Do we have a real photo of the entire Planet Earth? Is NASA concerned of its shape?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#1
This is not a topic I'm particularly interested in, yet it is still very strange, and telling. I think everything is tied in together. There could be some common denominator connecting all the bizarre events, and objects mentioned on this website with our space exploration controversy. At some point this denominator might reveal itself.

It appears that we do not have a single pure, authentic, unaltered photo of our entire planet from space. The 1967, and 1972 ones are supposed to be real, but based on the totality of circumstances, they does not pass the "smell" check at all. Just the mere fact that we are talking about the 1972 "photo" in the year 2018, should raise a flag or two. Of course we have the alleged "real" photos of Earth from the Moon, but those seem to be reasonably fake.
To be clear, most of the claims of this "hoaxy fakeness" have been debunked with some scientifically formulated gibberish similar to this: Debunked: "Blue Marble" Photos show a Changing Earth. I'm pretty sure everyone knows how to use Google for additional debunking links.
There are several (after 1972) full Earth images, but none of those appear to be genuine photographs. This topic is nothing new to the people interested in the matter. At least YouTube has been full of this information for ages. But for the public, whose day to day interests are far from space exploration related topics, it might appear strange. Well, I hope it would.

For some it might be a surprise that on 07.20.2015 NASA took their first full Earth photograph since Apollo 17 mission. In other words since 12.7.1972. For 43 years there was not a single photo of full Earth taken by NASA. Indeed, who cares about such an insignificant planet, especially when the technology is supposed to be widely available? So, how many non-composite NASA images of full Earth were there produced by NASA? Well, from 1972 to 2015 there was none. I don't think there were any after 2015.

Of course, the 2015 Blue Marble was not a photograph either, "Multiple, adjacent swaths of satellite data are pieced together like a quilt to make one global image."

Additionally, we had a few images of Earth obtained from the surface of the Moon.

Honestly, with all the multitude of earth images, it is very hard to figure out which ones are claimed by NASA as real photos. There is really no point in detailed discussion of anything produced by NASA after 1972. Those are composite images according to NASA itself, to include the 2015 one. For confirmation you can either read the description under the Earth images here: NASA’s ‘Blue Marbles’: Pictures of Earth From 1972 to Today. Or you could see for yourself whydata Visualizer and Designer Robert Simmon never thought that he would become “Mr. Blue Marble.”

robert_simmon-NASA.jpg
"My role is to make imagery from Earth sciences data. I turn data into pictures. I look for new, interesting events that NASA’s satellites have seen or that are hidden in the latest data to find anything interesting that shows off NASA’s unique capabilities. Finding things is the fun part. I rely on engineers and scientists to produce the data. Their reliable, real-time, stream of 1.7 terabytes a day is incredible–the same as producing 3,000 CDs a day. We know where to look for the interesting stuff because each instrument provides a very specialized type of information. So if I am looking for something specific, I know where to look. For example, recently there was a volcanic eruption in the Red Sea. The only reliable imagery of this was from NASA satellites. We basically confirmed the existence of a new island. Our team is purely about communications. We translate data into a useable and understandable form. Our writers and visualizers explain what we are seeing and our Web developers tell the world." - Robert Simmon

A short summary of what we have is on the images below. 1967 (2), and 1972 photos are the only ones not claimed to be some sort of compilation.

Blue_marble_photos_all.jpg blue_marble_images_all.jpg
Of course people started asking question in reference to size of the continents, shape of the clouds, etc. The 2002 Blue Marble was a special one with cloned clouds and other nonsense.

blue_marble_fake_2002.png blue_marble_2001-2.jpg continent_size_different_nasa_3.jpg continent_size_different_nasa_2.jpg continent_size_different_nasa_1.jpg
different_earth_all_countries_fake_cgi.jpg different_earth_all_countries_fake_cgi_2.jpg different_earth_all_countries_fake_cgi_1.jpg russian_satellite.jpg
The continent size difference debunking followed. It works just like any other explanation. We all know that it's pretty easy to build a pyramid with a copper chisel.

globe_explanation.jpg
Of course the cloud issue did not stop with Blue Marble type NASA images. Those are found all over the place.

nasa_fake_clouds_cgi.jpg

Some even say there is a word "SEX" displayed by the clouds of the Blue Marble photo. NASA keeps the original photo here.

Instructions:
SEX-Earth-1.jpg SEX-Earth-2.jpg SEX-Earth-3.jpg Sex-Earth-Nasa-MEME.jpg

Results:
SEX-Earth-4.gif

And then we have the "Earth from Moon" ones.

first_image_from_moon_1.jpg image_from_moon_2.jpg
Hard to accept the above as real photos due to size issues. This is what our Earth ^ looks from the surface of the Moon (according to NASA). Shouldn't the Earth be times bigger. What do you think?

earth_from_moon_1.png earth_from_moon_2.png earth_from_moon_3.jpg earth_from_moon_4.png
earth_from_moon_5.png earth_from_moon_6.png earth_from_moon_7.png
Well, and of course some remember that memorable - NASA Camera Captures 'Dark Side' of Moon. Somehow the clouds remained the same after the full rotation of the Moon. Really?

same_clouds_cgi_nasa_earth_moon.png


After the above shenanigans, I have hard time believing that there are any real "Earth from Space" images out there, including 1969, and 1972. Especially after NASA's Don Pettit says that they are technologically incapable of going to the Moon any longer. Lower Earth Orbit is our 2018 limit. Being so advanced in 1969 and all over sudden "lost technology" in 2018. What?

They are able to obtain real photos with limited technology 40+ years ago, but today they feed us CGI. How hard is it to spin this costly, expensive machine, called Hubble Space Telescope, around, and snap a few unaltered "whatever quality comes out" pictures for us? Appears to be real hard.

Directing your attention to any NASA equivalent will turn something similar to:
  • European Space Agency - Meteosat-2 artificially-coloured visible channel full-disc Earth image. Developed by ESA and since 1995 operated by EUMETSAT, Meteosat has been routinely returning Earth imagery from geostationary orbit since 1977.
  • Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency - The image was taken by the onboard Asteroid Multiband Imaging Camera (AMICA). It was composed of three individually filtered images.
  • China National Space Administration - Composite image of Earth composited from the Fengyun-4A satellite.
  • RosCosmos - The color scheme comes from the image capture method, which combines data from three visible and one infrared wavelengths of light when it takes full-sized images of Earth every 30 minutes.

Can anyone out there take a simple non-compiled photo of this Earth? Are they hiding the shape of our planet? What else could this nonsense mean?
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
439
#2
i think we should stop discussing flat earth here for two reasons:
1: its skeptic/shill bait and will only attract bad people
2: there is some very convincing proof that flat earth is an psy-op itself to detract attention from bigger issues
as for the strange number of full earth pictures well, the EPIC ones and the apollo and sattelites one are real, the problem isnt earth itself, its what is surrounding it
 

in cahoots

Active member
Messages
78
Likes
239
#3
did Korben mention FE, humanoidlord? I thought we were merely talking about some interesting photographs here.

essentially, you can't trust anything NASA says or does. They're not interested in... what are they supposed to be interested in, exactly? Education? Exploration? They are a very tightly buttoned up military agency of some kind.

There's an independent researcher who's tracked the movements of the moon in the course of evenings, weeks, and months against the reported mass, spin, speed, and density of the Moon and it doesn't add up. If the Moon is even there at all, in this person's opinion, it is much smaller and much nearer our planet than reported.

(edit: more fun facts about the Moon. The size of the Moon is Phi of the size of Planet. Phi is known as the Golden Ratio or Golden Mean and is used as extensively in Nature as in fine art and fractal geometry. The size of the Moon also corresponds compositionally and dimensionally to the cavity of the Pacific Ocean.)

The same researcher has also noted that we do not even need doctored photos of the planet in order to mistrust NASA. He indicates that we have never actually SEEN a satellite in orbit. Yknow, those little shiny guys that make our entire planet function? How have we never seen a smartphone picture from one of the many astronauts who'd see this sort of stuff flying around? Is that "sensitive information"? Shouldn't we be proud to observe and transmit all the incredible technology we've launched all the way into space just perfectly enough to prevent it all from flying away?

You know who was fascinated by all things stars-related? The ancients. I think the technology and the coverups go all the way back.
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#4
i think we should stop discussing flat earth here for two reasons:
1: its skeptic/shill bait and will only attract bad people
2: there is some very convincing proof that flat earth is an psy-op itself to detract attention from bigger issues
as for the strange number of full earth pictures well, the EPIC ones and the apollo and sattelites one are real, the problem isnt earth itself, its what is surrounding it
Silencing the issue is not gonna make it go away. This is not about our planet being flat. I personally do not believe it is. Does it have some suspicious vast flat areas? Appears it does. Do I have my reasons to question the actual shape? I sure do. Too many inconsistencies and strange coincidental occurrences are out there.

This topic’s issue is about contemporary inability yo produce an unalterd photo.
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
439
#5
Silencing the issue is not gonna make it go away. This is not about our planet being flat. I personally do not believe it is. Does it have some suspicious vast flat areas? Appears it does. Do I have my reasons to question the actual shape? I sure do. Too many inconsistencies and strange coincidental occurrences are out there.

This topic’s issue is about contemporary inability yo produce an unalterd photo.
i dont believe its flat either, just that NASA doesnt want we to see whats in space
 

Hardy

Active member
Messages
67
Likes
245
#7
Yeah sure, these are two main disturbing discoveries-the fact that we don't know where we are (Physical/earth) and where do we come from (History),others may follow. Alone this make us ready for a mental hospital from the viewpoint of the system and most followers.
So, it's a bit OT in OT here-or not, but i want to mention a strange weather anomaly that impressed me just yesterday night. I have the impression that there are more in the last few years. I know the thunderstorms of the past but the last ones ecspecially yesterday are different. Over 3 hours the sky is constatly flickering like a disco event or a defect lightbulb,rare flashes are seen, also rare clear thunder but a constant rumble heard. It appears to me like a new phenomena.
Additionally I want to mention a story from an older Lady last week. She learned in childhood to scary for thunderstorms. They must light candles and pray.
Along our discoveries this ridiculous behavior could be an ancestor-reminsces of turbulent times in terms of stronger athmospheric trouble. At least it was my first thougt.
Anyway, i want throw this in as a side note, hope not totally inappropriate.
 

gregory5564

Active member
Messages
36
Likes
123
#9
You cannot go wrong with the critical examination of primary sources. Not enough people realize that their conception of the earth hangs upon the narrow thread of just two images.
 

Dirigible

Well-known member
Messages
143
Likes
278
#10
You cannot go wrong with the critical examination of primary sources. Not enough people realize that their conception of the earth hangs upon the narrow thread of just two images.
I didn't realize this, what are the two images? The one from the" moon" and the other?
 

The Kraken

Well-known member
Messages
84
Likes
290
#12
Most telling about this issue is how easy and cheap it would be to prove all the critics wrong. They just need to take half a dozen photos and release them unedited. Its not like anyone is asking for cctv footage of Kennedy or a seat on the next shuttle.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#13
Most telling about this issue is how easy and cheap it would be to prove all the critics wrong. They just need to take half a dozen photos and release them unedited. Its not like anyone is asking for cctv footage of Kennedy or a seat on the next shuttle.
And obviously they would have long time ago, but they can’t for some reason.

We are left with guessing as to why. I wonder if there could be more than one reason for that.
 

The Kraken

Well-known member
Messages
84
Likes
290
#14
And obviously they would have long time ago, but they can’t for some reason.

We are left with guessing as to why. I wonder if there could be more than one reason for that.
simple answer is the earth does not look like they say it does.

Gall–Peters_projection_SW.jpg
People cant even agree on what the agreed look is. This projection scales landmass to its "real related size"
Africa, Aus and south america are huge. wiki

Well they could be huge....
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
439
#15
simple answer is the earth does not look like they say it does.

View attachment 3259
People cant even agree on what the agreed look is. This projection scales landmass to its "real related size"
Africa, Aus and south america are huge. wiki

Well they could be huge....
thats the real shape of the continents, the mercator shape is just a way to brainwash people into thinking the northen hemisphere is more powerfull, cultural brainwashing is at full speed here
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#17
thats the real shape of the continents, the mercator shape is just a way to brainwash people into thinking the northen hemisphere is more powerfull, cultural brainwashing is at full speed here
The question is whether the real shape is the true shape, or the official one.
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,419
Likes
5,704
#19
None of us can verify the truth by going to space, that is if it exists in the way they say it does.

Meanwhile all of us can see little bizarre inconsistencies like this. Once the critical mass of the weirdness outweighs common sense, questioning appears highly reasonable.

B0BC4FB2-4F2A-4329-9D56-00A13191E2A7.jpeg
 

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
153
Likes
372
#20
Yes. There's a satelite sitting in the L1 gravity hole that is constantly taking real pictures of the earth. If you want to doubt it, compare the clouds with your local weather station.

It's called EPIC on the DISCOVR satellite

https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov
 
Top