Explain these Round Earth Photos

Perhaps the previous image contained things such as parts of the craft surrounding the camera, or some kind of camera reference number. Perhaps the original images didn't have the Earth perfectly centered and filling up most of the image. They do look a lot like presentational images, not things used for scientific study, so I imagine that they tidied them up a bit so that when they were uploaded to the visitors section of the site, it didn't look all messy.

I expect it's been tampered with, but I don't see why I shouldn't trust it as an image of the planet. It's still based off of the original image, just in a cleaner version. If I wanted to some deeper investigations from it, I would probably look for the original. The continents, cloud cover and such are there, and there's no evidence of heavy manipulation on the planet itself, so I expect that NASA did the easy thing and just took a photo of the Earth.

Tom, if the pictures were fake to start with, why would they need to alter them?

Okay, two little questons Tom:

1.  What did you do to bring out the green in the picture?

2.  Was there a particular reason you used the color green?

If I'm to repeat this little photo-test experiment of yours then I'm going to need to know how to do it.

Perhaps the previous image contained things such as parts of the craft surrounding the camera, or some kind of camera reference number. Perhaps the original images didn't have the Earth perfectly centered and filling up most of the image. They do look a lot like presentational images, not things used for scientific study, so I imagine that they tidied them up a bit so that when they were uploaded to the visitors section of the site, it didn't look all messy.

Firstly, the images were allegedly taken by the astronauts putting their camera right up against the window of their Apollo capsule. If you look at the capsule you'd see that there are no parts of the craft which could obscure the view.

I expect it's been tampered with, but I don't see why I shouldn't trust it as an image of the planet. It's still based off of the original image, just in a cleaner version. If I wanted to some deeper investigations from it, I would probably look for the original.

These are the only images NASA has for us. The originals are allegedly held in NASA's special specially built multi-million dollar vacuum storage chamber.

The continents, cloud cover and such are there, and there's no evidence of heavy manipulation on the planet itself,

The continents and cloud cover all curve with the earth's rotundity. How are you to know what they really look like when the fish-eye lens filter isn't used? All we know of the earth's true form has been taken with a fish eye lens.

so I expect that NASA did the easy thing and just took a photo of the Earth.

You really think it would cost as much to make it look like they went to space as to actually go into space?

Somebody call George Lucas!  He wasted all his money on those CGI effects!

om, if the pictures were fake to start with, why would they need to alter them?

What NASA likely did was use one of its rocket props to go to the edge of space and take a picture of the earth's horizon. With that print in hand it would be trivial to use 1960's technology to find the correct fish-eye lens camera attachment and take a picture of a picture to turn a flat plane into a sphere.

Here's an example of a Fish-Eye Lens:



This fish-eye image was taken from the Eiffel Tower at the earth's horizon. Now the outer edges of such an image would be a dead give away that the image was taken with a fish-eye lens, as anything in the sky (clouds in this image, perhaps stars in NASA's) is wrapped around the image. In order to counteract this side effect it would be necessary to cut out the sphere and paste it onto a tailored plain background - and wa-la, Paris planet.

Okay, two little questons Tom:

1.  What did you do to bring out the green in the picture?

2.  Was there a particular reason you used the color green?

If I'm to repeat this little photo-test experiment of yours then I'm going to need to know how to do it.

To bring out the color green I just adjusted the levels of the image. To do this I used the free image Windows editing program called Paint.net.

Just download the program, open the image, and go to Adjustments / Levels on the top navigation menu. Play with the colors for a bit; deselect Red and Blue, adjust the intensity controls, and you will see the green come out with the obvious edits.

Here are the precise settings I used:



As for why I only chose green, it's because the background wasn't entirely black. It was a slight green-black. There is no red or blue component to it, which is why adjusting those levels doesn't make the background stand out.

Quote

You put all this faith in NASA with all this bullshit conspiracy but they hire a fourth-grader for their photoshoping? Good to know.

Right, you'd think that with the trillions of dollars which have been invested into NASA and with all of their self-claimed experts they could come up with something better than these obvious frauds.

Right. So these guys with trillions of dollars make fake pictures, then photo shop them? Kinda retarded and a waste of money don't you think? Perhaps an esier explanation is that, oh I dunno, you're wrong? .

You got your answer on the first page. No reason for this thread to continue.. especially if you're making stupid claims, and using evidence that you say doesn't count as evidence...

Tom has a good point here.
It's exciting to have today's technology. Now we have the advantage. I would expect those pictures are re-modified or become unavailable soon.

Tom has a good point here.
It's exciting to have today's technology. Now we have the advantage. I would expect those pictures are re-modified or become unavailable soon.

Maybe they'll fire Jimmy the 4th grader and hire a high school student 

Quote from: narcberry on April 05, 2008, 09:56:20 PM

Tom has a good point here.
It's exciting to have today's technology. Now we have the advantage. I would expect those pictures are re-modified or become unavailable soon.

Maybe they'll fire Jimmy the 4th grader and hire a high school student 

See how I rolled my eyes at you? That basically means I win.

Quote from: Kill-9 on April 05, 2008, 10:16:59 PM

Quote from: narcberry on April 05, 2008, 09:56:20 PM

Tom has a good point here.
It's exciting to have today's technology. Now we have the advantage. I would expect those pictures are re-modified or become unavailable soon.

Maybe they'll fire Jimmy the 4th grader and hire a high school student 

See how I rolled my eyes at you? That basically means I win.

See how I'm confused? That basically means I'm not sure why you haven't been hit by a bus yet.

Firstly, the images were allegedly taken by the astronauts putting their camera right up against the window of their Apollo capsule. If you look at the capsule you'd see that there are no parts of the craft which could obscure the view.

That still wouldn't mean the planet was dead center and filling up the whole image. I expect that NASA has simply cut the planet out and put it on a blank background, so they can put it up on their site as a photo of earth, not a photo of Earth shifted off center slightly.

These are the only images NASA has for us. The originals are allegedly held in NASA's special specially built multi-million dollar vacuum storage chamber.

I think you'll find there are a number of photos. I expect there there's only the one where you are looking, as it looks like a presentational image, and most visitors don't want to see tens of images that are all almost identical. And where do you think NASA is going to store the negatives? They aren't going to pin them to a noticeboard somewhere or leave them in a box in some forgotten storage cupboard. They are going to take as good care of them as possible.

The continents and cloud cover all curve with the earth's rotundity. How are you to know what they really look like when the fish-eye lens filter isn't used? All we know of the earth's true form has been taken with a fish eye lens.

But you don't have any evidence that it's been taken with a fish-eye lens. You are just saying that a fish eye-lens makes flat objects look round, and the Earth looks round, thus the Earth must be flat and taken though a fish eye lens. You have to remember that the conclusion that in the image the Earth is round and not taken through a fish eye lens is equally valid. As far as I can see, the clouds don't become more stretched the closer to the edge of the earth they get, so I don't see any evidence that the image has been taken through a fish eye lens.

You really think it would cost as much to make it look like they went to space as to actually go into space?

Somebody call George Lucas!  He wasted all his money on those CGI effects!

Well, they certainly sent something up into the sky, so I think it would probably be easiest just to get and use the photos taken from there then try and produce a huge number of images of the planet from scratch.

Quote

You're telling me pictures are proof now?

You guys keep claiming that these pictures are proof. In response I've conclusively demonstrated that these images have been tampered with.

Quote

Hey I bet if we pull a shitload of pictures from the cesspool of bullshit that is the internet, we can find one of the earth with a skewed perspective that doesn't prove anything at all!

Oh right, NASA just looked at the spherical earth at a wrong angle in order to get it to look like an egg. 

Anyone can post pictures on a site and say they're from NASA.

Take a look at the gallery, specifically the Apollo images. It may come as surprising to see that NASA only took an average of one photograph of the earth per Apollo mission [Citation needed - There may be more, but not on that web page].  -- Rest deleted

In conclusion, it's obvious to everyone that NASA's few Apollo images of the earth have been tampered with to create the illusion of looking at a spherical earth.

No its not obvious to everyone that this is the reason.  This is a lie.

If the earth were truly spherical, NASA wouldn't need to edit their pictures.

Yes they may need to edit.  Thirty year old colour emulsion may well require retouching.

The blotted out stars you refer to cannot possibly be stars - A camera set on daylight exposure (e.g. 1/250s @ f8) will not show them.  Try it yourself, tom.  It's the same facile argument the moon shot conspiracy theorist use.

These specks are more likely to be scratches (for transparency film) or dust (negative film) which have been retouched.  Cutting a large mask out of the earth image is the easiest way to do this, as the background (on film) should be entirely black.

All NASA did was take the cut out of the earth in the photos and place it on a background... probably to get rid of the edges of the space craft window in the pictures...
Besides, no one has a picture of the flat earth so pictures aren't any proof or disproof on this site... I'm sure could get a picture with your own rocket if you wanted to prove it too yourself... (I used to do model rocketry)... if you go above the legal armature height, I'm sure you could do it...
My suggestion is that a Flat earther makes a rocket and sends it 50-100 miles up to prove the earth is flat...
hehe... it might be a fun project for one of you FEers

Tom, obviously the picture is going to need to be edited in some form or another to retain presentability. They're at least 25 years old, and photos generally do not age well. It's like the same as restoring an old rickety building. Also, I'm not sure how many people want to look at an off-center shot with a bunch of camera info on it.

http://i31.tinypic.com/vg1ilh.gif
http://i31.tinypic.com/vg1ilh.gif

These two pictures that you claim are not "Arcs of cirlces", in fact, are.  Take the first one for example.  If you copy the image three times (giving you four total pieces), rotate one of your copies 90 degrees, another 180 degrees, and another 270 degress and then paste the four pieces on top of each other, they form a perfect circle (or to the degree that the earth is a perfect sphere).  I did it, I just have nowhere to upload the image. 

Just because an arc doesn't appear to be a circular arc to you, doesn't prove that it isn't indeed a circular arc.  By reconstructing the whole circle, it is obvious that the arc is circular.  http://

Tom, obviously the picture is going to need to be edited in some form or another to retain presentability. They're at least 25 years old, and photos generally do not age well.

Yeah right. The very few pictures we have of the earth from the Apollo missions (one per multi-billion dollar mission) were all "edited to retain presentability."

Like anyone believes that.

These two pictures that you claim are not "Arcs of cirlces", in fact, are.  Take the first one for example.  If you copy the image three times (giving you four total pieces), rotate one of your copies 90 degrees, another 180 degrees, and another 270 degress and then paste the four pieces on top of each other, they form a perfect circle (or to the degree that the earth is a perfect sphere).  I did it, I just have nowhere to upload the image. 

Just because an arc doesn't appear to be a circular arc to you, doesn't prove that it isn't indeed a circular arc.  By reconstructing the whole circle, it is obvious that the arc is circular.

Really? Can you show me an example with each piece individually colored? I've been trying for an hour now, and I haven't been able to get four pieces to fit into a circle. They're obviously not arcs of a circle.

Why not do what I did with the circle picture and post it on Flickr?  It's free and easy to set up.

Quote

Tom, obviously the picture is going to need to be edited in some form or another to retain presentability. They're at least 25 years old, and photos generally do not age well.

Yeah right. The very few pictures we have of the earth from the Apollo missions (one per multi-billion dollar mission) were all "edited to retain presentability."

Like anyone believes that.

I think it's plausible. Have you ever worked for the government? Fuck,they're the worst bunch of idiots on this round earth.

Btw, they do touch up photos for presentation reasons. An example is the hubble pictures; they come in as black and white, and then are coloured in the lab.

Why not do what I did with the circle picture and post it on Flickr?  It's free and easy to set up.

I've already tried to overlap the images into a circle. I wasn't able to.

I think it's plausible. Have you ever worked for the government? Fuck,they're the worst bunch of idiots on this round earth.

If everyone who works at NASA is a "bunch of idiots" as you say, how were they able to send rocket ships into space and land man on the moon?

That seems contradictory.

Btw, they do touch up photos for presentation reasons. An example is the hubble pictures; they come in as black and white, and then are coloured in the lab.

I've indisputably demonstrated in this thread that NASA has deliberately removed and edited features out of their Round Earth pictures for reasons unknown. It doesn't matter whether you believe that NASA did the "good" kind of editing. An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.

Yeah right. The very few pictures we have of the earth from the Apollo missions (one per multi-billion dollar mission) were all "edited to retain presentability."

Like anyone believes that.

There are plenty of photos. I just expect you aren't looking in the right places.

Really? Can you show me an example with each piece individually colored? I've been trying for an hour now, and I haven't been able to get four pieces to fit into a circle. They're obviously not arcs of a circle.

Firstly, trying to measure anything on those photos is very difficult, as they don't provide a very large portion of the arc. Secondly, I expect they were taken though the curved windows of the Apollo capsule, so some deformation is to be expected.

An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.

"« Last Edit: Today at 04:07:48 PM by Tom Bishop » "

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=1731409&albumID=0&imageID=26826746

Apologies for the Myspace link but it is the only place I could post it.  The black background is a circle that I placed behind the four pieces for reference.  The Blue piece is the actual picture you provided with the other pieces being rotated copies.  This is just the first picture, but it works for the second as well.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2008, 03:49:24 PM

An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.

"« Last Edit: Today at 04:07:48 PM by Tom Bishop » "

Lol.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2008, 03:49:24 PM

An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.

"« Last Edit: Today at 04:07:48 PM by Tom Bishop » "

The irony is baffling.

Fikealox wins. 

If everyone who works at NASA is a "bunch of idiots" as you say, how were they able to send rocket ships into space and land man on the moon?

That seems contradictory.

You think they're capable of this gigantic conspiracy to make trillions of dollars and they can't even hire a good photoshopper..? I mean this is bullshit! you're clearly taking this from that shitty Fox special about the moon being a hoax. How the fuck is that a valid argument!

I've indisputably demonstrated in this thread that NASA has deliberately removed and edited features out of their Round Earth pictures for reasons unknown. It doesn't matter whether you believe that NASA did the "good" kind of editing. An edited picture is an edited picture. These pictures are not to be trusted.

Indisputably? Tom, you aren't a photo manipulation expert just because you watched an episode of CSI once.

And NOW you're saying that these pictures can't be trusted?! THATS WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING YOU SAY ALL ALONG! Every picture we bring up isn't evidence, and then you bring us some photos.. just so you can show us that they're not proof? Can you PLEASE stop wasting our time?

Fikealox wins. 

Another win for Fikealox!

you're clearly taking this from that shitty Fox special about the moon being a hoax.

Teh mun iz a haxxorz!!1!!one!