn't matter, this about distance from planet and distance from cupola. I fully believe this image is a composite, with the cupola window overplayed on top. So not necessarily fake as the images required to construct the composite were probably real, but the perspective and representation is fake.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 3/25.2017 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Max obfuscation. NASA is liars because they said it was impossible to photograph the whole Earth[allegedly]. Even though these types of composites aren't even the whole Earth anyway. Nor did NASA claim they are, within reasonable explination. He also probably thinks the Earth is flat.

NASA doesn't even claim to not composite images from the Capula

"To achieve the longer exposures I do what many amateur astronomers do. I take multiple 30-second exposures, then ‘stack’ them using imaging software, thus producing the longer exposure.” A total of 46 images photographed by the astronaut-monitored stationary camera in the Cupola were combined to create this composite."



His point isn't merely this image is a composite, his claim is NASA ????? counterclaims the idea it's a composite, and they are liars, because they one time were quoted, something he basically misinterpreted as a universal law of physics. Low Earth Orbit= Impossible to photograph full earth, no exceptions.
edit on 25-3-2017 by MacK80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TruthsSword

Ummm...precisely...which is what I stated at the end of page five...


Ummm...actually...if you take into account the angle of the windows surrounding the center window...take photo's from each of those windows facing squarely out each one...and...the square to the center window photo...then combine them into a composite image...you will get the effect that is presented in these photo's... I agree with your assessment...these are composite photographs...that show a portion of the earth with space around the whole circumference with sections of a Russian supply ship...other exterior equipment...and sections of solar paneling...within the context of the space that's visible around the circumference... Therefore these are composite false images... Thank you for bringing this enigma to the board...I think I solved the puzzle...but I've been wrong before...once... (shouldn't that be spelled wunce...?)


Those are composite images...


YouSir



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Omg really, I am saying that if you are 10 cm away from them you won't be able to get their whole body in the shot. You saw the drawing, you read my explanation, you read NASA's explanation, and still you don't get it?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: WaxingGibbons
From 300 miles up, you are seeing all you can see of earth, which isnt much...because the diameter of earth is about 8000 miles. Take a look at the ISS photo of Lake Malawi. from 300 miles, its about the right size. Google earth shows its length to be about 400 miles... why just right for that ISS photo.
Conclusion: the ISS photos are real, and show the Whole Earth from an eye height of 400 miles...and you sir claim that NASA says these photos are of the whole earth...with a diameter of 8000 miles.
FALSE.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: WaxingGibbons
a reply to: hutch622

Sigh, It is not possible to view the entire Earth from 450 km period. Regardless of lenses, fantasy or magic.



This guy got THE ENTIRE EARTH FROM JUST A FEW FEET UP!

Turns out we all live pretty close together.

Damn you NASA



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MacK80

Does your pic show a full sphere with space around it? No it doesn't, so again, you are irrelevant, posting stuff that doesn't even apply. Is it hard to grasp? It must be for you......
edit on 25-3-2017 by WaxingGibbons because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: darkstar57

Explain why 1700 km of Earth looks like a sphere with space around it.......



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: WaxingGibbons
a reply to: MacK80

Does you pic show a full sphere with space around it? No it doesn't, so again, you are irrelevant, posting stuff that doesn't even apply. Is it hard to grasp? It must be for you......


I love how you fully fail to grasp what is said every time because of your own personal irrelevant details.

It's not relevant that NASA claims to take composites from the Capula, while you say they're liars for using Composites? Because it's not a full-earth photo? Oh. Okay. Jesus.

Are you an idiot? You can't even officially source this image with anything, nor can you quote this thing you claim NASA to have said 50 times that you massively generalize to your liking. The one attempt you made what pathetically dismal at proving any of the points you are making. God...I hope that wasn't 'it'.
edit on 25-3-2017 by MacK80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz



Great shot, good example.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MacK80




because they one time were quoted, something he basically misinterpreted as a universal law of physics. Low Earth Orbit= Impossible to photograph full earth, no exceptions.


Wow, there are no exceptions, 450 km is not high enough, nothing will change this. For god sakes man.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrWily

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: DrWily

Simple question, if it's a camera lens, why is the cockpit not more prevelant, if it's fish eyed Windows, why are they all showing the same image, not multiple fish eyed images for each individual fish eyed window

It's a wide angle lens (fish eye) fairly close to the windows (which are not fish eyed, but may be shaped to bend light none the less). It's not 2 meters back like WaxingGibbons says. THIS is 2 meters back:

www.nasa.gov...


Yeah, there seems to be a few very ludicrous arguments going on.
Clearly those windows are not fish eyed.
The camera lens does appear to be, no question



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Good example? You are being sarcastic off course?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: WaxingGibbons

It's not a single angle, so that changes things obviously, but you won't respond to such an obvious comment to continue your delusion.

For obvious reasons. Ignore it more with facts about a single angle. It's seven, I've said this like 7 times.

It's seven angles. This is why it is round, if it were not seven angles, IT WOULD NOT BE ROUND, AS THAT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF EVERY REASON YOU HAVE MENTIONED SO FAR XYZ.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: MacK80

originally posted by: tayton
a reply to: thedigirati

I really need to know what happened to that dollar? Lol



It's play on words at the end. 9x 3 does equal 27, but this is already accounting for the 2 the clerk kept and the 3 returned. Had the clerk not kept 2, it would be 25, so 27+2 makes you assume you're trying to get to 30. Figuring out the $30 is easy. They each have 1$, the Clerk has $2, and there is $25 in the drawer.



Great, thanks, I'm just gonna take a dollar from my pocket and throw it on the table and get outta here......problem solved in my mind
edit on 25-3-2017 by tayton because: Found 4 quarters



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz

Yeah, but it's not through a window, that's the issue



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MacK80

The cupola is irrelevant, you can't view the entire Earth from 450 km period even if you were floating in space without any window to look through.

This whole argument is irrelevant at this point.

You need to explain why it shows only a portion of Earth, like a perfect sphere with space all around it.


edit on 25-3-2017 by WaxingGibbons because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Trained observer here....both sides are correct in this point

It's fake fill in looking to the edge that has bad looking details, like color.....

The perceived altitude is 18,000 miles due to fisheye so one could see the edges like that cool whole earth photo up there....

The details are a problem.....the image should be all shot to chit due to the angled panes on the outer segment.......and the detail as one peers to the edge......are suspect just at a glance.

But a fisheye will get the edge.....but they have faked the circle edge before......on video even....here at ATS even....five or six years ago wasn't it



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join