And the claim from NASA that this is a single photo instead of the computer model/composite image?
If the original 1972 photo of the ''blue marble'' is shot by a conventional Hasselblad, then that is what is capable in outerspace.
And that doesn't mean that all pictures they provide are claimed to be single images rather than composites.
The moment photoshop and cgi made it to the next level, NASA relies on this technique solely......
No. They don't. They have many different satellites in space (some which they just launched and others use, like GEOS and DSCOVR), some of these are far enough away from Earth to take what is known as a full disc image. This is because Earth no longer takes up more than the entire FOV in either the x or y direction.
There are plenty of these pictures available.
However, most these days just take a picture of a section of the UV-Vis-IR spectrum, or multiple sections of it as separate pictures, which can then be combined into a single true colour, or false colour image.
We simply ask to use modern ''Hasselblads'' to take pictures from outerspace, even if this means we get grainy pictures that won't be flashy enough to be presented in the next edition of Vogue.
Then go and pay for it. Don't expect NASA to do it just so some conspiracy nuts can just dismiss it anyway. There is really no point at all for them to do that.
If a photoshop artist can make equally ''real'' looking pictures from space without data from infrared and other specialised cosmic camera's says it all !
Why would they need IR when they were making a colour image in the visible region?
They used satellite photos which were stitched together.
First thing i would do (did it a lot over the years !!!!!) take the globe we have in the house and see what happens when looking at it from different angles.
And did you look at it from different distances as well?
To assume that would be the same result for a satelite in outerspace is hogwash.
Why assume it would be different for a satellite in space?
Do you think there is some magic pixie dust in space which will make them all look the same instead of acting just like cameras do on Earth?
Do you think there is some magic that will allow it to act like it is much further away?
Simply because we only know what the result is when looking at a chidren's globe.
We don't know what a satelite sees from a distance looking towards earth, we only know what looking at a small globe ''looks like''.
Except we have photos from them, so we do.
It is a brainwashing technigue.........''look the photo's from outerspace look the same as when i use my cheap camera to photograph my small globe (minus the clouds)''
And why would you expect anything different?
It isn't brainwashing at all.
At real speed? No, because you wouldn't notice the incredibly slow rotation.
I will watch the whole 24 hours and will decide after that if it was to slow......
Then all you need to do is go set up the camera in space.
Also, how will you tell if it is Earth rotating, the camera orbiting or a combination of both?
So yes, it is taking pictures of bush fires, not just city lights.
If they were faking it, do you think they would have made that mistake?
So bush fires from outerspace look the same as citylights....the fire explanations came after people complained about ''city lights'' in places without cities.
No black clouds, just the same result as what you see looking towards Sydney and Perth.
Why wouldn't they look the same? Do you understand how long exposure pictures which are then composited and integrated into 1 work?
The lights are effectively saturated pixels. That is why they all appear pretty much the same.
The black clouds don't show up, because while the clouds where there at some points, at other points they weren't and instead the light from the fire went through.
What you are seeing is not a single picture, it is effectively the sum of all the lights.
It is fake as can be, composites that tell us nothing about a timelapse recording from ISS.
And you are yet to show that. There is not a single reason to think it is fake other than paranoia.
But that's the way it was sold.
We are not seeing real fires and cloud activity, we see cartoons that a photoshop artist can make in a week.
PROVE IT.