Images Of The Earth And Moon Taken By Osiris

[Mike]

Very clear image of a ROUND Earth, taken from 69,000 miles away. And another featuring the ROUND earth and moon taken 804,000 miles from the earth.

It likely won't make a dent with the die hard FE'ers, but it might just inspire some sanity in the fence sitters. I dedicate this thread to them.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...h-and-the-moon

osiris rex earth moon

[guyres]

Pretty pictures, unretouched (yes the earth seems round). Including that of the earth and the moon, did you notice that we do not see any star, I heard about a theory that says we can only see the planets provided with an atmosphere since in the space and once out of the atmosphere all the stars disappear.

I hope I have been clear, to put it differently, seeing stars and galaxies from the earth would be a virtuality of the earth's atmosphere. Outside, the powerful solar radiations "erase" all the luminous points, except the planets provided with an atmosphere so held that they are.

Just to share, I havent been out in space, so I dont know.

[Daozen]

That's one hell of a disc. great pic.

[Amenjo]

Here's a few pics of the moon from space, very beautiful.





Love and Truth,


Amenjo

[SiriusB]

Everything coming from Osiris-Rex is indeed very trustworthy .

[Navigator]

Posted by guyres (here)
Pretty pictures, unretouched (yes the earth seems round). Including that of the earth and the moon, did you notice that we do not see any star, I heard about a theory that says we can only see the planets provided with an atmosphere since in the space and once out of the atmosphere all the stars disappear.

I hope I have been clear, to put it differently, seeing stars and galaxies from the earth would be a virtuality of the earth's atmosphere. Outside, the powerful solar radiations "erase" all the luminous points, except the planets provided with an atmosphere so held that they are.

Just to share, I havent been out in space, so I dont know.

I know about the way cameras and eyes work, so I can help you out a little in that area ... You don't have to be an astronaut to understand the lack of stars in space object photos is very normal and expected; no need to reach for wild speculations.

Here's an experiment anyone can try:

Go outside at night on a star filled sky with your camera and take a fairly closeup picture of someone's face with the camera flash activated, with the starry background behind the person - fill the camera frame with about the same ratio of face to starry background as earth to background you see in the image posted on OP. The flash is the sun, the face of the person you are taking a picture of is the earth, and the stars are the stars.

Now analyze your photo. Where are the stars? Your photo will not show you any stars in the background at all ... why? Because the light from stars is very very faint. We have to have a very dark night with no other bright light sources, in order to see them. You can also stand directly under a streetlamp at night and look up - you won't see stars behind the streetlamp. This is why we can't see stars during the day - they don't actually disappear during the day, it's just the massive contrast in light intensity between the stars themselves and objects that the sun is reflecting light off of that drowns out their faint light. The same as in the photo experiment I just told about - the bright light from the camera flash will cause the camera exposure level (aperture) to drop to compensate, to the point that no light from the stars will be picked up.

In the Photo posted in the OP the full power of the sun is reflecting off the earth - there is no "night" being shown in this picture (possible because it is a sphere) - it is day everywhere or else there would be a clear dissection between night / day visible - in this case the sun is reflecting of the entire visible face. We all know how bright the sun is, and sunlight reflecting off such a large body certainly would drown out the ability for any faint stars to be captured in the photo.

This is just the way cameras and eyes work - they cannot capture faint light and bright light simultaneously with the same settings. Eyes can capture a larger range than cameras can. Camera are fairly limited in this area, but there is trick commonly called HDR photography where photographers seek to catch both low light and high power light in the same image by taking several photos on a tripod with different camera aperture or ISO settings, then combine the photos together in software. It's only possible to do this by exploiting the fact that cameras at a single setting cannot capture both low and high power lights with details.

So to answer you question / statement thing, Yes stars are visible in space, they just don't show up on most images where another object that is the main focus of the image has the sun's bright light reflecting off it, like the ISS and other planets for example, merely due to the way cameras, (and even your eyes) work.

[Hervé]

If one goes to a High Resolution version of this picture:

-------------------------See what that is ^^^

like this one (<---) and look around in the "Dark Sky" one will be able to discern faint star lights...


^... apparently, that's Venus...

[Amenjo]

Posted by Hervé (here)
If one goes to a High Resolution version of this picture:

-------------------------See what that is ^^^

like this one (<---) and look around in the "Dark Sky" one will be able to discern faint star lights...


^... apparently, that's Venus...

I thought I would up the contrast on the above photo to see the stars more clearly, and this is the result, got some very interesting images there, I imagine it's the reflection of the inside of the ISS?



Love and Truth,


Amenjo

[guyres]

Thank's Navigator, i really apreciate your answer.

Then for the images taken from the ISS, which is not really in space but midway, 400 km altitude for 800km average thickness of the atmosphere, they are not admissible because not taken since the total space. One can add again that most of the images coming from the ISS are photoshoped, making disappear the whole of the cloud layer, staging video deceptions, etc. It's Hollywood up there.

Merci encore

[Sunny-side-up]

Posted by Mike (here)
Very clear image of a ROUND Earth, taken from 69,000 miles away. And another featuring the ROUND earth and moon taken 804,000 miles from the earth.

It likely won't make a dent with the die hard FE'ers, but it might just inspire some sanity in the fence sitters. I dedicate this thread to them.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...h-and-the-moon

osiris rex earth moon

That is a good image for sure, but I would still like to have seen it without it being tidied up.
It has had a black mask applied to it if i'm not mistaken.
What is wrong with seeing earth with a thin hazy atmosphere around it?

[dynamo]

Posted by guyres (here)
Pretty pictures, unretouched (yes the earth seems round). Including that of the earth and the moon, did you notice that we do not see any star, I heard about a theory that says we can only see the planets provided with an atmosphere since in the space and once out of the atmosphere all the stars disappear.

I hope I have been clear, to put it differently, seeing stars and galaxies from the earth would be a virtuality of the earth's atmosphere. Outside, the powerful solar radiations "erase" all the luminous points, except the planets provided with an atmosphere so held that they are.

Just to share, I havent been out in space, so I dont know.

That "theory" is drastically flawed. As mentioned below, to photograph stars (with film or digitally), the camera aperture must stay open for longer than, at least, a few seconds. Then, the moon and earth images, if in the same "field of view" would be "blown out" with brightness and look like a white blob.

Posted by Navigator (here)
...

So to answer you question / statement thing, Yes stars are visible in space, they just don't show up on most images where another object that is the main focus of the image has the sun's bright light reflecting off it, like the ISS and other planets for example, merely due to the way cameras, (and even your eyes) work.

One can capture most planets and even the moon and some stars at the same time, with the proper equipment, such as:
1) a "tracking scope mount" to compensate for the earth's rotation
2) exposure of at least 30 seconds (as a guide line, before "star trails" occur)
3) taking 10 or more images
3) stacking software to compile the the 10 or more captured images and get one image.
4) newer cameras, such as the Sony A7-S and A7-R mirror-less CCD cameras have very sensitive sensors that can get up to ISO 102,400 ( I thought it was higher when it first came out). One can get awesome shots of the Milky Way with a few seconds exposure! That is insanely fast.
So, anything is possible but the proper equipment is the key...

[Mike]

Posted by SiriusB (here)
Everything coming from Osiris-Rex is indeed very trustworthy .

Well, I'm curious: what kind of pic would it take for you to be convinced it was legit?

For example, if Richard Branson or Bigelow Aerospace sent a craft 804,000 miles into space and took a photo of the earth, would you have more confidence in its authenticity?

If you say 'yes', I'll understand. I might have more confidence in that too. But if you say 'no', then I spose there's nothing that can be done except to send you up in a rocket and have you take the pic yourself

[Navigator]

Posted by guyres (here)
Thank's Navigator, i really apreciate your answer.

Then for the images taken from the ISS, which is not really in space but midway, 400 km altitude for 800km average thickness of the atmosphere, they are not admissible because not taken since the total space. One can add again that most of the images coming from the ISS are photoshoped, making disappear the whole of the cloud layer, staging video deceptions, etc. It's Hollywood up there.

Merci encore

I didn't quite understand your statement, but on your last sentence you have to consider that with all media, "making things look good" or "making imagery suit the dialogue" or "make things attention catching" dictates that accuracy (and sometimes even truth) is lost at the expense of show.

Never believe anything outright, but always be prepared to search both sides of an argument

[Navigator]

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
Very clear image of a ROUND Earth, taken from 69,000 miles away. And another featuring the ROUND earth and moon taken 804,000 miles from the earth.

It likely won't make a dent with the die hard FE'ers, but it might just inspire some sanity in the fence sitters. I dedicate this thread to them.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...h-and-the-moon

osiris rex earth moon

That is a good image for sure, but I would still like to have seen it without it being tidied up.
It has had a black mask applied to it if i'm not mistaken.
What is wrong with seeing earth with a thin hazy atmosphere around it?

There is no evidence of a black mask in this image. Rather than assuming so, maybe the question should be asked, "Why does this image not show a thin haze of atmosphere around it, when I am expecting one?"

Without putting yourself in a position of actually attempting to find the truth (by asking questions to even ones you might think you know the answer to) does nothing. maintaining an assumption from not asking that question does nothing -- it advances you none - gets you no closer to the truth, thus the question I present as a replacement for the assumption.

The answer to your question lies in the fact that the sun is directly behind the satellite / camera. How do I know this? because there is no "night" anywhere on earth in the image - any "night areas would show up as pure black as no sun would be shining on it. Only from a position directly behind the camera can the sun be, to have it lit as is. (you can see the edge of twilight at the very upper right)

So the sun cannot refract through the atmosphere for you to be able to see the haze. In order for you to see that atmospheric haze the light from the sun needs to travel through the atmosphere to your eyes (or in this case the camera) in order for it to scatter the light. The only way this can happen is if the sun is completely or mostly behind the planet. Which in this case, it is clearly not.

Now, if you look at the pictures originally posted by Amenjo here, and the one re-posted by Herve -- you can see the effect you refer to -- notice how the earth is completely black -- the sun is behind, and thus you can see the scattering of light in the atmosphere.

All simple light physics

[East Sun]

i wonder if the beings on the moon and mars are told that the earth
is uninhabited ha ha..........

[guyres]

Posted by Navigator (here)

Posted by guyres (here)
Then for the images taken from the ISS, which is not really in space but midway, 400 km altitude for 800km average thickness of the atmosphere, they are not admissible because not taken since the total space.

I didn't quite understand your statement

It's really hard for me to be understood, I'm responsible for it and have to rephrase it again.

As far as I know, the ISS is 400km above sea level in the atmosphere (and should be called IAS, the International Atmospheric Station), halfway between land and interplanetary space (which starts at 800km altitude). The atmosphere has several layers and all these layers together form the atmosphere.

The photos taken from the ISS are taken in a double atmosphere, that of the station added to the very fine one outside the station.

If, and only if, light is a property of the atmosphere, awakened by solar radioactive microwaves interacting with the earth atmosphere. We can imagine that there is no light emitted by the sun but electro-magnetic and radioactive waves that illuminate the atmosphere of different planets. In this hypothesis all the photos taken from the earth or the space station are subject to the same laws, which you explained very well in your first answer.

But what about outside, most of the images that come to us are artist's views. I still have not found a photo of the sun taken from the interplanetary space (outside atmosphere). The only photos of the sun are snuff in bright spectra invisible to the human eye (x-ray, infrared, etc.). Those taken from the IAS (or ISS) are through the atmosphere.

Posted by Navigator (here)
but on your last sentence you have to consider that with all media, "making things look good" or "making imagery suit the dialogue" or "make things attention catching" dictates that accuracy (and sometimes even truth) is lost at the expense of show. Never believe anything outright, but always be prepared to search both sides of an argument

The image is never reality, only a huge simplification of it. The map is not the territory. And what we see in the sky is not the sun, just a one image. A vivid picture of an explosion in very high atmosphere (I'm not saying it's true, I pursue the hypothesis).

(For the NASA the sun is made of Hydrogen & Helium and iIts influence extends far beyond the orbits of distant Neptune and Pluto. And it is very hot. Here: https://www.nasa.gov/sun)

Indeed the sun has a great influence, until the supposed cloud of Oort and further, but in my humble opinion it is not its so-called heat that maintains this huge body (the solar system) traveling in the space, there is necessarily a powerful electromagnetic energy behind all that.

What I proposed was just a digression on the old theory of cold dark sun. Obviously I do not know, I question. When I see the supposed size of the heliosphere, the sun at the center of this immense body is invisible to itself, as is the human soul for us.

Forgive me if once again this post is incomprehensible. This makes me all the same pleasure to share my madness.

[guyres]

All this questioning comes from a book I read at 13, which reads in part:

“life and teachings of the masters of the far east“ by Baird T. Spalding

"If we take the science of things, we know there is a legend told here that all the heat and light and many other natural forces are contained right within the earth itself. The sun, of itself, has no heat or light. It has potentialities that draw the heat and light from the earth. After the sun has drawn the heat and light rays from the earth, the heat rays are reflected back to the earth by the atmosphere that floats in the ether. The light rays are drawn from the earth in about the same manner and are reflected back to the earth by the ether. As the air extends only a comparatively short distance, the effect of the heat rays varies as you leave the earth's surface and ascend toward the outer limit of the atmosphere. As the air becomes less dense, there is less reflection; consequently as you ascend into the higher altitudes the heat becomes less and the cold increases. Every heat ray, as it is drawn out and reflected, drops back to the earth, where it is regenerated. When you have reached the limit of air, you have reached the limit of heat. It is the same with the light rays. They are drawn from the earth and reflected back by the ether. As this ether extends much farther from the earth than the air, the light rays extend much farther before they are all reflected. When you have reached the limit of ether, you have reached the limit of light. When you have reached the limit of heat and light, you have reached the great cold. This cold is far more solid than steel, and it presses down upon the
ether and the atmosphere with almost irresistible force and holds them together. Hell is supposed to be warm and his Satanic Majesty abhors cold; so you could not find any lodging place out there for them.

"Now that we have disposed of them above, let us take the other scientific legend and go below. According to this legend, the earth a short distance from the surface is a molten mass. It is so hot that it will melt any substance. This molten mass at the center revolves more slowly than does the crust at the outer, and the belt where the two meet is the place where the natural forces are generated and there, again, the hand of God rules all. So there is no place for His Satanic Majesty or his home there; for, if he attempted to live in either the hottest or the coldest place, he would find it very uncomfortable, since cold will consume as well as heat. We have searched every place and we can not find him a home; so we must assume that he is right where man is and has all the power that man gives him.

"It was only the personal adversary that I cast out. Do you think for a moment that I would cast the devil out of any man and then allow him to enter a heard of swine that cast themselves into the sea? I never saw the devil in any man, save he brought him there himself. The only dominion I ever gave him was that which man himself gave him."

[Hervé]

As I posted there: Sun is not visible outside the upper Atmosphere?

Posted by Hervé (here)
Yep, another round of nonsense apparently stemming from misconstrued interpretations of Eric Dollard's statement to the effect of: "Light is not visible in space"

The statement is true:

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by Silkie (here)
[...]
Then I must have misread or misunderstood something, because I thought someone in this thread said that the stars are not visible in outer space, like from the moon.

You probably read and understood correctly what is written... however, as far as the veracity of such statement is concerned, there may be some serious misconceptions at the basis of such considerations, fueled by some NASA high-contrast pictures.

However, the light they emit in the form of photon is itself not visible until said photons hit something. The very same way one can see a movie on a theatre's screen as well as the arching between white hot graphite electrodes inside the film projector but nothing in between projector and screen

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
[...]
And yes space is full of light we cannot see

... unless one is old enough to have experienced going to the vue and see a movie in a theatre where smoking was allowed... did anyone ever saw that beam of light landing on the big screen?

... yet that theatre's space was full of these buggers called "photons."

In other words, unless a photon [beam] interacts with itself (as in interference patterns or holographic projections) or something else [dust, as in sun-motes], said photon [beam], by itself, is not visible while zooming through space

However, both the source of the light and the illuminated objects hit by photon beams are "visible."

STEREO "Ahead" and "Behind" are outside Earth's atmosphere and do record waves of the visible spectrum.

So does the SOHO satellite with its LASCO coronagraphs... and we do see stars, planets and comets in those LASCO C2 and C3 pictures!

[guyres]

Merci Hervé,
je viens de voir les images C2 et C3, je me rends compte que l'espace est soi bleu, soi rouge ou l'inverse, s'il n'y a là aucune manipulation de la réalité je suis juste un idiot, cela n'est pas nouveau.
L'espace clignote et quand il passe au vert on peut boire un café en terrasse.

Ensuite, mes "questions et réponses" invitait à de plus profondes réponses ou questions sur les manipulations visuelles dont nous sommes ou pas victimes.
Alors que la nature même de la lumière est toujours discutée dans les sphères scientifiques.

N'y voit rien de personnel si je réponds en français c'est juste pour être plus rapide.
Peut-être faut-il ouvrir un post sur le sujet du soleil, sur l'ISSA...
Là encore aucune photo du soleil dans l'espace, parce que trop lumineux certainement.
En tout cas c'est vraiment un sujet qui me tient et les simplifications qu'en font la "science"(celle qu'on nous laisse approcher) ne sont qu'orgueil et suffisance.
Quand à l'aspect spirituel il est antinomique du matériel.

Bref j'ai l'impression d'être un peu hors sujet, après avoir vu cette belle image terre-lune.

[Hervé]

Posted by guyres (here)
Merci Hervé,
je viens de voir les images C2 et C3, je me rends compte que l'espace est soi bleu, soi rouge ou l'inverse, s'il n'y a là aucune manipulation de la réalité je suis juste un idiot, cela n'est pas nouveau.
[...]

Aren't you curious enough to learn why one is blue and the other red? And what's the difference between the two?