[Dr David Thork]

something like this?

*snipped

Can you do geometry with right-angled triangles? Solving for one angle, given two side lengths, one of which is the hypotenuse?

No, I also struggle to breath through my nose and I have to read by running my finger under the words and mouthing them. Is there a point to your low-content slurs?

You haven't shown it to be in the same place, merely (roughly) the same distance/angle above the horizon...

When I'm convinced neither shot was taken from above the moon, why is the onus on me to show they are both taken from the same place on the moon? I'd guess both pictures where taken in a place like this ...

[Tumeni]

Using the stated distances of GOES-17 from Earth, and Moon from Earth, along with the radii of Earth and Moon, you can work out, from first principles, the angular size of each.

This will yield the comparative sizes of Earth and Moon as seen by GOES-17, and is intended as a follow-up to Bobby Shafto's question.

Do you want to work them out for yourself, or shall I outline the calcs for you?

[Dr David Thork]

Using the stated distances of GOES-17 from Earth, and Moon from Earth, along with the radii of Earth and Moon, you can work out, from first principles, the angular size of each.

This will yield the comparative sizes of Earth and Moon as seen by GOES-17, and is intended as a follow-up to Bobby Shafto's question.

Do you want to work them out for yourself, or shall I outline the calcs for you?

I've been a flat earther on forums like this for a decade. I don't need to work out the numbers. I know them by heart. You aren't the first person in 10 years to ever bring this up.

However I don't agree with the theory from which you deduce the numbers in the first place. The earth is flat. Your starting numbers are all wrong. So the result is junk. Telling me the moon must be this size because YOUR theory states it is, isn't going to wow me when I get the numbers YOU expect.

[Tumeni]

When I'm convinced neither shot was taken from above the moon, why is the onus on me to show they are both taken from the same place on the moon?

Because you explicitly said the Moon was "in the same place" in each...

[Dr David Thork]

When I'm convinced neither shot was taken from above the moon, why is the onus on me to show they are both taken from the same place on the moon?

Because you explicitly said the Moon was "in the same place" in each...

The relative position of the two bodies is always the same in the shot. Does that clarification help?

[Tumeni]

Let's each try to composite what we'd expect it to look like, either from a geostationary satellite or from that DISCOVR satellite parked at the L1 Lagrangian point (which captured that near moon transit pic.)

Start with this:


Basic geometry - hypotenuse = radius of body plus distance from body, one side = radius r, right-angle at surface where r meets it




Work out A for Earth and Moon



and ...

Angular size of Earth - 8.77 * 2 = 17.54 degrees

Angular size of Moon - 0.235 * 2 = 0.47 degrees

(EDIT - both mislabelled in the picture below)

Roughly, would look like;

[Tumeni]

The relative position of the two bodies is always the same in the shot. Does that clarification help?

No, it is not. You've quoted one picture, AS11-44-6642, but there's also frames 6547-64, 6601-05, and 6633-6643, as well as 5439 - 5442 on magazine 37. All different.

However, they will all have Earth close to the lunar horizon, because they are all 'Earthrise' photos. The ones where Earth was seen significantly above the horizon are just 'Earth' photos.

[Dr David Thork]

The relative position of the two bodies is always the same in the shot. Does that clarification help?

No, it is not. You've quoted one picture, AS11-44-6642, but there's also frames 6547-64, 6601-05, and 6633-6643, as well as 5439 - 5442 on magazine 37. All different.

However, they will all have Earth close to the lunar horizon, because they are all 'Earthrise' photos. The ones where Earth was seen significantly above the horizon are just 'Earth' photos.

I think we can agree that NASA has spent a lot of time and effort concocting the perfect earth rise photo over the years. I think photo manipulation is the cheaper and easier option (Occam's razor), but hell, you can believe tales of heroes and adventures to the moon if you like.

[Bobby Shafto]

Basic geometry - hypotenuse = radius of body plus distance from body, one side = radius r, right-angle at surface where r meets it ...

In your calculations, you used diameters in place of radii

I got 9.46° for earth's angular diameter and 0.234° for the moon, when viewed from GOES-17 when the moon is in a far side transit of earth from GOES (using your rounded distance figures).

Tumeni is correct

[Bobby Shafto]

That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?

View 930,000 miles from earth
Lunar transit (left) 691,000 miles from moon
Lunar occlusion (right) 1,169,000 miles from moon

[Max_Almond]

That's interesting. I wonder what an image of the moon in the background of an earth shot would look like?

Gif also available:



https://mashable.com/2015/12/14/earth-photobombs-moon-nasa-gif

[Dr David Thork]

You can't honestly think that either of these images is real. Do they look real to you? Do you turn off any critical thinking ability when you see the word NASA?

Even this looks more realistic

[AATW]

What does "looks real" even mean?
I mean, clearly my old 8-bit Spectrum games didn't exactly look photo-realistic.
Since ILM got going films like Jurassic Park do "look real" but aren't.
Whether something "looks real" is highly subjective

Do you actually have any solid evidence to show that these images/videos are Photoshop or computer generated?
Or is it more "the earth is flat so it can't be real so it isn't"?

[Dr David Thork]

What does "looks real" even mean?
I mean, clearly my old 8-bit Spectrum games didn't exactly look photo-realistic.
Since ILM got going films like Jurassic Park do "look real" but aren't.
Whether something "looks real" is highly subjective

Do you actually have any solid evidence to show that these images/videos are Photoshop or computer generated?
Or is it more "the earth is flat so it can't be real so it isn't"?

Even if the earth was round, those images are not real. They look utterly drawn and not photographed.

[Max_Almond]

What about this picture? Does it look real or fake?

[AATW]

Even if the earth was round, those images are not real. They look utterly drawn and not photographed.

That's not an answer, it's just a completely subjective opinion.
What evidence or analysis have you have to show that the images are faked.
It is increasingly hard to tell the difference:

https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/rendering-or-real-can-you-spot-the-cgi-spaces-213400

[Tumeni]

In your calculations, you used diameters in place of radii

Um, no... I solved for angle A, then doubled that angle, since the hypotenuse of the right-angle triangle runs to the centre of the Earth, with the right angle at the surface.

The diameter cannot be used, as an observer cannot 'see' the full diameter.

[Tumeni]

... those images are not real. They look utterly drawn and not photographed.

Again, do you have any solid evidence that they were not obtained by a digital imaging device in Earth orbit?

Yes, I/we know that they don't use a traditional photographic process, of film, negative processing and printing, but nothing taken with a digital camera on Earth does this anyway....

But they were taken with a device equivalent to an earth-bound camera, just a more sophisticated one, which takes imagery over multiple light spectra. We can browse the equivalent infra-red and other imagery in comparison to the published visible spectra like those above.

[Bobby Shafto]

In your calculations, you used diameters in place of radii

Um, no...

My mistake. Don't know why I thought 3959 and 1079 were diameter numbers. I retract.

[Bobby Shafto]

Even if the earth was round, those images are not real. They look utterly drawn and not photographed.

I've never been outside of earth's atmosphere to know what looks realistic.

I've never seen the moon from 600k-1M miles away, with earth as a backdrop to know what such a vista should look like.

EPIC doesn't take photos like a DLSR, so unless you're familiar with its product, how can you deduce fakery?

"A [person] sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."