Nasa releases stunning new image of Earth taken from a spacecraft orbiting the moon

originally posted by: imd12c4funn
Prove that NASA took real pictures of Earth. You can't and never will be able to.

Careful, because if someone manages to find the origincal WAC and NAC images used for this shot, your own jest will come back and bite you in the a$$.

NASA did take real photos of Earth. They used the narrow-angle camera (NAC) image with colour information from the wide-angle camera (WAC) to create this view. The WAC image is WAC E1199291151C, and the NAC image is NAC M1199291564LR.

You accuse us of blindly believing whatever comes from NASA, but don't offer any valid proof of why NASA would be lying to us either.

Once again, it's all explained here: lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Care to elaborate why you believe it not to be true?

a reply to: dogstar23

I looked up last night but didn't see a moon :>) I felt

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I looked up last night but didn't see a moon :>) I felt

So does that mean it isn't there?

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: HardBoiled
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can you draw that division line into the pic in question?

It doesn't even have to say that, it's a virtually guaranteed consequence of its polar orbit as I already described, which you ignored.

I didn't ignore anything, I was asking for additional information.

The claim I responded to was that the LRO was passing the terminator. My question is where is the divide in the pic?

Isn't it guaranteed?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Funny in a way because when we have a solar eclipse you can't see a moon in the sky either . You would think we would be able to see a moon before or after but it doesn't seem to be there . strange when you think about it .

originally posted by: HardBoiled
a reply to: EternalSolace

I'm not sure what you're finding impossible regarding the position of the LRO and, from what I gathered, how Africa is situated in a vertical position.

At least you are showing progress. Now you are only ignoring 33% of the equation. Maybe next time you will be able to communicate to me with a whopping 100% understanding of the aspects of this specific discussion.

I got sick of reading this thread because of this guy's posts. Has anyone banned him yet?
Hardboiled, you are rude and arrogant in the way you post.
Change this, and people might make it easier for you to understand what you're clearly struggling to.

To the OP, thanks for sharing a beautiful image.

To whoever it was who made the idiotic Bob Ross comparison: do you scrutinise every detail of a Bob Ross painting as being an inaccurate representation of how things look in his medium? because you seem to do so with NASA's images, whether they're "real", composite, or faked. I'll tell you what, muster up the currency requisite to do so, and someone will let you have a go with their big special space camera and relevant software and see if you can extrapolate such a seemingly accurate image. Heck, i'll give you a paintbrush and some paper some time and give you a still-life to recreate and then we can all discuss the inaccuracies with 'real life'
Oh no wait, we won't, because that's a pointless discussion.

NASA have to create these images because your #ing Polaroid just won't work up there.
Thanks.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Funny in a way because when we have a solar eclipse you can't see a moon in the sky either

Then what is in front of the sun during that eclipse?

It is the moon. Funny that I saw the moon yesterday in the sky during the day...guess the moon can be seen and is actually there.

. You would think we would be able to see a moon before or after but it doesn't seem to be there . strange when you think about it .

Why would you think that?

Try putting a dime in front of a thousand watt light bulb and tell me how easy it is to see it?

It's only strange to those who want to make it strange.

originally posted by: HardBoiled

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: HardBoiled
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can you draw that division line into the pic in question?

It doesn't even have to say that, it's a virtually guaranteed consequence of its polar orbit as I already described, which you ignored.

I didn't ignore anything, I was asking for additional information.

The claim I responded to was that the LRO was passing the terminator. My question is where is the divide in the pic?

Isn't it guaranteed?

All the information you need is already in this thread, but here it is on a plate for you.

This is a crop of the Fourmilab moon viewer showing the day/night section of the moon over Compton crater on the date the photo was taken. The circle marks the approximate location of the LRO when the image was taken. The exact terminator position may be slightly out depending on the time of the image



You can also clearly see in the OP image that the horizon is in pitch darkness.

Interesting to note that the Earth would not be visible from the surface at this location.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Funny in a way because when we have a solar eclipse you can't see a moon in the sky either . You would think we would be able to see a moon before or after but it doesn't seem to be there . strange when you think about it .

That's because the moon is really just the back of the sun.

a reply to: Resostone

Hardboiled, you are rude and arrogant in the way you post.

My heart bleeds for you.....

Thank god you are here to set a great example.

a reply to: eNumbra

Married with Children reference?

originally posted by: HardBoiled
a reply to: eNumbra

Married with Children reference?

I remember last hearing it on Scrubs.

a reply to: ngchunter

It's a fact. Eratosthenes. Deal with it. Deny ignorance.

One man's "fact" has turned into the same man's mistake, many times. YOU deny ignorance - and blank dismissal. Wake up!

originally posted by: HardBoiled
a reply to: Resostone

Hardboiled, you are rude and arrogant in the way you post.

My heart bleeds for you.....

Thank god you are here to set a great example.

You're right, I didn't set the best example because I was rude right back at you.
I'm new here, like you but, like me, you have probably been reading threads for longer than you've been a member. It would seem there is a high level of respect most people posting on this forum have for each other.
But you don't need me to tell you the rules.

Back on topic, I would say that all the questions you have asked have been answered here in this thread. Your acknowledgement is all that's missing.
Have a nice day

ETA: Does/can the LRO capture photos of Mars? I only ask because it just came to mind and I haven't researched this myself yet.

a reply to: donktheclown

One man's "fact" has turned into the same man's mistake, many times. YOU deny ignorance - and blank dismissal. Wake up!

Prove he was mistaken...I bet you can't?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

You can also clearly see in the OP image that the horizon is in pitch darkness.

Yes, I know, you are the first one to answer the simple question.

Thanks for your effort.

I'm more trusting in someone who's skeptical we went to the moon than someone who just believes it without having any of the knowledge to back it up. However, skepticism can itself be a blind belief. It's like when you see a shape in the clouds and then you can't unsee it. Except you start hallucinating. A person can fall into a habit of not proof checking their own convictions. Maybe it has to do with confirmation bias or something. Skepticism only works if it's backed by hard evidence and you're open to new evidence which contradicts past evidence.

Some links in this thread which stick out to me:
www.flickr.com/photos/astropics
lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/895

The second link is about the pic in the OP. The flickr link is special to me because there're indeed extreme skeptics (or conspiracy theorists?) who're no longer being objective. For them, I think the remedy is a good bit of night sky watching. There're lots of amateur astronomers. If you don't know about telescopes, maybe start here:
old.observers.org/beginner/eyepieces.freeman.html

There's nothing like seeing the real moon outside to remind yourself these things are real at their roots. You can even see the shadows cast across craters and hills. It's tempting to believe the moon is a globe just by the shadows and shapes with no math or anything else. Ancient peoples maybe already suspected it was a globe for this reason and, by extension, the Earth itself. The root has many stems, complicating it, but nonetheless these things are there and you can't deny your own eyes.

My favorite, since I love software (When I was growing up, one of my favorite programs was Vistapro, to create landscapes):
orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

originally posted by: jonnywhite

There's nothing like seeing the real moon outside to remind yourself these things are real at their roots. You can even see the shadows cast across craters and hills. The root has many stems, complicating it, but nonetheless these things are there.

More people need to see the moon through a half decent telescope - you really don't get a sense that it is a 3D object with the naked eye, and you also don't see how fast we are spinning underneath it!

a reply to: onebigmonkey
My uncle swears he sees the shadows and craters. When he was younger and his eyes were better. He can't be the only one.

I've not proof checked his claim, but even without seeing the craters, you CAN see the curved terminator where the light ends. This is why we have lunar phases, right? Otherwise it'd always be a full moon. I have to imagine ancient people thought about that and weren't too stupid about it. Didn't they ever look at an orange or something round and see how the shadows were cast? It must have occured to them.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Yes, the terminator is where the light ends.

Check this image of the Moon I've taken:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see the craters from Earth. The biggest is the Copernicus Crater, which has ejectas spanning half way across the moon, and you can see it with the naked eyes.