I believe a great deal of the "information," in the images.
I do not believe the compilation of the "information," is correct and much of it is altered to render a false visual.
All of you have effectively agreed with my point.
NASA produces images that do not accurately depict things in a true way.
It is a false visual.
How can you be this slow?
I am not slow.
We've already pointed out it was a fisheye lens.
You got a mouse in your pocket?
Are you royalty?
Who tf is "we"?
Are you writing for others or the alts you have?
I gave you link which said the photo was taken with a fisheye lens. No one here is lying or presenting it as a picture taken from the ISS with a normal camera. It is explicitly said to be taken with a fisheye lens.
How can you be so slow?
I never claimed it was taken by any particular sort of camera.
You and supposedly other legitimate RE adherents have offered the type of camera used.
I write "supposedly legitimate," due to the fact you use the word,"we."
And how does one image prove NASA's other images are fake?
How can you be so slow?
I have, for the record, never stated in this thread any NASA images are fake, including the two I presented.
I have stated NASA images provide a false visual rendering of the subject matter.
You have provided no evidence this one image is representative of NASA's other images.
Don't need to.
In fact, let's test you. You claim NASA's other images are fake.
Again, where have I claimed NASA's other images are fake?
I have provided two images (purported to be from NASA) in response to a query posed by AATW:
OK, and what is your evidence for that belief and what are your qualifications and expertise in this area?
Surely that belief is based on something?
Enlighten us with your superior photoanalysis that does not even take into account the kind of camera or lens used.
First, enlighten the readers you have the ability to be intellectually and philosophically consistent.
Then I may consider writing down what you assign to me that I have never claimed to posses.
I have merely claimed I DO NOT NEED TO POSSESS superior photoanalysis skills when it comes recognizing NASA admitting to issuing composites, layered and shaded photographs, and other forms of BS.
This is a picture taken with the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera onboard NOAA's Deep Space Climate Observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory) orbiting the earth.
Yeah, so?
Does that look like an image produced by, "10 different channels from ultraviolet to near-infrared."
Doesn't to me.
It looks like it has undergone further rendering.
Image link: https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2019/02/13/png/epic_1b_20190213002713.png
The image isn't a composite or anything, it's one single frame. Tell us why it's fake without falling back to handwaving.
Same with this image.
According to your own source, EPIC uses: "The Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) takes images of the sunlit side of Earth for various Earth science monitoring purposes in 10 different channels from ultraviolet to near-infrared."
So the final image, as you present, must, by definition, be further rendered.
No telling what the rendering process produces.
In other words, a false VISUAL RENDERING, just like I originally wrote.