You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Can NASA pictures be considered real or they are just deceiving art?
There are really some strange things regarding the images and if you are interested, you should take your time to investigate it, before you defend something you might not understand. You've paid to bring your comment to the top, that's a bit strange, but ok :) There is a reason why so many people start talking about this stuff. Take a look at the size of the continents here:
do you see those artifacts?
they are in every friggin JPG, whether it comes straight from your camera or not, it's a result of image compression, it really irks me when something like this is claimed as "evidence" for tampering...
^that's why I paid to make my comment visible!
I see the artifacts... ^^ But do you see what I wanted to show? There are some inconsistencies with the images and that's why people start talking about these theories ;) Of course we can't prove anything without flying in a spaceship :) But which is the real image of earth? Both has been published by them as real photos of the earth...
Well... before we start arguing about a new issue, I wanted to get my initial point across... the artifacts in the OP are meaningless
now about that blue-marble image you brought up... No, I don't think they are real, NASA themselves say they aren't, so why should I think they are then?!?
The blue marble pictures are being composed of low orbit satellite imagery stitched together... but even if they were real, the different size of continents could still simply be explained by a different distance and focal length... (you could try that with a zoom lens and a globe at home!)
but I am not interested in taking this post further off topic, neither do i want to discuss the broader claims behind this... all I really wanted to point out is that basing claims about fakery on perfectly normal JPG artifacts is ridiculous.
edit:had to google that - the 1st "whole earth" shot that nasa claims to be a single frame shot (albeit still edited) is from 2015 when the DSCOVR satellite started operation (or was claimed to have started).You actually proved my point. These are just composites and impression that they are taken from distance where all earth can be observed would be just false. And of course one ball observed from same distance by the same optical system cannot be completely different so they can be marked as fabricated just by this simple observation which is obvious to everyone.
that why I mentioned DSCOVR...
if we want to debate whether an image is composed from multiple sources or not we'll have to dissect images from that satellite. Those are the only ones where NASA themselves claim they come from a single POV.