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

Brainlet af

Perfect troll response. You're so predictable.

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

So what's your beef then?

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.

Boujee af

...

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

youtube.com/watch?v=52a0Xjuaixo

NASA never got past the Van Allen belts

You never got past grade school.

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.

>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.

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

...

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.

No.

>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

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 Veeky Forums after all.

>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 user
You have shown me the error of my ways
2/10

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

>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.

...

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).

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

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

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.

>angles
>not distances
jesus christ on a popsicle stick you are stupid
go troll on pol you fucking nigger

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.

>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

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.

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 '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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Nope, you can regulate maximum brightness as well.

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

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.

Go for it.

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

Came to Veeky Forums
this thread
not going to /x/
I mean Veeky Forums 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.

literally different globes each photo

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

>NASA

Fairly certain DSCOVR is managed by NOAA, not NASA.

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

this is now a neat space pictures thread

...

...

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

...

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

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.

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

jej

...

...

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.

...

>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.

...

...

...

...

This thread is an eyesore

...

...

...

...

>the earth is flat

retard

...

what is a dolly zoom vertigo effect

moron.

...

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

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

Damn - that ship is *spiky*!

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.

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.

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

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

You're an insatiable fedora-tipping brainlet

what can cause that type of topografy?

Looks like a very long crater chain.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crater_chain

>dolly zoom vertigo effect
>mormon

lol

>hurr durr I don't understand perspective.

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

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