Come on dude.. really REALLY????

>>8361771
what?

See, if the moon was that big and close to the earth, it would fall. Also, if the earth was flat, why cant i see Austrailia?

>>8361778
You need really good binoculars

File: NASADISCOVRimagery.jpg (3KB, 332x45px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 332x45px

>>8361771

>>8361778
>why cant i see Austrailia?

>>8361771
Yah really. Now do the math on the angular diameter of Earth and the moon

This argument makes me laff.
God bless special needs nasa conspiracy nuts so the rest of us can gloat with pride that why are not as dumb as atleast a few retards.

>>8361832

if you buy that fucking SHITTY ASS picture, you are special needs as fuck.

that picture is a NUTSACK of SHIT

it looks like BALLS

and SHIT

mfw that was supposed to be real picture

mfwIhnf

Flat earth theory forgot about:

plate tectonics/central heat.

Gravity.

God/santa are not real.

4 seasons.

Earths magnetic field.

Rings of saturn are visible from home telescopes.

Extended hrs of day/night in extreme north

>>8361849
What did you expect? Aliens and shit?

>>8361877
>>8361778

im not sayin the earth is flat, im just simply saying that this picture looks bogus as fuck.

i dont know the reason behind it. Im quite sure the earth and moon are both big spheres connected by gravity but the authenticity of this picture i have doubts


like maybe the satellite didnt really do what it was supposed to do and they are trying to cover up failure so as not to look like theyve wasted money


im sure a picture just like this is possible, but this looks like complete shit. its like one of those composites they used to release or something, but of the earth and moon in the same picture

>>8361771
I'm pretty sure thats not even the moon

A poor res pic cropped into a circle posted by an underpaid meteorologist who prob found the image on google doesnt prove the earth is round

>>8361891
Nevermind it is

>>8361771
Well its clearly a fake photo, but what's your point?

>>8361771
It's a computer generated composite photo of a long exposure. It looks fucked up because the two bodies moved while taking the photo graph and a computer tried to realign everything.

>>8361900
OP here, my point is I'm a tremendous faggot and love sucking cocks

>>8361932

simply memetastic

hilarious to the MAX

i laughed, shared, subscribed, and then laughed again

keep em comin'

>>8361924
there's also the fact that it's hard to tell the distance between two objects separated by vacuum

what the fuck is up with the stupid treads today?

>>8361883
>it looks wrong so im going to say its wrong

>>8361984
no and no

>>8362028
The picture actually is shopped though

OP is a faggot:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/07/13/why-nasas-new-photos-of-the-moon-look-super-fake-even-though-theyre-not/

Here OP, why don't you look at the satellite data yourself, fag:http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dscovr/portal/index.html#/

prove it's fake

>>8362034
well his argument is silly anyways

>>8362042
And it seems I was wrong anyway. That is an actual unmodified photo

>>8361778
>Your average /pol/ poster.

File: googlemapairplane.jpg (117KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 620x400px

>>8361849
>>8361892
>>8361900

What is your problem? That is normal for that type of photography. It gets worse the faster the object moves.

>>8362071
I already admitted I was wrong and it wasnt the artifact that made me think it was shopped in the first place

>>8361883
You dingus! This image was created to show the moons size in reference to earth.

I don't get what looks fake about this picture.

>>8362092
No it wasnt, its an actual photo of the moon passing in front of the earth taken by DSCVR

>>8361883
I don't believe this image was advertised as a real picture having been taken. Have you ever seen the picture of Earth taken on the moon? It's a lot smaller than that. This image was most likely made from a picture of the moon and a separate picture of earth both scaled the same and superimposed to show their relative sizes. You can also tell because that's the side of the moon that faces earth.

You're an idiot.

File: HOLLOW_EARTH__Giant_Hole_over_the_North_Pole__32895.jpg (51KB, 579x533px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 579x533px

I saw that on NASA's facebook page a while ago. They had a full video not just a picture of the "moon" moving across the "Earth" Its strange a lot of old photos of the Earth have holes in them. Somethings going on...

>>8362106
>its an actual photo of the moon passing in front of the earth taken by DSCVR

File: earths1.jpg (32KB, 306x288px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 306x288px

NASA even admits ALL of their new pictures of Earth are edited because they "Have to be" I'll post the video hold on

File: 14141724_1312399198771779_4662443866073286567_n.jpg (68KB, 599x759px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 599x759px

>>8362106

>>8362116
>its an actual photo of the moon passing in front of the earth taken by DSCVR

>>8362106
A: that's obviously not the side of the moon that faces the earth, do you even lack the ability to go outside and look up?
B: It looks superimposed because the moon has no atmospheric blur.
also:
>durr it looks smaller
Are you genuinely a retard? Have you never heard of a telescopic lens? How about the idea that this distant global observation satellite has a higher resolution camera than the little 60s/early 70s hand cameras the moon astronauts had

>>8362071
Does this have anything to do with relativity?

https://youtu.be/wyRbc28PSrI

>>8361771
is that the asteroid? i thought it was still days away??

>>8362040
>Citing the Washington Post in a debate on science

Anways, the FOV on that camera is way narrower than a human eye, and thus looks strange.

Are we being raided by >>>/x/?

File: 14233158_1838804353023084_1415403631252890783_n.jpg (54KB, 940x960px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 940x960px

https://youtu.be/8AOO8R6Q86s

>>8362139
The 2007 shot was probably done at a higher altitude with a lower field-of-view. The horizontal distance to the horizon is a function of height.

File: 14237528_770566833046758_4866694349017857135_n.jpg (20KB, 395x480px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 395x480px

>>8362161

>>8362134
No. It's because the camera can only take in one color at a time. It takes a picture for each color one after the other very rapidly and puts them together. But a fast object changes position noticeably during these shots so when you put them together the image looks shifted.

File: zz1+%282%29.jpg (47KB, 400x286px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x286px

>>8362168
Funny because the clouds didnt even move in the multiple pictures taken when the moon passed over Earth in the original picture OP posted

>>8362168
Okay, thanks.

>It's because the camera can only take in one color at a time.
So were these satellites designed like this just to keep cost down, or is there some actual technical limitation preventing them from taking a picture of all the wavelengths at the same time?

>>8362172
They did move though.

>>8362176
Composite image.

>hurr clouds didn't move! See it's fake!
>hurr clouds moved! See it's fake!

>>8362185
I dont see them movin, and when did I say they did move so it must be fake? Lmfao you dont know what youre talking about. https://youtu.be/DMdhQsHbWTs

File: earthmoon.jpg (21KB, 879x447px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 879x447px

relative size and distance of earth and moon.

>>8362183
No, it's because you have to choose between having all colors at once or between capturing all the detail at once. The latter is better for taking a picture of something that isn't moving (much). In order to capture color you have to filter out 2 colors from each sensor.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm

>>8362172
How fast do you think clouds move on a global scale?
Each pixel of that image represents 20km
And actually, you can see the slight movement in the form of chromatic aberration. Some of the clouds appear more reddish on their left sides and greenish on their right because they moved slightly and screwed up the color composite.

>>8362172
I can see rotation in the cyclone, but maybe that's just me. Most of these clouds aren't moving fast enough to notice a change.

>>8362192
>I dont see them movin
So you don't know, it just appears that they didn't move to your naked eye. Thank you for admitting that.

>when did I say they did move so it must be fake?
You didn't, that's just what you implied when you said that a composite image was "mirrored". The reason the clouds appear in different places in the same image is because they are composed of images taken at different times, and since the clouds, earth, and satellite moved in between the pictures.

>>8362208
If that was true the image would shift to the side not completely flip. No I didnt imply that you just have your head way too far up your own ass. Take your antidepressants and swallow them down with fluoridated water dumbass

>>8362208
Implying you "know" ffs we're here to discuss possibilities if you believe this bullshit nasa is feeding you I hope you choke on it.

>>8362215
You're completely right actually. The image was flipped... by Flat Earth idiots. Those are the only people who have posted that photo anywhere. NASA never even took the photo.

File: Screenshot_2016-09-21-23-28-42.png (1MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2560px

>>8362220
Does the Scientific American fall under that category? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-bus-size-asteroid-just-gave-earth-a-close-shave/

>>8362243
Ah that bastion of scientific data and imagery: Flickr

You fucking moron

>>8362197
That was a good read.

>>8362250
You said nobody used that image except for flat earthers

>>8362253
So what? It's a strawman, just admit it. No scientist ever produced it.

File: FullMoon2010.jpg (2MB, 2580x2452px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2580x2452px

>>8362125
It's upside down and at a vastly different contrast, but that is most certainly the side of the moon facing us. You can tell by the Tycho crater. Picture of the back of the moon for comparison to come!

File: images.jpg (7KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 275x183px

>>8362125
>>8362266
Hey where did that large crater with arms that stretch a fourth of the way around the moon go? Oh right, it's on the front side of the moon.

>>8362263
Either way nasa scientists admit to editing all their photos. I never said it came from nasa I was just pointing out that it was fake and clearly it's being passed around on the scientific american for everyone to see and think its real.

File: wrongagainidiot.jpg (120KB, 1230x604px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1230x604px

>>8362266
>>8362274
Read the filename.

This is too easy.

>>8362290
>Either way nasa scientists admit to editing all their photos.
>Video starts by showing The Blue Marble photo from 1972 which is unedited
This troll is lazy, try harder.

>>8362290
>clearly it's being passed around on the scientific american for everyone to see and think its real.
Or because it's a pretty picture for a magazine. But keep trying, I'm sure you'll eventually figure out this whole human intention thing.

>>8362294
No I know I just figured with all the /x/posting going on right now I'd just make shit up and see how far I could go with it.

I'm not even the guy you originally replied to.

>>8362331
well, that person who rebutted you wasn't even me so I guess we're even

>>8362331
>Jokes on you, I was only pretending to be retarded

File: Moon Earth.gif (2MB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x600px

Full .gif of the series of photos.

>>8362162
the map follows the mercador projection. its fiction.

>>8362168
>>8362134
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

This effect has been quite trendy for a while now.

File: moon_transit.jpg (9KB, 241x241px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 241x241px

They will never show us a close-up of the far side, too many geometrical structures.

>>8361778
>t would fall
It DOES fall you silly Willy

>>8361883
You don't even know what to look for, idiot. How can you say it looks bogus, you compare it to a lot of other pictures that compare the moon and earth?

Give up on yourself.

File: image.png (982KB, 1337x663px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 1337x663px

>>8362593

Here you go

File: farside1.jpg (65KB, 619x718px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 619x718px

>>8362593
Real close-ups are all censored.

>>8363349
That's not censorship, that's stitching.