NASA really expects me to believe this is a legitimate picture huh

Alright I'll bite, why do you think it isn't?

>>9113292
Looks flat to me

>>9113297
Well for one the moon looks absolutely fake. It's almost CGI tier. Also the suns position according to this picture is right behind whatever camera took this and yet the moon looks completely dull but when I see a full moon from earth in a big city I may add the moon looks very bright.

>>9113313
Well, that's because a photograph *is* flat.

Let's see.. this si an obvious trol thread, so I guess I should add, "retard," and something about your mother, but it's not worth the effort to think up something.

>>9113325
How is this a troll thread?

>>9113320
The moon only looks bright because it's in the dark night sky. Moon rock is a very dull grey - as seen when the moon is juxtaposed with an actually bright object, such as the 'full Earth'.

>>9113325
Bluepilled af

>>9113330
>>9113364
You must be new here.
You think flat Earth threads haven't shown up here like every day for the past several years? You just happened by when there was a lull.

>>9113320
>>9113337
Adding to that, the photo is showing a side of the Moon we never see from Earth. Therefore you have no idea what it really looks like, except from photos that were taken from much lower orbit.

>>9113374
Brainlet af

>>9113382
Perfect troll response. You're so predictable.

>>9113374
Only a dumbass thinks that if you are skeptical about NASA you must be a flatearther

>>9113389
So what's your beef then?

>>9113337
Not the same guy but I look at the moon 24/7 any time of the day that I want and it usually looks pretty whiteish to me. From 7am to 12 pm to 3 pm to 5pm I can see it any time of the day any day of the month any day of the year.

>>9113385
Boujee af

File: checkershadow-AB.jpg (54KB, 540x420px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 540x420px

>>9113398

>>9113398
Really? Go out there *right now* and tell us what it looks like.

File: 1502922098693.jpg (714KB, 1586x1024px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 1586x1024px

>>9113292
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52a0Xjuaixo

NASA never got past the Van Allen belts

>>9113413
You never got past grade school.

>>9113402
I see them as the same shade of gray, the brain simply identifies a pattern beyond the shadows but it doesn't trick you if you are smart enough. We can see the night sky just like such supposed camera sees it, in both cases the sun is behind us the moon reflects its light.

>>9113320
>CGI tier
This is entirely the problem with this generation. They see movies and think everything needs to look somehow different from their expectations or it's not real.

Unless you can come up with something better than 'it seems like it to me' you have absolutely no ground to stand on.

>>9113402
It's really hard to believe that people are surprised with this to the point of using it as an argument.

File: 2868355915_55c531a994_b.jpg (282KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1024x768px

>>9113402

>>9113423
Of course. Because you're smart. That's the ticket. Sure. There's probably even a comic book out about your prowess. That's perfect enough evidence for me to assert the pics are all fake. I'll change my life now, thank you.

>>9113437
No.

>>9113320
>it looks fake
>therefore it is actually fake
if you're going to troll at least do it not quite so retardedly
If your'e serious, pol likes reasoning skills like that

>>9113488
You are free to believe whatever you want. If you want to stop thinking because it leads to uncomfortable conclusions, you are free to do so. The kind of rhetoric you bring to the table is ineffective, you are just projecting what would affect you here, it is hard to explain this to a low IQ person who has no argument but I think you will get it since you are on /sci/ after all.

>>9113558
>backpedaling
>cop out
>muh believe what you want
>but i am only offering da troof / da fax
oh yeah I haven't seen that before anywhere at any other time anon
You have shown me the error of my ways
2/10

>>9113292
NASA foolishly expected you to understand how a camera works,and shit like that.

>>9113320
>Well for one the moon looks absolutely fake.

It's the side of the moon you can't see from Earth, it looks different. No maria, for one thing.

File: globe_comparison_with_distance (2).jpg (276KB, 1600x700px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1600x700px

>>9113413

File: 399304.jpg (81KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x600px

>>9113611
Here is another NASA photo, looks different than OP's. Earth suddenly has an atmosphere, the lighting is different, observe how you can see city lights in this one. Compare the moon in this one, see more and do the math for the what you would expect from the moon's tidal lock. There is more.

Earth and Moon. Photo: NASA ESA via Wikimedia (Public Domain).

>>9113292
The ISS is 254 miles from earth

The Moon is 238900 miles from earth

Unless I'm mistaken about the origin of this picture, I'm pretty sure it's going to use some editing to illustrate what the moon looks like from the other side. Is this just a lame attempt by flat earthers to discredit NASA? Because if it is, it's really pathetic

File: 1503108633680.jpg (405KB, 1600x700px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1600x700px

>>9113616
These are different Angles, not distances, and there is not great difference in color.

>>9113616
The NASA photos are cut on distance, all the Earths in my image have the same circular area, you can measure it yourself. First image was taken above 22 thousand miles, second above 28 thousand miles, fourth 930 thousand miles. Your picture seems to be about angles, distance is completely out of math.

>>9113661
Are you serious? Try to take a moment to think about what the first picture would look like if you tilted it a bit as opposed to the last picture, the last one is clearly farther away from the camera than the first one. Or, if you really think you are onto something, grab a fucking globe and test it yourself.

>>9113644
>Unless I'm mistaken about the origin of this picture
You are. You could've done a reverse image lookup, but here you go. One of cooler sites:
www orlandosentinel com/
news/space/84151616-132.html

>>9113644
Picture in the op was taken NASA's DSCOVER probe located at L1. It's a composite of several images that were taken in rapid succession using different color filters and overlaid ontop each other. If you zoom in on the edge of the moon you can actually see a band of color along the edge where the moon moved between the images.

>>9113706
Thank you for linking me to something

I didn't know what DSCOVR was and as such assumed the only photography we could take close to earth was the ISS, my mistake.

Now that I have a reason to believe these photos could be taken, I think I'd revert to >>9113488 's argument, especially since I don't really get the "it's obvious CG" because the moon in the photos don't really look edited to me in the first place

File: satellites-geostationnaires.jpg (569KB, 1596x2032px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1596x2032px

>>9113677
Yes, I am serious. Just get yourself a globe and measure distances and see if after 20 thousand miles it should make a difference. See also if color changes magically.

>>9113320
Look at the open sky. Where are the stars? You can't see them because the exposure of the photo was set to the brightness of the light reflecting off the moon so you can see the moon.

>>9113865
If you adjust the brightness to capture the stars you can still see the moon however. You don't have choose between either moon or stars. Think.

>>9113292
NASA also expects you to believe that pi isn't equal to 4.

>>9113870
You can see the Moon exists, but all detail gets washed out from oversaturation. So... do you want a picture of the Moon, or of the stars? It's a choice, and the Moon is usually the target, because if you want to take pictures of stars, you usually wait until the Moon isn't there.

>>9113292
NASA doesn't expect anything from you.
You don't exist to them.
They might have a chuckle or eye roll at your expense if they were forced to learn about you.

>>9113870
yeah you can still "see" the moon if the exposure was set to background luminescence, except it would a big blinding white light like OP was expecting. This picture is nice because you can see the surface, not just a big white light. Think.

http://nerdist.com/still-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked-heres-more-proof-they-werent/

>>9113292
>>9113297
Picture just plain looks fake as shit. It's fucking 2017 ffs. It shouldn't be hard to do shit like this in a believable way.

>>9113922
Nope, you can regulate maximum brightness as well.

File: 1503099486652.jpg (11KB, 400x387px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x387px

>>9113922
>EXCEPT IT WOULD BE A BIG BLINDING ORB OF PURE WHITE MOON URANIUM SHINING LIKE WHITE FIRE YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE

>>9113997
Oaky. Go do it, and prove it to us. Take your camera, in two weeks (when it's Full) shoot a pic of the Moon and make sure we can clearly see details on its surface, and show us how many stars you got.

>>9113961
Go for it.

>>9113292
Back when the moon landings happened it was more expensive to fake them than to actually do it.

Came to /sci/
this thread
not going to /x/
I mean /sci/ again
for a month.

Flat earth threads have been around for at least 4 years. If you're just now getting upset about those threads, perhaps you shouldn't have left reddit to begin with.

>>9113616
literally different globes each photo

>>9113292
Lol so fake you can see the green edge of the greenscreen at the moon

>>9113292

>NASA

Fairly certain DSCOVR is managed by NOAA, not NASA.

File: cg70Zbd.jpg (224KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1920x1080px

ignore flat earthers
ignore retards who don't understand photography
ignore trolls

this is now a neat space pictures thread

File: OXw4s6R.jpg (97KB, 1000x700px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1000x700px

>>9114450

File: oCFgXju.gif (981KB, 396x628px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 396x628px

>>9114451

>>9114452
If this is a real picture, where are the stars?
Checkmate globedrones

File: SX8Pc00.webm (582KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 720x404px

>>9114452

>>9114458
>moon is bigger than earth
How can anyone believe this shit?

>>9114454

For the same reason you can't see the stars during the day.

The Earth in full sunlight is many thousands of times brighter than the stars.

>>9114459

>spacecraft can't be closer to the Moon than the Earth

jej

File: shuttle_01_2560x1600.jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>9114458

File: FDGwnBK.jpg (1MB, 5287x5287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5287x5287px

>>9114465

The OP's image was taken using a spectroradiometer, "polychromatic camera." Which is pretty much one of the worst cameras you can use for such photography. I'm sure if they could mount an off the shelf Canon, Nikon, or Fuji camera on board without the cold/heat breaking them they would. Then we'd have spectacular photos.

File: 3BSlWn3.jpg (1MB, 4826x4826px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4826x4826px

>>9114470

>>9114472
>The images were captured by NASA's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC), a four megapixel CCD camera and telescope on the DSCOVR satellite
>DSCOVR satellite launched in 2015

>4 megapixels
>2015

I think I'd rather stab my balls than to be the guy who made that decision.

File: 92z9b0z3g9tx.jpg (814KB, 3032x1706px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 3032x1706px

>>9114474

File: 7379_PIA20485_full.jpg (212KB, 1020x1020px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1020x1020px

>>9114476

File: 20161108_2016-10-28Saturn--GluttonForPunishmentMosaic_f840.png (287KB, 840x407px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 840x407px

>>9114479

File: 20585029149_33c7defe53_o.jpg (1MB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2500x2500px

>>9114481

This thread is an eyesore

File: 23785296862_20cfa1c135_o.png (953KB, 2500x2710px) Image search: [Google]

953KB, 2500x2710px

>>9114482

File: 27554162402_2ce05eec0a_o.png (3MB, 3163x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3163x1200px

>>9114488

File: biVkvOX.jpg (2MB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x2048px

>>9114492

File: c6C53KO.jpg (3MB, 10000x3465px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 10000x3465px

>>9114494

File: lol.png (141KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x486px

>>9113292
>the earth is flat

retard

File: Fvkh.jpg (713KB, 3032x2008px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 3032x2008px

>>9114499

File: campanile_plaza.gif (1MB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x363px

what is a dolly zoom vertigo effect

moron.

File: G9VXpiD.jpg (2MB, 4928x3280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4928x3280px

>>9114501

>>9113638
>different pictures with different cameras look different
No fucking way.

File: focal-length-comparison.jpg (430KB, 1354x1508px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1354x1508px

>>9113661
You're stupid.
>There is not great difference in color.
Because they're all taken with the same camera.

>>9114476
Damn - that ship is *spiky*!

>>9113833

why do you think angles matter. the purpose of the photo set was to show that the distance and fov of the camera can make a continent seem small or big.

>>9113661
So you think that when you go to space you suddenly see the entire globe in an instant and not gradually as you go further and further. Great intuitive abilities my fellow.

>>9113292
there's nothing to be ashamed of
african-americans can also be interested in science

>>9114806
No, I don't. Just keep reading the thread if you are not so lazy.

>>9114814
You're an insatiable fedora-tipping brainlet

File: 1503151636289.jpg (711KB, 2500x2500px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 2500x2500px

what can cause that type of topografy?

File: TethysCraterChain.png (902KB, 1049x394px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 1049x394px

>>9114981

Looks like a very long crater chain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crater_chain

>>9114505
>dolly zoom vertigo effect
>mormon

lol

>>9114459
>hurr durr I don't understand perspective.

>>9113292
Why do you think it's impossible to attach a camera to a rocket and then blast it into space?

File: space.gif (1004KB, 402x301px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 402x301px

>>9114505
I like that one better than the example from wikipedia, should have more frames though.

>>9113292
>no stars
fake af lmao

>>9114450
Looks flat to me

>>9115276
We've been over this. Try and keep up.

>>9113870
>>9113904

File: Ultra-Wide-Dynamic-Range-Comparison.jpg (105KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 960x540px

>>9114028

you can but it's expensive as fuck and generally not worth it. it's called the dynamic range of the camera. if you take a picture of a room with a smartphone camera, you might notice that the darker parts are way to dark and the light parts are way too light. this is because cheap shitty cameras can only take a small "slice" of the total light enviornment AKA they can only really select one small range of brightness to view, and everything lighter or darker appears all fucked up.

the human eye has a very high dynamic range than most cameras, hence why with your eye you can see the detail on the moon and stars just fine at the same time, but with cameras they generally have to select either the stars or the moon because everything inbetween would look shitty.

pic related is an example of low dynamic ranger vs high dynamic range.

>>9113833
>>9113661
You're a stupid nigger
The important thing is the relative size of north america you dumb fuck
its distance, not angles fuck sakes leave the board you're clearly too stupid

File: 1499957221442.jpg (208KB, 800x795px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 800x795px

>>9114500
>mfw believe only 3 of those things
heh

>knives don't cut underwater
w-what? I almost kind of get how you could think the earth was flat if you were already a conspiratard, but this is just pure retardation. Do people actually think this? Somehow worse than "mathematically bees shouldn't be able to fly".

So... like I said before... troll thread. Sorry to see it's still here.

sage.

>>9113325

It would be great if there was some way to get these people to understand that when you perceive something as "looking fake", it's because what you see is in some way disjointed from what you experience in day to day life. But that applies equally to seeing real things that are simply beyond what humans would normally see as it does to things that are CGI or fake.

So it's completely expected that when you see something so totally beyond normal human experience, like vast objects such as planets or moons that exist in a vacuum with none of the atmospheric visual effects we see at our familiar scale, it's going to look unusual or at least unintuitive. Most people with a modicum of sense can appreciate that their ideas about how things work at their familiar, human scale won't necessarily apply at vastly different scales or in vastly different environments, but unfortunately this level of thought seems to be beyond flat earthers.

>>9113638
That's an interesting composite image, they've swung in city lights from a night-time photo.

>>9113961
If you think about it, that is a pretty strong argument that this image is not "fake."

>>9114450
I fucking HATE that kind of shit. Mashing up shit to create an image that looks like nothing anybody could actually see, ever. It is just stupid, and provides ammo for the sorts of morons infesting this thread.

>>9113413
The Belt is only possible if earth is a a sphere.
The belt you are talking about puts you in a weird position. Do you still claim NASA only lies?

>>9114476
>Canada
Why the fuck would NASA fake it in a way Canada shows up?
Also, Canada can never have technology that reach beyond the Canadian border. Even if that means up.
Therefor this image is proved fake.