[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Please explain why any of those images could not be of the earth! A globe is a 3D object, the way it looks depends on the orientation and the distance we are from the globe. These are of North America from 2 altitudes - quite different.
Different cameras, different exposures and different processing can explain a lot of the difference. In fact I doubt the "Blue Marble" is quite as colourful as those! It might be more like the unadorned picture on the right - npt quite as pretty as NASA's!

Why on Earth would the size of North America in relation to the globe change due to altitude? If anything the higher you get the "globe" gets smaller in proportion.

2012 and 2002 obviously stand out as an obvious representation of the disparity of the represented size. But oh well, let's take Blue Moon's advice and just ignore all the previous ones and finally trust the 2015 version, you know the one taken from the mystical Earth-Sun L1 sweet spot in Gravity, a million miles away, with the uncanny ability to perfectly face Earth from that distance, when I can't even get a particular star to stay in my telescope if I fidget in the slightest.

Now, I have no idea which images might be genuine. I have no reason to think any are actually "fake", but almost certainly thet have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" and some might be composites.

Wow. That's a high standard of proof you have there when looking at a photo. It may have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" a composite etc... but it can still be an accurate representation of reality. Way to bend the rules to keep your fragile dependency on trusting NASA intact.

But as I stated at length, only an idiot would ever suspect that your "earth setting" picture could ever be though "original". It is obviously a composite, and you were using a low resolution copy anyway, so we know it is a much reduced composite - what more has you fancy forensics told us?

It doesn't matter if it's a low resolution copy, all the artifacts would match evenly when you adjust the curves, unless of course it is an obvious composite from two different source images. Take it from me, an experienced graphic artist that understands JPEG compression.

And trust there are plenty of idiots that believe these composites to be real. I suspect I'm talking to many of them daily here, you obviously just admitted that much when you said an altered, enhanced, copied composite image of Earth fits the definition of "real" in your mind.

[Rounder]

Here's a better example than the soccer ball: a photo of a globe, showing how the North American continent changes apparent size as the camera changes distance.

[andruszkow]

And yet again, the creationist dismissed an answer with no prior knowledge on the subject.

Do explain, please.

[andruszkow]

Please explain why any of those images could not be of the earth! A globe is a 3D object, the way it looks depends on the orientation and the distance we are from the globe. These are of North America from 2 altitudes - quite different.
Different cameras, different exposures and different processing can explain a lot of the difference. In fact I doubt the "Blue Marble" is quite as colourful as those! It might be more like the unadorned picture on the right - npt quite as pretty as NASA's!

Why on Earth would the size of North America in relation to the globe change due to altitude? If anything the higher you get the "globe" gets smaller in proportion.

2012 and 2002 obviously stand out as an obvious representation of the disparity of the represented size. But oh well, let's take Blue Moon's advice and just ignore all the previous ones and finally trust the 2015 version, you know the one taken from the mystical Earth-Sun L1 sweet spot in Gravity, a million miles away, with the uncanny ability to perfectly face Earth from that distance, when I can't even get a particular star to stay in my telescope if I fidget in the slightest.

Now, I have no idea which images might be genuine. I have no reason to think any are actually "fake", but almost certainly thet have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" and some might be composites.

Wow. That's a high standard of proof you have there when looking at a photo. It may have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" a composite etc... but it can still be an accurate representation of reality. Way to bend the rules to keep your fragile dependency on trusting NASA intact.

But as I stated at length, only an idiot would ever suspect that your "earth setting" picture could ever be though "original". It is obviously a composite, and you were using a low resolution copy anyway, so we know it is a much reduced composite - what more has you fancy forensics told us?

It doesn't matter if it's a low resolution copy, all the artifacts would match evenly when you adjust the curves, unless of course it is an obvious composite from two different source images. Take it from me, an experienced graphic artist that understands JPEG compression.

And trust there are plenty of idiots that believe these composites to be real. I suspect I'm talking to many of them daily here, you obviously just admitted that much when you said an altered, enhanced, copied composite image of Earth fits the definition of "real" in your mind.

Oh, and you do of course know, that an orbit at earth-sun L1 leaves the orbital speed around the sun the same as earth's, right? Knowing that kind of makes your "I can't stay focused on satellites" argument irrelevant.

[geckothegeek]

Please explain why any of those images could not be of the earth! A globe is a 3D object, the way it looks depends on the orientation and the distance we are from the globe. These are of North America from 2 altitudes - quite different.
Different cameras, different exposures and different processing can explain a lot of the difference. In fact I doubt the "Blue Marble" is quite as colourful as those! It might be more like the unadorned picture on the right - npt quite as pretty as NASA's!

Why on Earth would the size of North America in relation to the globe change due to altitude? If anything the higher you get the "globe" gets smaller in proportion.

2012 and 2002 obviously stand out as an obvious representation of the disparity of the represented size. But oh well, let's take Blue Moon's advice and just ignore all the previous ones and finally trust the 2015 version, you know the one taken from the mystical Earth-Sun L1 sweet spot in Gravity, a million miles away, with the uncanny ability to perfectly face Earth from that distance, when I can't even get a particular star to stay in my telescope if I fidget in the slightest.

Now, I have no idea which images might be genuine. I have no reason to think any are actually "fake", but almost certainly thet have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" and some might be composites.

Wow. That's a high standard of proof you have there when looking at a photo. It may have been copied, reduced, "enhanced" a composite etc... but it can still be an accurate representation of reality. Way to bend the rules to keep your fragile dependency on trusting NASA intact.

But as I stated at length, only an idiot would ever suspect that your "earth setting" picture could ever be though "original". It is obviously a composite, and you were using a low resolution copy anyway, so we know it is a much reduced composite - what more has you fancy forensics told us?

It doesn't matter if it's a low resolution copy, all the artifacts would match evenly when you adjust the curves, unless of course it is an obvious composite from two different source images. Take it from me, an experienced graphic artist that understands JPEG compression.

And trust there are plenty of idiots that believe these composites to be real. I suspect I'm talking to many of them daily here, you obviously just admitted that much when you said an altered, enhanced, copied composite image of Earth fits the definition of "real" in your mind.

Oh, and you do of course know, that an orbit at earth-sun L1 leaves the orbital speed around the sun the same as earth's, right? Knowing that kind of makes your "I can't stay focused on satellites" argument irrelevant.

As usual this subject has gotten off topic with those photos of the earth.
The objection doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Notice the dates (years) they were made. Naturally a photo taken one year is going to look different from one year to the next is going to look different. And we don't know all the technical details behind the photograohy, etc. So I fail to see where the criticism  of their validity makes any sense at all. If you were to take pictures of your child  from year to year they would look different but they would be the same child..

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

As usual this subject has gotten off topic with those photos of the earth.
The objection doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Notice the dates (years) they were made. Naturally a photo taken one year is going to look different from one year to the next is going to look different. And we don't know all the technical details behind the photograohy, etc. So I fail to see where the criticism  of their validity makes any sense at all. If you were to take pictures of your child  from year to year they would look different but they would be the same child..

That is, quite possibly, some of the dumbest shit I've ever read.

[geckothegeek]

And yet again, the creationist dismissed an answer with no prior knowledge on the subject.

Do explain, please.

I think that this is the problem for any flat earther on any subject.

If you don't know anything about space photography how can you make an accurate asessment of those photographs ?
I don't and I can only guess at all the possibilities of all the details and differences involved in each photograph.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Btw I'll just leave this here too.

Here's a better version of it



There is a video made by Vsauce answering "What does the Earth really looks like", you should watch it.

[geckothegeek]

Btw I'll just leave this here too.

Here's a better version of it



There is a video made by Vsauce answering "What does the Earth really looks like", you should watch it.

Would you say the same thing for any photographs made by any or all of the other space agencies of any or all of the other nations in the world - other than NASA ofcourse ?

Question for "Round Earthers"  :
How do you reason with a "Flat Earther" ?  Or should you just put it under the category of"Mission Impossible".....?
LOL

[geckothegeek]

One more question:
"What does the moon really look like ? "
A photograph  made from:
Palomar Observatory ?
Mc Donald Observatory ?
An amateur astronomer/photographer ?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Question for "Round Earthers"  :
How do you reason with a "Flat Earther" ?  Or should you just put it under the category of"Mission Impossible".....?
LOL

Step 1) Possess the ability to do so.

[BCGreenwood]

Question for "Round Earthers"  :
How do you reason with a "Flat Earther" ?  Or should you just put it under the category of"Mission Impossible".....?
LOL

Step 1) Possess the ability to do so.

To be fair it is flat earthers that break off the debate when they realise facts and logic are against them.

[geckothegeek]

Question for "Round Earthers"  :
How do you reason with a "Flat Earther" ?  Or should you just put it under the category of"Mission Impossible".....?

LOL

Step 1) Possess the ability to do so.

To be fair it is flat earthers that break off the debate when they realise facts and logic are against them.

That is the way things usually end on these debates.
QED
LOL

The flat earth comments about "What does the earth really look like ?" sounds a bit like that old fable about the blind men and the elephant : "What does elephant really look like ?"  Still wondering if the same question would be asked if photographs from other space agencies were shown for comparison ?  Of course NASA is the  flat earthers favorite "fall guy."

[AceAzure]

ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.

Now I'm not labelling myself as a Flat Earther, as some stuff does not add up yet even in the flat earth theory...and I will remain neutral in the argument - neither believing in round nor flat earth. But clearly, some shit is not right. And it's so funny that you all RE refuse to accept the facts and side along with them so that you can continue your beauty sleep.

Now do me a favour and explain this one as well:

Concerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now.  The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras.  Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft.  We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite.  See here for more info.

Ok so I did research this, and took your explanation into account.

Now explain for me this, the ELA analysis in for the Blue Marble 2015 that you think is legit.

I just took a random photo off of epic.gsfc.nasa.gov the site where it has daily photos from the DSCOVR telescope as you advocated.




1. Doesn't look like anything odd about this photo featuring a lot of contrasty clouds. The photo looks like it's even in contast between the foreground and background so therefore the ELA looks even too.






2.  How about a stratosphere image where clouds are the Foreground? Nothing glitchy in those clouds as far as I'm aware.





3. A daily photo from the DSCOVR telescope. Oh look. I'm different because I'm a NASA space photo
Hint: Look at the faded and smaller clouds in the background. They are ALSO highlighted by ELA. Coincidence huh?




Or just maybe, Alladin came out of his lamp and waved his wand at the photo!  Look, I can do it too!





PS. Here's the Blue Marble 2015 from Wikipedia. Nice ELA
Maybe it's legit after all... and a real one! Or could they have spent a lot of time/money trying to cover their tracks?

[BlueMoon]

ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.

Now I'm not labelling myself as a Flat Earther, as some stuff does not add up yet even in the flat earth theory... but clearly, some shit is not right. And it's so funny that you all refuse to accept the facts and side along with them so that you can continue your beauty sleep.

Concerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now.  The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras.  Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft.  We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite.  See here for more info.

Ok so I did research this, and took your explanation into account.

Now explain for me this, the ELA analysis in for the Blue Marble 2015 that you think is legit.

I just took a random photo off of epic.gsfc.nasa.gov the site where it has daily photos from the DSCOVR telescope as you advocated.

You know, it would be nice if you would mention what you did to the images, because you're the only one that can see a problem. 


I don't intend to watch the video you posted, now or ever.  If you can't find a somewhat intelligent source of information, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. 


You really are a dumbass if you think a photo is fake because it's a composite.  That is all I have to say on that matter. 


People like you don't deserve to live in a world you can't appreciate, or at all. 

[AceAzure]

ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.

Now I'm not labelling myself as a Flat Earther, as some stuff does not add up yet even in the flat earth theory... but clearly, some shit is not right. And it's so funny that you all refuse to accept the facts and side along with them so that you can continue your beauty sleep.

Concerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now.  The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras.  Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft.  We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite.  See here for more info.

Ok so I did research this, and took your explanation into account.

Now explain for me this, the ELA analysis in for the Blue Marble 2015 that you think is legit.

I just took a random photo off of epic.gsfc.nasa.gov the site where it has daily photos from the DSCOVR telescope as you advocated.

You know, it would be nice if you would mention what you did to the images, because you're the only one that can see a problem. 


I don't intend to watch the video you posted, now or ever.  If you can't find a somewhat intelligent source of information, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. 


You really are a dumbass if you think a photo is fake because it's a composite.  That is all I have to say on that matter. 


People like you don't deserve to live in a world you can't appreciate, or at all.

lol at that insult. You mad bro? And you think you deserve to live following the herd like a good little sheep you are?

My intention wasn't for You to watch the video, but I'll explain it anyway. The video would tell you what FE side of the story is, if a so called 6 Billion Dollar spaceship LOOKS like a homeless shelter built by sticky tape, aluminium foil and plastic blow dryers, that doesn't ring any alarm bells to you RE at all because of some technical nasa explanation. Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults.  You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.

Not that you would want to face the truth anyway, cause it hurts. sheep.

I've already explained it in my post that the modification to the image is ELA. If you didn't know ELA , it means  error level analysis, if you really know about anything NASA you should know about ELA because your shit sure does have a lot of error in them.

http://fotoforensics.com/faq.php
 

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults.  You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.

You're making it seem like we haven't explained it a billion times already, duh we probably did it just 100 million times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Mechanical_issues

Of all the explanation we give to the Moon landing conspiracists' claim, i've never seen any of them refute our explanation.

[andruszkow]

ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.

Now I'm not labelling myself as a Flat Earther, as some stuff does not add up yet even in the flat earth theory... but clearly, some shit is not right. And it's so funny that you all refuse to accept the facts and side along with them so that you can continue your beauty sleep.

Concerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now.  The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras.  Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft.  We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite.  See here for more info.

Ok so I did research this, and took your explanation into account.

Now explain for me this, the ELA analysis in for the Blue Marble 2015 that you think is legit.

I just took a random photo off of epic.gsfc.nasa.gov the site where it has daily photos from the DSCOVR telescope as you advocated.

You know, it would be nice if you would mention what you did to the images, because you're the only one that can see a problem. 


I don't intend to watch the video you posted, now or ever.  If you can't find a somewhat intelligent source of information, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. 


You really are a dumbass if you think a photo is fake because it's a composite.  That is all I have to say on that matter. 


People like you don't deserve to live in a world you can't appreciate, or at all.

lol at that insult. You mad bro? And you think you deserve to live following the herd like a good little sheep you are?

My intention wasn't for You to watch the video, but I'll explain it anyway. The video would tell you what FE side of the story is, if a so called 6 Billion Dollar spaceship LOOKS like a homeless shelter built by sticky tape, aluminium foil and plastic blow dryers, that doesn't ring any alarm bells to you RE at all because of some technical nasa explanation. Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults.  You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.

Not that you would want to face the truth anyway, cause it hurts. sheep.

I've already explained it in my post that the modification to the image is ELA. If you didn't know ELA , it means  error level analysis, if you really know about anything NASA you should know about ELA because your shit sure does have a lot of error in them.

http://fotoforensics.com/faq.php

It did leave a mark. The remaining lander legs were photographed last year.

The reason there's no typical earth like blast crater is because there's no atmosphere. Dust doesn't just move like it does in earth. The regolith that did get blown away is sent flying through vacuum, it doesn't just float down like it does on earth since there's no air resistance.

This is the exact same reason there's no dust on the landing legs.

[Ecthelion]

lol at that insult. You mad bro? And you think you deserve to live following the herd like a good little sheep you are?

My intention wasn't for You to watch the video, but I'll explain it anyway. The video would tell you what FE side of the story is, if a so called 6 Billion Dollar spaceship LOOKS like a homeless shelter built by sticky tape, aluminium foil and plastic blow dryers, that doesn't ring any alarm bells to you RE at all because of some technical nasa explanation. Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults.  You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.

Not that you would want to face the truth anyway, cause it hurts. sheep.

Your arrogance is showing.

Why don't you adress some of the material points already adressed in this thread? You shift the goalposts with every post. Why don't you adress the various explanation for what you consider inexplicable about the moon landings? Why not come up with something new for once instead of rehashing age old arguments and then running away when challenged directly?

Is it because facing the truth hurts? Is it because you'd have to admit to yourself that you are not the only light in the world, a seeing man among blind, but instead perfectly ordinary?

[geckothegeek]

In defense of the AEP, it does have at least one useful feature. You can have a map centered on your location. It will show you the correct compass bearings to any place in the world. Ham radio operators use this to aim their beam antennas for "DX" contacts.  But flat earthers will say they are liars, too. They measured the distance from the moon in °Moon Bounce" and got the wrong results. Not 3000 miles.