No.36033[Last 50 Posts]
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36034
>>36033
Since when is earth lime green?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36035
>>36033
That looks like Chile back on earth. The reason it looks like the moon is a CAD model is because of greenscaling to make the picture more crisp, hence the lack of stars.
What are you seeing, OP? Don't be a faggot.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36069
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36074
>>36033
The color is most likely caused by chromatic aberration of the purple/green variety.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration
To the left is an intense example of red/cyan chromatic aberration. What this means is that the photo is probably not doctored, but it's just a really shit photo because NASA can damn sure put a camera into space but apprently they lack the knowledge of adjusting the shutter speed appropriately. The moon looks so blurr because of motion, meaning their shutter speed was too low to capture the Moon without movement.
Also, while CA is typically caused by a bad lens, it can also be caused by blur (such as motion blur, or improper focus).
So, a better question instead of "is this fake?" might be "why does a photo of the back of the moon look so shitty if they have nothing to hide?"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36077
 | Rolled 708, 333, 261, 159, 979, 318, 445, 683, 11, 82, 474, 711, 453, 435, 49, 183, 48, 600, 390, 346, 14, 645, 631, 80, 45, 561, 338, 840, 714, 88, 654, 397, 420, 915, 555, 375, 208, 1000, 34, 218, 58, 507, 929, 511, 942, 977, 693, 990, 553, 58, 311, 566, 703, 942, 645, 748, 479, 983, 563, 168, 46, 193, 564, 466, 83, 95, 841, 291, 70, 874, 508, 127, 357, 413, 637, 274, 366, 305, 239, 918, 362, 550, 460, 40, 467, 80, 788, 945, 39, 326, 89, 84, 519, 652, 550, 602, 746, 366, 892, 816, 216, 376, 942, 572, 788, 555, 846, 129, 860, 60, 23, 198, 610, 482, 238, 52, 562, 1, 997, 600, 327, 61, 684, 845, 713, 210, 423, 434, 576, 291, 226, 791, 667, 143, 338, 431, 698, 159, 560, 533, 219, 582, 730, 828, 40, 967, 880, 602, 967, 852, 178, 269, 913, 861, 90, 601, 47, 513, 11, 622, 804, 236, 388, 446, 379, 725, 876, 52, 884, 412, 585, 78, 994, 290, 906, 9, 233, 762, 610, 176, 589, 787, 445, 478, 624, 534, 54, 670, 23, 64, 268, 826, 299, 655, 247, 677, 356, 99, 728, 215 = 93238 (200d1024) |
Doesn't look like anything
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36080
>>36069
It probably is fake but why is hosted on NASA's official website along with all of the other supposed pictures of earth?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36081
The proportions of the USA look a little different from other official NASA photos of earth.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36103
The fakery; is that the MOON is tidely locked; we cannot see the back side. But on the picture we should see the backside, instead we see the FRONT!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36107
>Doesn't look like anything
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36115
>>36080
Fake just like all their shit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36125
Weird that this photo and that one seem to use the same source of the shot of the moon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36130
The straight lines though?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36137
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36144
>>36033
NASA (pics 1-3) and the chinese (pic 4) note the scale.
It's so clear to see that the NASA pics are mook-ups, models, or CGI, aka FAKE aka NOT REAL aka LIES.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36146
>>36144
another thing to point out, pics 1&2 are from the same event according to nasa, but why doesn't the angle of the picture of the moon change? it looks as if they just moved a static image across the face of the spinning globe, should not the moon have rotated some also thereby changing what the camera can/can't see. Hmmm. nice try nasa.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36148
>>36144
Are those supposed to be genuine?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36149
>>36148
Yes, 3 NASA photos, one Chinese.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36157
>>36146
>nice try nasa
It was an appalling effort really.. With their budget they should've had James Cameron up in that shit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36160
>>36146
Indeed, tidely locked means rotates with earth, so that the face to the earth never changes.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36735
>>36033
They didn't even get the proportions right. The Moon is way further from Earth than shown on the "picture(s)/mosaic". The Moon looks like CGI generated. Old pictures show a way more complex and cratered surface than on the "lighter" side. The photograph had to be taken from a huge distance further from the Moon to look this small meaning the Earth should be even smaller on the picture. See pictures related to have a proper feel about it. The calculations shown on the picture are some historical crap about Moon being closer many many years back than nobody cares about. The distance compared to their sizes is way fucking more. Let me be conservative and say the Earth is roughly 4 times bigger in diameter. Now imagine the Earth in the place of the Moon as you stand on it. 4 times bigger. Not that big as on the picture (take in account the pic is taken ever further away). The picture had to be taken hundreds of thousands of miles away from the Moon for it to take up that much of vision. Lets be conservative and say its fish eye lenses BUT STILL the proportions of the Earth and the Moon are fucked. Also the shadows, "textures" and lighting of the Moon looks worse than Kerbal Space Program on low settings. It looks like it was roughly pasted and warped onto the picture. also: wherearethestars.exe WTF NASA
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36740
>>36033
It's not just the fact that the moon looks like a bad CGI model. The earth should be much smaller from that distance. So yeah, this is obviously fake. Who thought it was a good idea to release this photo?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36823
>implying space is real
>implying moon landing
>implying NASA isn't a MKUltra black budget
>implying the earth is round
>implying the ether doesn't exist
>implying the moon isn't an alien satellite
>implying there aren't alien bases on the dark side of the moon
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36845
> implying the moon isn't cheese
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36904
HELLLLOOOOO?
mindfuck warning:
>>>/zenpol/2186
read this post and all posts and their images down from there. also read the archive in the first image and the posts with the same images.
YOU WILL GET MINDFUCKED
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36905
>directly linking to nasa.gov on fucking 8chan
break your links you fool
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.36951
y'all need celestia and to remember field of view
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.37153
>>36103
The picture was taken from behind with a probe
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.37242
Stop bullshit like this, you're all slowing down scientific progress by corrupting the Impressionable, Its fucking fake jesus christ.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.37330
>>36033
its a composite image
red green and blue are put together and each layer enhanced to get a clear picture
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.37951
>>36144
The difference lays on the field of view of the camera; that depends on the lens used. Earth is incredibly huge, so the tiniest of the change in the lens can be seen in the picture. Or at least that's what seems most reasonable for me.
What I don't really get is how far is the satellite that took the picture.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42412
Have you ever realized that the flat earth started because NASA fakes their photos and NASA fakes their photos so they don't show Alium spaceships on camera?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42414
>>42412
I’ve noticed this. Everything space related is fake
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42415
>>42412
I thought flat earth theory was started hundreds of years ago by retarded Christians, why do we need to blame NASA for everything? Also I don't think UFOs are spaceships anyway, but I might be wrong on that.
t. Totally not a NASA shill.
>>42414
Do you realise there are many agencies around the world that study space? And even many thousands of private individuals?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42418
>>36035
I have a question for you, why is it that you can see more detail of the moon with your bare eyes from earth compared to this windows paint quality cgi moon?
I left out calling you a faggot because I don't want to state something obvious than that, but you must be full of shit and sucking nasa cocks on a daily basis to believe this is real
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42420
>>36951
This.
The distance from the viewer to the first object, the second object, and the relation between the two distances determine the proportions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42421
Ok, some years ago i learned that some pics can be used to curse people (spic living in south america, that shit is normal here) nasa pic gave that feeling, not sure how, but from inside the lines and that crater in the 'north' of the triangle has something special and earth pic looks normal, like it was another pic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42432
>>42421
can you repeat that?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42444
>>42432
If trips you dont deserve any answer.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42508
1. Pic looks weird because it's not A pic. It's a composite of many.
2. No one is getting banned for questioning it. At most, they're getting banned for being shit tier conspiritards in places where that is just exasperating. Not everywhere is /pol/, /x/. Learn to read a room faggot.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42523
>>36033
Why would anyone question it? What are they saying?
>>36034
That's just an artifact. Chromatic aberration.
>>36125
It's not using the same source shot of the moon, it's a second photo of the far side of the moon. The terrain hasn't changed much since the first probes photographed the far side. It would be pretty shocking if the terrain were substantially changed since the last photos were taken, especially if there were no heavy bombardment event to explain radical alterations.
>>36130
All of them radiate out from impact craters. They're either cracks or ridges of deposited material. Since there is effectively no air on the moon they don't really weather away and impacts from millions of years ago are still visible today.
>>36144
It's the same object photographed by different probes orbiting the moon at different altitudes. All of the major and minor discernible features are present in each and in the same locations.
>>36735
Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
What is wrong with you people? Orbital mechanics of the moon and planets were worked out when computer and calculator were job titles instead of devices. This shit has been grade school level science for a long ass time.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.42570
Pic was taken on July 16, 2015. The earth and moon are lit as if the sun was directly behind the picture's point of origin, putting the celestial bodies in a solar eclipse. The problem? 1 - There was no solar eclipse on that day. 2 - The moon's shadow is missing.
So how do you explain this anomaly? Simple. OP did not post the GIF from the same page, which clearly breaks the optical illusion. The moon is actually in transit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.43076
>>42570
Still doesn't look right to me, nasanon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.43077
>>42570
It looks like a 3D model from an early 00s educational CD.
>But it came from NASA, anon! Don't you trust authorities?
No, I don't.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.43078
>>43077
What would be the purpose of faking this? Humour me, please?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.43079
>>43078
To hide something they don't want us to see, maybe? Or just to see if they could get away with it. I don't really know.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.43121
>>43079
Probably their hidden space fleet, as discovered by Gary McKinnon, the Black Knight, or something else.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.43123
>>43078
Frankenstein gangster gods.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.44849
>>36144
FOV you dumbass! Why is /x/ so retarded, god damn!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.44851
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.45508
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.52670
>>44849
Why is this image so weird? It's very obviously edited, but why? I know this guy is some sort of musician who got into aliens, but why would he fake this image?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.52704
Okay I'll try giving an explanation here or at least a possibility of what I believe is happening in the gif's and media here.
The average camera, is complete garbage at taking photo's. Even things like film are susceptible but digital cameras especially, are fully fucked in terms of detail.
And let's remember here that in regards to filming shit that's extremely far away like UFO's, who are 100+ miles up in the sky, the quality becomes even worse no matter how stable you get it, because of the sheer distance.
Then let's also account for the fact that Nasa then has to render these photos in their own specific image renders, as Gary Mckinnon said, they have a different file extension than .png, or .jpg's. He never claimed this was high quality stuff from space, just that is existed, and knowing the US government, these files are likely more for encryption and security than quality.
Nasa has openly admitted to editing multiple photos of space. They claim this is to make it more view able to the public, but is most likely also to hide UFO's. Nasa probably takes these low quality time lapsed jpeg's and edits them on 3d models to show things more properly most likely, and in doing so make it look clearer but without the added blur and light coming off stars, the sun, and ufo's the whole thing is an uncanny valley.
Nasa then has to transfer these images to jpg's and release them to the public for them to eat up. Remember it's likely that these images weren't even made as some big showcase for the public, rather than they're most likely made for some DIY 3rd grade teacher to add to her curriculum to show to kids who will literally forget what they learned 5 minutes later.
So shitty camera in hazardous environment that's literally the worst for camera's>transfer either via satellite digitally or through film collecting for miles doing God knows what to the image into a very specific file which let's also recall that for some cameras such as the so called "black hole" image, they need 900,000 lines of code or some bullshit like that to have a computer render each pixel into a bare bones terrible image>edited to shit, starts, sun, ufo's, shadows, all edited out>converted to jpg and png>uploaded for minimal public consumption.
Tl;dr: Space+Pictures mixes so badly, you literally cannot believe it without seeing it with your own eyes because of how shitty all cameras are in space period. There's this guy named John on YouTube who uses a $9000 telescope to film spaceships like the one's seen by Gary Mckinnon and the moon to scout out potential structures. Shit's all real and it's extremely blurry, shaky, the 3 major colors, red, green, and blue, often outline shapes because they lag behind stressing to produce the image which can still be seen in some of these, the sheer fact that we're able to view abstract figures that looks like small glitches is in itself amazing. Point being that fuck space images.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.