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

a reply to: webstra

What exactly is being faked here? That there is a satellite taking pictures?

originally posted by: GetHyped
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)?

If the Earth were shrunk to the size of a billiard ball, the Earth would be smoother than the billiard ball, even with all of the Earth's mountains, valleys, and ocean trenches.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: iDope

I'm probably going to break a taboo here and say this. I know that the average LD in miles is 238900. So, lets just round that
to 250000 or a quarter million miles.

The photo of "earth-rising" was taken from a quarter million miles away. Now, let us look at this photo that was presented by the OP. One million miles away.... So, the moon is 750,000 miles away, and it is huge. I know, zoom and cropping and all that jazz.... The Earth is one million miles away.... Now, regardless of the camera used to take the "Earth-Rising" photo from 1968, how can it be comparable in size to the moon from our perspective, when a zoomed and cropped image makes it soooooo much larger?

I am not trying to make a point here, but I just wish to understand. The reply I received earlier was nice, but I just don't buy it.

How can the Earth look so gigantic in a "zoomed and cropped" image from a perspective one million miles away, but look so miniscule from a quarter million miles away? It makes no sense to me regardless of the lens..

Perspective seems to change drastically with focal length as wildspace said it's a telescope with a ccd camera attached if you want to see how wild things can get click the link below it's a gif of a technique called the Hitchcock Zoom or Dolly Zoom used by Alfred Hitchcock in his films. The secret to the trippy effect is that the distance from the foreground subject is changed to keep them the same apparent size in the image as the lens zooms , the background really shows the apparent change that occurs between foreground & background due to focal length.


Hitchcock Zoom


Looks like a lot of members on here have never looked through binoculars or a camera with a large telephoto lens.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: webstra

What exactly is being faked here? That there is a satellite taking pictures?

No, the picture is fake.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: webstra

What exactly is being faked here? That there is a satellite taking pictures?

No, the picture is fake.

No YOU understanding of what you see is fake.

The detailed clear contrast and high definition of the picture is making people question its authenticity. I can see why, hell, I thought it was fake at first glance too, LOL.

a reply to: webstra

Ok, and what would be the point of faking a picture that's well within NASA's capabilities to do legitimately?

to me this image implies a direct parallel to ET conspiracy theorists,

here me out,

NASA after years of space exploration posts an incredibly amateurish low rez GIF animation with just a couple of frames, and adds a ton of conjecture on how they were able to finally show the far side of the moon, and NASA 'enthusiasts' immediately accept it as truth, despite glaring issues, (i.e. we have beautiful images of Saturn, super high rez images of Jupiter, and a 'video' of us landing on a comet billions of miles away, yet they give us this and boom.)

so to the believers, no evidence is needed; to the non believers there is never enough evidence. trust me this applies to both ET nuts, and keyboard scientists who sworn allegiance to NASA and everything they put forth.
there also seems to be no issue with full spectrum imaging with any other planets, just the earth and the moon, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity when it comes to them.

Does this tell us anything ?
This is a visualization of how a total eclipse would look like.
It`s dated March of this year.
The Moon looks exactly the same to me but the Earth looks different but then again, it says it`s a visualization.
I`m no expert so.......?

from seeing the animation vid above me ..



just throwing this out there

See Animation from NASA on Twitter .,

NASA EPIC camera captures images of moon's dark side
Lunar far side, never visible from Earth, fully illuminated in new photos from space
www.cbc.ca...

originally posted by: lambros56
Does this tell us anything ?
This is a visualization of how a total eclipse would look like.
It`s dated March of this year.
The Moon looks exactly the same to me but the Earth looks different but then again, it says it`s a visualization.
I`m no expert so.......?

you may not be an expert, but you're no fool. that moon looks exactly the same.
its just slightly uniformly brightened. all the features look exactly the same.
maybe what nasa posted was just an 'artist's rendering'

ALAS! A fresh perpective on an otherwise old argument.

How about a flat moon theory? Any takers?

a reply to: odzeandennz

They are not identical if you look closely (they are rotated slightly differently).

Seeing as they're basically the same framed shot (moon in front of earth) and the moon is tidally locked, why would you expect the moon to look different?

originally posted by: odzeandennz

NASA after years of space exploration posts an incredibly amateurish low rez GIF animation with just a couple of frames, and adds a ton of conjecture on how they were able to finally show the far side of the moon,

The latter part of this is just your spin on things. They are showing the moon passing in front of Earth not to prove they can photograph the lunar far side, but because it's a cool image. The lunar far side has been photographed by Soviet probes, US probes in the 1960s, by Apollo, by Clementine, by the LRO, and by Chinese, Indian and Japanese probes.

and NASA 'enthusiasts'

Why the wavy fingers inverted comma business? What are you trying to imply there? And why do people who are interested in space and space exploration have to be NASA enthusiasts? I'm a fan of science. I could care less about the bureaucratic mechanisms that get science done.

immediately accept it as truth, despite glaring issues, (i.e. we have beautiful images of Saturn, super high rez images of Jupiter, and a 'video' of us landing on a comet billions of miles away, yet they give us this and boom.)

We do have beautiful images of Saturn, and Jupiter and landing on a comet (done by an ESA probe by the way, not NASA). The photos from those are all taken from close up. These images were taken from a million miles away. The images are still clear enough to resolve a hurricane's movement. This probe was not put there to take pretty pictures, it's there to observe the behaviour of and provide warnings about solar storms. The pretty pictures are a bonus, not it's main purpose.

so to the believers, no evidence is needed; to the non believers there is never enough evidence. trust me this applies to both ET nuts, and keyboard scientists who sworn allegiance to NASA and everything they put forth.
there also seems to be no issue with full spectrum imaging with any other planets, just the earth and the moon, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity when it comes to them.

Evidence of what? That it's genuine? Go back through the thread and look at what has been posted. Lots of "well it just looks kind of funny" that seems to pass as enough proof for anti-NASA people versus a lot of explanation and demonstrations as to why it actually is a genuine sequence of images.

If you don't think i's genuine, put up some sort of cogent argument and proof that it isn't, otherwise you're as bad as the "no evidence is required, just belief" crowd you accuse people of being.

a reply to: wmd_2008

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.

So lets learn about the EPIC 'camera'.

NOAA Satellite and Information Service
Deep Space Climate Observatory
(DSCOVR)
ENHANCED POLYCHROMATIC IMAGING CAMERA
(EPIC)
www.nesdis.noaa.gov...

Spectroradiometer
en.wikipedia.org...

This instrument is not a regular camera. A regular camera can not see the far side of the Moon, even when it should be fully lit, as there is no light from the Sun reflecting off the surface. Any light on the Lunar far side is created by the thin Lunar dust atmosphere, and is very, very dim. The near side is mostly lit by Earthshine, so is brighter, but still of low Lux values.

it looks incredibly fake

So... Take a ball and put a black dot in the upper left hand corner. Then hold the ball in front of you with the dot positioned similarly as the prominent dark dot(upper left) in the moon animation. Now keeping the same face of the ball pointed towards the arc center, move the ball around an imaginary point in front of you. Compare the beginning and end positions of the dots between your experiential knowledge and NASA's "animation". a reply to: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: GaryN
Any light on the Lunar far side is created by the thin Lunar dust atmosphere, and is very, very dim. The near side is mostly lit by Earthshine, so is brighter, but still of low Lux values.

Wait...What about when there is only a 1/2 or 1/4 moon when seen from Earth?

If the visible bright Moon that we see from Earth is mostly due to earthshine, then shouldn't it always look to be in the "Full Moon" phase as seen from Earth, which would be the case if the entire nearside of the Moon is facing Earth (which it always is).

To put my question another way: If what you say is true, then why can't I see some of the Moon from Earth when the Moon is not in its full phase? Please clarify. Thanks.

It looks airbrushed...

It's repugnant there're a handfull of people who still think the earth is flat and NASA is fake, even amidst all of the clear signs it's not fake and the earth is a rotating ellipsoidal body. Even just grabbing a telescope and watching Jupiter as it rotates should be clear enough sign these things aren't flat.

As long as they're a handful I guess it's not a problem. But if a large population thinks s*** like that, we're doomed. If we fall below a certain intelligent and educational level, how can we manage?