NASA Camera Shows Moon Crossing Face of Earth (Epic Dark Side of Moon images)

originally posted by: iDope

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
This photo really makes me question is the "earth rise" photo taken in 1968. How can perspective be so vastly different?

Perspective is how we have been trained to percieve what we are told. I actually cannot get my head around that "Earth rise" photo because I do not think that it is possible to take a picture from a landmass like the moon, where the horizon is so damn close. Seriously, the moon is bigger than all the continents on Earth combined so why would the horizon look like that in photos? It just ends, what seems like (I'm being generous) a mile away. And that is going off of the cameras used on the moon that had no zoom capability.

The horizon was much farther away. Distant horizons on Earth are viewed through the thickness of the atmosphere, so the haze of that atmosphere is one clue that we use (usually without even thinking about it) to estimate when something is far away.

However, there is virtually no atmosphere on the moon, so even far away horizons look sharp and clear. Therefore, it can be very can be deceiving trying to estimate the distance of far away objects on the Moon. A distant horizon that is very sharp and clear simply does not look "right" to us.

a reply to: GetHyped
Maybe the stars are because he dares suggest things that people on here don't talk about for fear of being condescended into a corner?

Let's just slam him shall we? Like all good ATS members do?

I'm sick of this site and its attitudes.

The poster has made a valid point which is reflected in your reply.... You're looking for evidence which is, as the poster says, spoonfed manipulated evidence. That's a great point in itself whether the evidence is manipulated or not.

But you just like to make yourself feel like the brains of the internet aye?

Deny ignorance? Deny little dickweeds.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: GetHyped
Maybe the stars are because he dares suggest things that people on here don't talk about for fear of being condescended into a corner?

If making claims without even bothering to do so much as a cursory research on the matter is "daring" then this website's motto should change to "Deny Daring".

Let's just slam him shall we? Like all good ATS members do?

He's being " slammed" for making baseless assertions using sloppy logic.

"The mountains look 2d!"

Really?? Does this logic REALLY need to be debunked?

[quote[I'm sick of this site and its attitudes.

Because, as far as conspiracy websites go, its actually not an echo chamber of ignorance?

The poster has made a valid point which is reflected in your reply.... You're looking for evidence which is, as the poster says, spoonfed manipulated evidence. That's a great point in itself whether the evidence is manipulated or not.

If this is your idea of "valid" and "evidence" then no wonder you are defending him/her.

But you just like to make yourself feel like the brains of the internet aye?

Deny ignorance? Deny little dickweeds.

I see, straight to the personal insults. Very mature!

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

"But when these images were taken, it was fully lit by the Sun."

So why is it so dark? Should the moons surface not have been as fully illuminated at the Earth?

originally posted by: summerbreeze.ddp
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



"But when these images were taken, it was fully lit by the Sun."



So why is it so dark? Should the moons surface not have been as fully illuminated at the Earth?

The Moon has a much lower albedo than the Earth. In other words, the Moon's surface is a lot darker than the overall Earth's surface. The Moon's surface is generally about the same shade as a paved road.

If the Moon was white, it would be really, really bright at night.

a reply to: Junkheap

Thank You, Junk Heap, I am a rank amateur when it comes to this stuff. I will dig in and research "albedo"s since you have pointed me in the right direction.

Trying to upload a picture related to OP
but just gets a timeout when pressing upload

a reply to: and14263

It's not a valid point though, see my previous post..

And old mate came in here with a combative attitude from the beginning, so I don't know why you've only singled out one side if you're upset with people's attitudes, because frankly, his stinks.

An exercise for the bright minds who think "but 2d mountains!!" as an argument is anything but pants-on-head ridiculous:

A) what is earth's radius (in km)?

B) what is the tallest mountain (in km)?

C) what percentage of a) is b)?

S&F how awesome! is it just me or does the moon look a lot like the deathstar. probs just me hehe.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

What will the flat earth society do now???

Very cool!
Cant believe no one has done it yet so!


It definately lends to feeling of scale.
Wish we could all be on the same page,
or atleast leave out the animosity towards those that think differently.
I wish NASA could get better funding.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

This is Hilarious! I cant believe this doesn't have more skepticism and is just accepted as real. This looks entirely fake to me. NASA(Never A Straight Answer). This "Real" picture of the earth is not shaped like a Pear, we need to tell Neil De'Grasse Tyson asap.....I love how everyone here on this conspiracy website eats up the spoon fed crap from NASA as gospel. Think for yourself, question authority.

a reply to: clarktron

Have you bothered to check what Tyson meant by 'pear shaped' and whether he said it would be obvious or not?

Questionning authority does not mean automaticalky dismissing an answer without thinking.

Ao far this thread gas shown that the view is correcr and that you can see the clouds changing shape over time.

Now tell us what you've done to prove it's not a genuine image.

originally posted by: clarktron
This "Real" picture of the earth is not shaped like a Pear, we need to tell Neil De'Grasse Tyson asap.....I love how everyone here on this conspiracy website eats up the spoon fed crap from NASA as gospel. Think for yourself, question authority.

Even Neal DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth -- so there is no contradiction there.

Sure -- the earth is NOT a perfect sphere, and is a bit "squashed", and is in fact fatter below the equator (the "pear shape" you mentioned).....

...However, the difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the 8000 mile diameter.

That's not something you are going to notice in a picture.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
I can't believe you guys really think this is real. Just take a good look at the so-called earth and ask yourself "Where is all the land?" and "Why does the U.S. look so tiny?". No need to even talk about the moon, without question that is fake. Who does NASA think they are fooling with this crap.

one would think that with a budget of $18.4 billion we would get something better,it looks very amateurish.

So sad... I guess we've finally reached that point. We're so used to seeing CG, that when we see the real thing it's like, meh...

Thanks for the post though.

nasa is testing us in how far they can go with these fake images....

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Thoughts?

Yeah, some. 'Epic fail' is one of them, regarding the quality of that image.

The color images of Earth from NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) are generated by combining three separate images to create a photographic-quality image. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used in these Earth images.

www.nasa.gov...

Thank you, Nasa! But where are the high-res tiffs? You don't use those low quality pics only, do you?

originally posted by: summerbreeze.ddp
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

"But when these images were taken, it was fully lit by the Sun."

So why is it so dark? Should the moons surface not have been as fully illuminated at the Earth?

Here is a little example of what exposure can do

A white sheet of paper .



Now it's NOT !



Various members have made little smart comments (not you) on this thread, if some of those members put as much effort into learning how things work as they put into criticising other peoples work, may be things wouldn't be such a mystery to them.