Brought to you by the Vast Conspiracy:
Visit http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/895 (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/895), then scroll down nearly to the bottom, where you will see a large image of the earth. If you like, click on the Full Screen button at the bottom of the image, then click on the + sign at the upper left a few times. Many details of the earth's surface can be seen, including the east coast of the US and the Great Lakes at the upper left, and Europe at top center. And if you zoom in far enough, it looks flat. :D
The rest of the page tells how the image was created. To get a hi-res color image of the earth from the moon, particularly with this image's spectacular occlusion of the earth by the moon, just attaching your Canon point-and-click to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter doesn't suffice.
It's actually clearly faked because it clearly looks fake. You have to really be lying to yourself if you say you've ever seen glossy dust before.
That's an awful lot of explaining. Just admit it looks fake. Doesn't even look like the surface from the fans Apollo footage, you think they would be consistent.OK, so you don't like the idea of the Globe (of are you still sitting on the fence).
It's a terrible cgi, NASA needs a bigger budget, have you seen interstellar?
That's an awful lot of explaining. Just admit it looks fake.
That's an awful lot of explaining. Just admit it looks fake. Doesn't even look like the surface from the fans Apollo footage, you think they would be consistent.
That's an awful lot of explaining.
Suspension of disbelief at its finest.
That's an awful lot of explaining.Suspension of disbelief at its finest.
Really? You want to talk about 'an awful lot of explaining' and 'suspension of disbelief' with us? The Flat Earth has BEST examples:
"Universal" Acceleration (http://wiki.tfes.org/Gravity), which accelerates the earth, moon, sun, and other celestial objects (if not, the earth would be catching up to and passing some of them) but not any of the objects on or near the earth (as in: when I release a bowling ball in the air above the earth, why does that bowling ball not feel "universal" acceleration and begin accelerating in the same direction as the earth, which would make it appear to hover?)
The Shadow Object (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse), the never-observed moon-like-thing that invisibly casts its shadow upon the moon during lunar eclipses, and otherwise leaves zero observational evidence of its existence.
Celestial Gears (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect), which supposedly explains both why we have wind on the earth's surface, and how the stars rotate one direction in the northern hemisphere while rotating the other way in the southern hemisphere, but fails to address the fact that such a system would look truly bizarre at the equator (the two halves of the sky would have to diverge from each other as they set, in order to rotate in opposite directions from northern and southern latitudes). And fails to address the fact that such a system is incompatible with the most popular flat earth 'map' on the site.
Bendy Light (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun), a convenient hypothetical construct that allows FE to completely ignore the fact that light travels in straight lines except where it is subject to refraction, and even there refraction functions to move light from one straight-line path to another straight-line path, is well understood, and shows no experimental justification for working differently over long distances than short distances. Ignore it, that is, until a flat earther uses perfectly-straight-line sun elevation observations to calculate the sun's elevation above a plane earth. For some reason, when doing that math, the light of the sun doesn't bend or curve at all.
Dude, the picture looks like a 3d render from 1997. I can't believe how much shit you guys are willing to shovel into your mouth from NASA just to keep your space fantasy alive.
I'm not ddebating the shape of the earth right now, I'm appealing to common sense here. That "photograph" looks phoney as hell, no debate.
Even on a spherical earth I do not believe in space travel and this graphic certainly doesn't convince me.
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+from+moon+apollo&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivkPrxzcjMAhVC8x4KHciKCgcQ_AUIBigB
Which is it? What does earth look like from the moon? How big does it look?
That's an awful lot of explaining.Suspension of disbelief at its finest.
Really? You want to talk about 'an awful lot of explaining' and 'suspension of disbelief' with us? The Flat Earth has BEST examples:
"Universal" Acceleration (http://wiki.tfes.org/Gravity), which accelerates the earth, moon, sun, and other celestial objects (if not, the earth would be catching up to and passing some of them) but not any of the objects on or near the earth (as in: when I release a bowling ball in the air above the earth, why does that bowling ball not feel "universal" acceleration and begin accelerating in the same direction as the earth, which would make it appear to hover?)
The Shadow Object (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse), the never-observed moon-like-thing that invisibly casts its shadow upon the moon during lunar eclipses, and otherwise leaves zero observational evidence of its existence.
Celestial Gears (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect), which supposedly explains both why we have wind on the earth's surface, and how the stars rotate one direction in the northern hemisphere while rotating the other way in the southern hemisphere, but fails to address the fact that such a system would look truly bizarre at the equator (the two halves of the sky would have to diverge from each other as they set, in order to rotate in opposite directions from northern and southern latitudes). And fails to address the fact that such a system is incompatible with the most popular flat earth 'map' on the site.
Bendy Light (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun), a convenient hypothetical construct that allows FE to completely ignore the fact that light travels in straight lines except where it is subject to refraction, and even there refraction functions to move light from one straight-line path to another straight-line path, is well understood, and shows no experimental justification for working differently over long distances than short distances. Ignore it, that is, until a flat earther uses perfectly-straight-line sun elevation observations to calculate the sun's elevation above a plane earth. For some reason, when doing that math, the light of the sun doesn't bend or curve at all.
Roundabout, has overwhelming condescension always been your dominating personality trait or is this just an aberration of your character?
It looks phoney to me because the surface looks smooth and shiny, in contradiction to any real dusty, dirt covered surface I've ever seen photographed, and in contradiction to what is shown in the thousands of other photos and videos of the surface allegedly captured by Apollo astronauts.
You know what, it does look fake.
At first glance, and then after much examination, this absolutely appears to be a 3d graphic lunar surface super imposed in front of a composite earth.
If someone told you this picture was a real selfie they took outside, would you believe it? Why or why not?
(http://s32.postimg.org/9c7eozsxx/gta_5_gamers_investigate_weird_explosions_sandy.jpg)
That's an awful lot of explaining. Just admit it looks fake. Doesn't even look like the surface from the fans Apollo footage, you think they would be consistent.
It's a terrible cgi, NASA needs a bigger budget, have you seen interstellar?
Roundabout, has overwhelming condescension always been your dominating personality trait or is this just an aberration of your character?
It looks phoney to me because the surface looks smooth and shiny, in contradiction to any real dusty, dirt covered surface I've ever seen photographed, and in contradiction to what is shown in the thousands of other photos and videos of the surface allegedly captured by Apollo astronauts.
If someone told you this picture was a real selfie they took outside, would you believe it? Why or why not?
(http://s32.postimg.org/9c7eozsxx/gta_5_gamers_investigate_weird_explosions_sandy.jpg)
Haha, excellent retort. I was actually thinking of doing this anyway, just to give TheTruthIsOnHere some ideas about how to approach the problem. For convenience, I hereby name foreground dude "Ringworm" and background dude "Peter Pan". Here goes...
1. Unexpected polygonal shadows in Ringworm's shirt indicates a low vertex count model.
2. Clearly this should be a dynamically lit environment, with a wide range of light levels. However, all shadows are equally lit. This indicates the use of a global ambient shader.
3. Ground texture becomes blurry in the back at sharp angles with the camera. Poor texture filtering.
4. Ground level wasn't very well defined: plant models begin underground, with branches/leaves coming straight out of the ground.
5. Peter Pan's shadow has escaped.
6. Aliasing everywhere.
1. The picture is taken from an old cell phone digital camera which obviously uses poor quality digital rendering software.I see what you are trying to do but the two do not equate.
2. See above. Digital cameras must digitally render images so this is expected with homie's decrepit Obamaphone and it's low-quality image rendering. Also, sunlight has the same intensity as expected.
3. This is a fault of the camera software. Not ever picture can come out looking perfect you know.
4. You don't live in this area and have no idea what the ground looks like. It is possible for leaves and branches to be placed in the ground - homie might have stuck them in there like a poor man's lawn flamingo to give the scene a certain je ne sais quoi
5. No, clearly he had hopped in the air the moment the picture was taken, as a goof.
6. Homie has a cheap sub-megapixel cell camera. Obamaphones aren't your iPhone 6S you know.
If someone told you this picture was a real selfie they took outside, would you believe it? Why or why not?
(http://s32.postimg.org/9c7eozsxx/gta_5_gamers_investigate_weird_explosions_sandy.jpg)
Haha, excellent retort. I was actually thinking of doing this anyway, just to give TheTruthIsOnHere some ideas about how to approach the problem. For convenience, I hereby name foreground dude "Ringworm" and background dude "Peter Pan". Here goes...
1. Unexpected polygonal shadows in Ringworm's shirt indicates a low vertex count model.
2. Clearly this should be a dynamically lit environment, with a wide range of light levels. However, all shadows are equally lit. This indicates the use of a global ambient shader.
3. Ground texture becomes blurry in the back at sharp angles with the camera. Poor texture filtering.
4. Ground level wasn't very well defined: plant models begin underground, with branches/leaves coming straight out of the ground.
5. Peter Pan's shadow has escaped.
6. Aliasing everywhere.
1. The picture is taken from an old cell phone digital camera which obviously uses poor quality digital rendering software.
2. See above. Digital cameras must digitally render images so this is expected with homie's decrepit Obamaphone and it's low-quality image rendering. Also, sunlight has the same intensity as expected.
3. This is a fault of the camera software. Not ever picture can come out looking perfect you know.
4. You don't live in this area and have no idea what the ground looks like. It is possible for leaves and branches to be placed in the ground - homie might have stuck them in there like a poor man's lawn flamingo to give the scene a certain je ne sais quoi
5. No, clearly he had hopped in the air the moment the picture was taken, as a goof.
6. Homie has a cheap sub-megapixel cell camera. Obamaphones aren't your iPhone 6S you know.
See how much fun this is? We could be doing this for the original picture, but you STILL haven't provided actual reasons why you think it is faked.
The point is that "just looking at it" isn't enough to prove a point. Every aspect of the image of the moon can be explained cohesively without resorting to CGI, and it is up to you to explain why this might not be the case.See how much fun this is? We could be doing this for the original picture, but you STILL haven't provided actual reasons why you think it is faked.
I was not talking about the original picture, I was addressing the nonsensical idea that something which appears to be an obvious fake should not be regarded as fake.
Did you really have to measure the vertex angles and polygon count, etc. before reaching the conclusion the GTA picture was fake, or could you, you know, figure it out right away just by looking at it?
Explaining something cohesively is the thing you don't have to do when something is obvious. Your brain is obviously at war with your own senses. The photo doesn't look real. No matter how many reasons you can come up with for why it doesn't, but still might be. If you choose to accept it that's your choice, but it just goes to show the type of low quality shit you'll accept as long as it's from your favorite space bureaucracy.Well to everyone but you this is not a obvious fake. We know the changed the contrast to make the picture clearer and that they added the color the earth to make it look pretty but it isn't like they didn't also offer up the unedited version of the picture for you too look at too. In the original the things you are having issues with are not there.
Did you really have to measure the vertex angles and polygon count, etc. before reaching the conclusion the GTA picture was fake, or could you, you know, figure it out right away just by looking at it?
Explaining something cohesively is the thing you don't have to do when something is obvious. Your brain is obviously at war with your own senses. The photo doesn't look real. No matter how many reasons you can come up with for why it doesn't, but still might be. If you choose to accept it that's your choice, but it just goes to show the type of low quality shit you'll accept as long as it's from your favorite space bureaucracy.
Explaining something cohesively is the thing you don't have to do when something is obvious. Your brain is obviously at war with your own senses. The photo doesn't look real. No matter how many reasons you can come up with for why it doesn't, but still might be. If you choose to accept it that's your choice, but it just goes to show the type of low quality shit you'll accept as long as it's from your favorite space bureaucracy.
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/data/support/downloads/Earth_and_Limb_M1199291564L_bw_1stretch.tif
Now that I'm being forced to explain why this image is fake, eventhough it should be obvious to anyone with no vested interest, I took a closer look. The shadows make absolutely no sense. Look at the ones in the lower part of the image and you can tell they are cast in a different direction than the ones in the middle, and the sizes of the shadows are bizarre. Thats probably what my eye rejected instinctively, but the saran wrap glossy texture is what I noticed the most.
Also explain the terminator line thing to me. Which angle is the sun light hitting this surface from? The shadows indicate like a 15~25 degree angle but that terminator line of black mountains certainly wouldn't make sense.
I'm so ashamed of myself right now for having had to explain that to you, by the way.
Perhaps he wore a latex face mask because he didn't want his real picture on the Internet? Hell, there's a guy over in my LLR Hoax thread who won't even reveal anything about a supposed UK astronomer he chats with on StackExchange who can cooberate his nonsensical claims. Lotta crazy people out there and identities must be hidden, right? ::)Did you really have to measure the vertex angles and polygon count, etc. before reaching the conclusion the GTA picture was fake, or could you, you know, figure it out right away just by looking at it?
No I didn't. As humans, we are quite proficient at facial recognition. We do it every day. It is relatively difficult to create a CGI face that can fool a person up close.
Perhaps he wore a latex face mask because he didn't want his real picture on the Internet? Hell, there's a guy over in my LLR Hoax thread who won't even reveal anything about a supposed UK astronomer he chats with on StackExchange who can cooberate his nonsensical claims. Lotta crazy people out there and identities must be hidden, right? ::)Did you really have to measure the vertex angles and polygon count, etc. before reaching the conclusion the GTA picture was fake, or could you, you know, figure it out right away just by looking at it?
No I didn't. As humans, we are quite proficient at facial recognition. We do it every day. It is relatively difficult to create a CGI face that can fool a person up close.
See, it's really easy to just make shit up about why something fake "could" be real.
You know what, it does look fake.
Thank you for keeping it real. The whole bit about parallel lines and what not is apples and oranges.
At first glance, and then after much examination, this absolutely appears to be a 3d graphic lunar surface super imposed in front of a composite earth.
Maybe they will say the lunar surface is just mapped out from data and not an actual photograph, that might make sense. But to try to pass this off as a genuine photograph is just plain amateur. I've seen so much better cgi in movies, that looks even believable, and even then I always spot it.
Here's the Japanese equivalent for comparison, and even these look way more realistic. (https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+earth+rise+moon+photo&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi68JvCxcnMAhXDZCYKHbaCC44Q_AUIBigB)
This whole damn thread is a useless moot point because you guys don't believe it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I hate these threads. They accomplish nothing for anyone entirely because this arguement goes both ways.
I have been able to determine whether or not I should walk on that shiny reflective surface through prior experience that it may be slippery.
They did a terrible job of making the shadows accurately project according to a fixed light source.
I don't need further analysis when it can't even pass the smell test.
The Earth should be as small as the moon looks from Earth.
The Earth should be as small as the moon looks from Earth.
No it shouldn't. How did you come to this conclusion?
It's all in the lenses Chris.
(http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/moonsilhouettes.jpg?itok=EHAD-yHg)
Zoom lenses!
It's all in the lenses Chris.
(http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/moonsilhouettes.jpg?itok=EHAD-yHg)
Zoom lenses!
That picture has been doctored. The only thing that has been zoom is the moon.
It's all in the lenses Chris.
(http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/moonsilhouettes.jpg?itok=EHAD-yHg)
Zoom lenses!
That picture has been doctored. The only thing that has been zoom is the moon.
Orr... you just don't realize that the picture is from very far away.
Very far away? Foreground is sharp , grass outlines are sharp. Moon super fuzzy. This is a spectacular picture, but it does not explain the NASA picture. Both the foreground and background are equally sharp in the NASA picture....
I don't know about that one, but I believe this one is genuine:
It's all in the lenses Chris.(http://www.popphoto.com/sites/popphoto.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/moonsilhouettes.jpg?itok=EHAD-yHg)
Zoom lenses!
That picture has been doctored. The only thing that has been zoom is the moon.
A related genre is the "I-don't-understand-why-this-piece-of-equipment-looks-this-way-therefore-fake" category. For a classic example, see this Wiki page:
http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander (http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander)