Disclaimer 1: I originally intended this topic to be playful joking around. Then I discovered some stuff I didn't expect to find; I immediately retracted the topic, realizing I made 2 major errors (maybe more on that later). My initial investigations covered 9 basic bullet points (14-16 if I include the topics I didn't even get to due to accidentally stumbling upon said unintentional observation; point 6 bellow). My initial 14-16 points were issues I already anticipated going in (with the exception of #6 and 7) due to my understanding of 'space science', and only took about 25 minutes to gather the data for. I tried my best to include everything I know, and consider everything; some parts of this data I either couldn't find (in the public), or haven't read yet from my provided sources. Examples: list of onboard measurement devices, what data came from their potential measurements, and how they are/were translated into the creation of these 'New Horrizon' images. I will edit these in as I discover them. Understandably, no business shows their whole hand; I give a free pass here for now, though I encourage anyone to correct me. Also, international laws may apply; I make no claim to ownership of any of this data. I am merely compiling all information freely available on the web (and providing sources) herein, such as to illustrate as many possible angles on the following argument:Argument: I got tired of hearing 'all NASA stuff is fake', so I chose a completely random topic NASA has going on; New Horizons and Pluto. I assume you, on a Flat Earth forum, have heard this before. Moving on.
Notice: I was going to post this in Science and Alternative Science, but for the reasons outlayed in Disclaimer 1 above I placed it in debates instead. Discovery of point #6 bellow significantly changed the way I view this topic. I meant this to be a fun topic, but I stumbled upon #6 by sheer accident (while looking for the image megapixel resolution). I will leave [a modified for context version of the] original intro to this post intact, here:Original intro:Pluto/New Horizons/LORRI/RalphOkay, I'm just taking it slow with this. I see a lot of flat earthers say 'yo bruh everything from NASA is Fake, CGI, etc yo Cincinnati zoo did 9/11'. Okay maybe that last part is not true. But you get the idea. So I decided, hey, what the hell, it's the weekend, I'll take up this
challenge I keep hearing about. I want to take just one random, recent topic NASA has put out, and analyze it with a fine tooth comb. I don't care if it's real or fake. I chose Pluto since it stood out and
NDT already has a
reputation with it. I'm just taking the data that's available on this topic and condensing it into one location. Whether it all adds up is anyone's guess. I don't know. Feel free to contribute or correct me, I just want to take it easy and brainstorm in this thread. It should have a relaxed, somewhat playful atmosphere here, I hope (accidental pun). When
this image first came out, I saw it on livescience or
something I got updates on my phone, I have no idea, I saw
Pluto's face, and assumed it was a joke by NASA; which maybe it is meant to be? You decide! I'm just the messenger.
Everything here assumes "outer space" is real; I'm just presenting all the data that NASA and other agencies already claim is correct. Where you see a bold
(1),
(2),
(3),
(4), etc, that indicates the point comes from the corresponding reference, bellow. Simple, right? Like a game!
Okay, first off, here's
Pluto!
And here's the
The New Horizons!
And
here is the path it took!
So right up front a few things stand out:1) Atmosphere, Brilliant Lighting, No stars
(1)2) A Disney character - Pluto - on
Pluto3) The sun illuminates Pluto to get such a well-lit high resolution image, apparently; or NH has a really good flash!
3b) Pluto is 7.5 billion km away from Earth, yet the sun illuminates it as well as Earth apparently
(7)4) Does the observation distance NASA claims (280,000 miles/450,000 kilometers
(1) away) match up with the apparent size of Pluto (Pluto's diameter
(2) is 2374±8 km) in the image?
5) Do we actually have the ability to take such precise images (showing features
(1) as small as 1.4 miles/2.2 kilometers) that large from that far away moving at the speed New Horizons is moving at (12,500 km/7,800 mi
(1)) with no motion blur ([Ralph is] a 75mm lens at f/8.7
(4) with a 1 Megapixel Camera and 16GB storage using
NASA deep space network and 88 years Plutonium-238 talk time
(5, page 18)) and transmit over an internet connection between 29.658 AU (4,436.82 Gm) and 49.305 AU (7,375.93 Gm) - Perihelion and Aphelion - respectively back to Earth in practically real-time? The camera on my phone is 16 megapixel, and I can't zoom in and take a detail image very well. NASA claims Horizons only has a 1 Megapixel camera, which took these images.
5b) Update: See
ToteNotReptilian's response to this
here; I may have presented the wrong camera's data here (though it does have this camera).
6) This is the LARGEST image I could find related to Pluto. It comes in at 2690x3412, and under Details tab says
was created by Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.
(6) 6b) Update: Not sure why many of these images say they were generated in photoshop. Several images presented on NASA's
New Horizon presentation and
Pluto top 10 page don't have an 'image taken on' date tag filled out, but rather 'image created with
an adobe product'.
6c) I assume these images are compilation of sensory data collected, and assembled into a false color image, rather than litteral pictures taken; as NASA has done in the past (Sounds of the Planets albums, which are quite good and I recommend a listen if you've never heard them).
6d) Failing
6c), maybe the images were just each touched up in adobe photoshop? To make features more visible, or add false color? But then why doesn't a single one say 'image taken on'? That property is missing on every single 'picture'. If I take a picture with my camera, then photoshop it, it will still say 'image taken on x date'. None of these images have 'image taken on' filled in.
7) The funny part about
6) that is unbelievable is that that image is a TINY spot on Pluto. Captured from 280,000 miles/450,000 kilometers away; though downloaded straight from NASA, says it was made in photoshop.
***8 ) Distance and time traveled to Pluto. I remember the launch and updates, it was somewhat in vogue with youtubers as well on
it's journey. Ref
#5 should be the official PDF for departure/transit dates, to verify. From
wikipedia: "
it left Earth at 58,000 kilometres per hour (36,000 mph), faster than any other spacecraft to date." It had 'Gravity assist' from Jupiter.
9) There is extreme radiation 'in space'; just traversing the
Van-Alen Radiation belts themselves is intense, but radiation is supposedly '
everywhere in space'. Not to mention extreme near-0 temperatures 'in space' and the solar winds.
The shielding is real. Spent 3 years in these conditions and the cameras still work, apparently.
9)b The velocity of acceleration (g force) must put pressure on the sensitive devices, as it approaches 'escape'? Once traveling through space at a constant speed, any impact of minor particles of the supposed 'space debris' would prove fatal.
9)c No random chance accidents colliding with the hypothetical minor space debris (A massive amount of asteroids - particularly those tidally locked to the Jovian orbit - path's are well-known and logged by NASA, but not everything, for sure). Very fortunate and lucky!
10) View angle. The image is a 'frontal shot' it seems; the 'sun' (assuming that is where the image illumination is coming from) is hitting from behind the 'camera'. This means it is either a side-shot flyby (from the hip as it were), or else the approach angle is wrong. The camera is on the front right? Then this image is impossible, as it approached Pluto from behind/beside; not head-on. From wiki: "
Part of the reason for the delay between the gathering of and transmission of data is that all of the New Horizons instrumentation is body-mounted. In order for the cameras to record data, the entire probe must turn, and the one-degree-wide beam of the high-gain antenna was not pointing toward Earth." Read more
here about the science payload; I'm still working through this myself.
10b) Again, I assume these aren't real pictures, but rather the data compiled from sensors. In photoshop. That would make sense at least.
10b) Pluto is in a highly eccentric orbit compared to other planets. All gravity assists were planned out long prior to launch, obviously, years in advance. IE 'window of opportunity'. This is long since been known and advertised by NASA. Just including it here as it is part of the equation.
In conclusion: Most of this seems to check out; with a few caveats. NASA openly admits to using composites and false color, so I'm passing on criticizing any of that other than what I have already mentioned here. 'It's just the nature of the job', as it were. I can't do it, so I can't prove it myself. Assuming I made no errors (I'm not gonna hold my breath), there are a few glaring inconsistencies. I'm no expert in probability, but I mean we have car crashes constantly. Satellite crashes/impacts are so rare, practically unheard of. God forbid of course. I can't predict if I'll make it to the next town over safely. Let alone to the edge of the solar system. I mean, that's a lot of money and 'groundbreaking science'. I'd hate that to happen. But if you like probability, feel free to tell me off (or supplement me) here. I genuinely want to have fun with this, even realizing these are
literally photoshopped, as admitted by NASA. I get so tired of hearing 'everything by NASA is fake', so I went straight for the facts. Though I can smell some bias that crept in to this post, particularly after my re-posting it after finding
#6 on accident. Anyway, For Science!
Sources:
1)
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/pluto-dazzles-in-false-color2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Mass_and_size3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons4)
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/the-camera-behind-the-new-horizons-pluto-photos-ralph/398549/5)
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~throop/files/GSW_NH_Feb12_talkonly.pdf6)
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-horizons-top-10-pluto-pics7)
http://www.space.com/18566-pluto-distance.html*** above: Original post ended with this point. I got depressed, posted anyway, and then tried to delete the post, but couldn't. So I edited it all out, and began a re-write (what you are seeing now). The origina post went on to my speculation mentioned in points 6b-6d, which were not in the original post; I merely moved my speculation to these points. To quote myself from the original post:
"I honestly was surprised to see the photoshop bit; I accidentally found it while I was looking for the image resolution. I literally didn't go in looking for that. I decided to stop 'probing' when I realized this... literally go look for yourself right now. I downloaded that image here, opened it, right clicked it, hit properties, and details tab. It says: this image generated with Adobe Photoshop [...] this was supposed to be a place where I'd add info as I thought about it but well I really wasn't expecting that. The photoshop fact killed the mood for me... I thought I'd hit a brick wall, not knowing about image resolution potentials; I just didn't think a 1MP camera could take it from that far away. But [this is] plain black and white, it says it was made in photoshop. Any thoughts?"