176. Variations in colour and continent size prove that images of Earth from space are fake

"When NASA’s images of the ball-Earth are compared with one another the coloration of the land/oceans and relative size of the continents are consistently so drastically different from one another as to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the pictures are all fake."



Enhanced images

Many of the images of Earth are documented as being colour enhanced.  Others are documented as unenhanced.   It is obvious that you cannot prove anything by comparing the colour of these two types of images.

Both the images above are used frequently on the Internet, but unfortunately I have not been able to find the sources to confirm that the left hand image is enhanced and the right hand image is unenhanced.  However if you look at the colour of the images shown in the following two links it would suggest that the image on the left is indeed enhanced and the one on the right unenhanced.  Consequently comparing these two images proves nothing.



Differences in the size of the continents

The difference in size however does need explanation.  This effect is caused by the images being taken from different distances.  If a photo is taken from far enough away, the 50% of the sphere is visible.  However the nearer to the earth that you get, at some point parts of the earth around the visible circumference will begin to be hidden.  You are seeing less than 50% of the sphere at this point which makes the details that you can see seem larger in comparison to the sphere as a whole.

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/

Comparing unenhanced images

Even when comparing unenhanced images we can expect  some colour variations.  I would imagine it is obvious to most people why colour might vary.  However, in case Mr Dubay genuinely cannot understand I will go through the reasons why colours might differ in real photos.

Different cameras

This is an example of the difference between Nikon D750 and D800e.

Source: https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/65399/why-are-the-colors-so-different-in-these-two-photos-from-different-cameras-even

This is an example of a scene taken with 3 different digital cameras.

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/

Different technologies

A specific example of different cameras is when the cameras use different technologies.  In the following photos one is taken with a DSLR and one with a digital camera.

Source: https://petapixel.com/2018/02/22/film-vs-digital-can-tell-difference/

For satellite images the technologies include cameras that take pictures in different wavelengths.  To make a photo these different wavelength images need to be combined, and variations will occur depending on the combination process.  This does not make the photo fake.  The possibility of variations are just part of the process.

Different film brands

The following two photos are taken with the same camera but using different film brands

Source: http://www.japanexposures.com/2009/04/02/film-matters/

Camera settings

The following two photos have been taken with different exposure settings


Manual adjustment

The original images of earth generally look washed out colour wise.  Not surprisingly NASA adjusts the colour saturation of many images to make the image more vivid and attractive.  This does not mean the photo is fake, just colour enhanced.


< Prev     171-180    Next >

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

127. Straight reflections of sunlight and moonlight are impossible on a spherical Earth

Image
"The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate Although he doesn't describe it very well, I presume that Dubay is referring to the angle of reflection from a curved surface.  I.e. the curve of the Earth would mean that the angle of reflection off the surface would result in nearly all the light  not reaching the observer's eyes. The fact that, if this was how reflections worked, that the same would be true on a flat Earth seems to have escaped Dubay's notice. This type of reflection is called specular reflection, and takes place with mirror like surfaces.  Generally the surface of the water is not perfectly flat so the reflection of the light
Read more

Debunking Eric Dubay's 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball

Image
Conspiracy Baloney aims to provide resources to counter to the influence of the crazy anti-science conspiracy theories that are out there. This blog is specifically to debunk Eric Dubay's " 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that I have found flat earthers often cite. There are quite a few resources out there that comprehensively debunk this book, but I think that one more voice can only help.  I have tried to keep the rebuttals as non technical as possible. Eric Dubay’s proofs are laughably simplistic and demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of maths and anything scientific or technical. A list of "proofs" that show Dubay is an idiot He also likes to give historical quotes as proofs.  Typical are quotes from the 1800’s but he even has one from before 1600!.  Not only are these opinions not proof of anything, but the fact that he can’t provide quotes from more up to date sources destroys their credibility. Worse,
Read more

9. Engineer W Winckler was published in the Earth Review in 1893 arguing that no engineer took the curvature of the earth into account

Image
“Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth  Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating,   “As an engineer of many years standing , I saw that this  absurd allowance is only permitted in school books.  No  engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind.  I  have projected many miles of railways and many more of  canals and the allowance has not even been thought of  much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means  this - that it is 8 ” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing  at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a  small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will  have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600  feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not  being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We  no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of  railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square  the circle ”" This is a historical opinion,
Read more