by There are quite a few permutations of all of this. But the basic theory is that NASA is lying to us and what they present as fact is fraudulent.
Without going deeper into that just now, here's a specific instance; regarding the Deep Space Climate Observatory and the animated video of images showing the Moon crossing the Earth.
In the author's words- " Another junk piece from NASA. This time, they supposedly caught the new noon [sic] crossing Earth's path. A close look reveals another failure. But, at least they didn't paint the earth in this one."
A list of issues in this video:
- This is a Composite of Three GGIs.
The author of this video is a Flat Earther, so it's unclear what he thinks about the true nature of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite loops. Whether he believes they are photos taken from high flying balloons or whether they are faked using ground based data - there are various FE'r theories. He does mention something about GEOS loops and photos. This is all unclear. He does clearly think this is a fake image derived from GEOS photos or from the same data with which GEOS photos are faked. He sites no real evidence for this, but there is implied support for this because of all the other issues he raises.
- Clouds Don't Change
The author dances around this, and again it's unclear if this is his position. He does say that it's "the same time stamp" which would seem to imply that it's a static image without cloud movement. But this is unclear. But the "clouds don't move" charge is made many times in the comments section; and it is a common charge made about various NASA videos - e.g. ISS videos. In the comments section "the tropical storm off Baja" is often specifically said not to change during the course of the video - (therefore it's a clumsy, static fake.)
I tested this by isolating these images of Hurricane Dolores from the NASA video:
The first photo is from the very first frame of the video and the second is just before the Moon obscures this area, approximately 3 hours later. There is a problem with the perspective, because the Earth has rotated into a different position. I don't think that would make much difference considering the scale, but just to be as conservative as possible, I suggest that one look most specifically at the cloud patterns, because they are less affected than cloud positions in relation to the Earth's surface.
There are quite significant differences in the cloud patterns. Which is typical of time lapse satellite images of hurricanes. You see not just rotation, but more noticeably, clouds boiling up and dissipating.
These smaller versions make it easier to see overall changes.
Problems not taken into account:
- The image of Hurricane Dolores is small and hard to see.
- Scale: The Earth is big and the storm is big. The speed at which it is moving and spinning and changing isn't all that great compared to the scale of hundreds and thousands of miles. So even though this is time lapse, there is less movement than they intuitively think.
- The Earth is rotating, so it's very hard to track the movement of the storm. You're trying to keep track of two independent movements. It's really hard to do that.
They are relying on purely intuitive concepts about speed, scale and the accuracy of their own perception.
- No Atmosphere
The author implies that we should be able to see an atmosphere around the Earth as we do in other NASA photos. He is ignoring scale, distance and resolution. In photos taken from spacecraft - from Gemini capsules to the ISS - the atmosphere is often clearly seen.
From the ISS
The ISS is in low Earth orbit. The view is of only a small portion of the Earth, therefore the atmosphere is proportionally large. It takes up a large part of the frame. The camera has no difficulty resolving this large image. We have no trouble seeing it.
The Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera video shows the entire Earth, therefore the atmosphere is proportionately much smaller. The atmosphere would only be a thin shell in this case. The author never asked himself whether the camera could resolve an image this small or whether he would be able to perceive such a small image.
An intuitive judgment that is firmly held without deeper analysis.
-Specular Reflection of the Sun on the Earth But Not on the Moon
It would be best if the author had first done some research rather than simply musing about the subject; relying on his own intuition:
Specular reflection is the mirror-like reflection of light (or of other kinds of wave) from a surface, in which light from a single incoming direction (a ray) is reflected into a single outgoing direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specular_reflection
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/r ... Reflection
(In one comment someone informs the author that this is called the "specular," but of course specular is an adjective.) The author maintains that the size of the "bright spot" from the Sun on the Earth is correct. He refers to another opinion that the bright spot should cover the entire Earth. In at least one comment this position is put forth; which ignores the whole theory of specular reflection. The Earth's surface is curved. Only on a flat Earth would you see a specular reflection from oceans across the entire surface of the water.
However, the author then goes on to say that there is no bright spot on the Moon. But why should there be? Just as an example from life, when the Sun is setting over the ocean, do you see a bright Sun trail on the ocean that also stretches onto the dry sand of the beach? Of course not, because water has a relatively smooth surface, while the sand is a rough surface and you only get a diffuse reflection.
On very calm water you can see a single small, bright reflection of the Sun, as you would see from a mirror. The sparkles you see on choppier water are each individual specular reflections of the Sun from smooth mirror-like areas that are tilted just right for the rays to reach your eye. In effect, a myriad of mirrors all reflecting the Sun. This is the Sun's trail you see at sunset.
Specular reflection depends on a smooth surface. From a rougher surface you get diffuse reflection. From a rough surface with a low albedo, you get a less intense diffuse reflection.
http://hyperluminalgames.com/?p=10049
The surface of the Moon has a low albedo - like Cocoa Puffs. And it is a rough surface. Why would you expect to see the same specular reflection of the Sun from the surface of the Pacific Ocean and from the rough, Cocoa Puff colored surface of the Moon?
Another hasty intuitive judgment with no analysis, even from common life experience.
-Every Time We See the "Dark Side" of the Moon We See a Different Moon
The author shows us three different photos of the far side of the Moon and compares them. They look different! The first one was returned by Luna-3 in 1959; (or"Mira-1 or something like that" - as the author says). The second is a composite of images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. He doesn't even notice that this is a composite with visible lines and artifacts; although he makes some comments about shadows not looking right. He certainly never did any research to find out if it was a composite. The third is from the NASA video in question. He points out that they look different.
Yes, three different photos taken by three different cameras in different circumstances look different. He looks at surface markings in the Luna-3 photo and notes they are in different positions and the shapes look slightly different compared to those in the NASA video.
Many photos were taken by Luna-3 photos and many of them show a "different Moon." They look different from one another because the satellite was in a different position over the Moon at the time each was taken.
Does he expect that in this one Luna-3 photo he presents, the Luna-3 and the Deep Space Climate Observatory were looking at the Moon along the exact same line of sight in 2 dimensions - up and down?
How about in all three dimensions? What about perspective distortion? The NASA satellite is much farther out.
Simple common life experience tells us that photos of the same thing look different from different angles and distances. Not just photos... the way we see things with our eyes.
We also have to consider the quality of each image from the three different satellites. It should go without saying that there will be noticeable differences in the images.
- The Moon is the Wrong Size in Proportion to the Earth
- The Moon is the Same Diameter all the Way Across the Video (Well, maybe it isn't?)
The author compares the apparent sizes of the Earth and the Moon in the video and concludes that the Moon is too large in proportion to the Earth, and the Moon is the same diameter at all times, therefore the video is flawed.
I'll let him speak for himself:
At 3:08:
"Notice this is a linear moving Moon... (chuckle). In other words, it doesn't look like it's in orbit. It's not farther away over here [left side], and as it gets to the middle at this point here it's closer to you, and then over here it's farther away. If you say, 'Well, it's taken from a million miles away you wouldn't notice that...'
Well, If you start taking the diameter of this 'Moon' and put it across the Earth, you only get five... uh... the Earth's diameter would be less than 6,000 miles... be like 5,900 miles across, when it is a thousand miles across more, according to science. And then you'll argue and say, 'Well, that's because the Moon's closer to the camera; so that's why. You have to make the Moon account for more room... okay. Now my argument is that it would be the other way around... the Moon would be sma... [Cuts himself off.]
Well, anyway, let's keep it [like] that, okay. So, in that case, why is the Moon the same diameter size the whole way? If it's orbiting the Earth, and the spacecraft is a million miles away... uh. [Interrupts himself with a comment about the Moon being 'out of focus'- I'll talk about that later.]
We should also see a difference in the circumference of the Moon as it goes away from us..."
You get the idea.
First mistake:
The relative apparent sizes of the Earth and Moon. He's so confused by perspective that he starts to argue that because the Moon is closer to the camera, the size of the Moon image (apparent size) should be smaller in proportion to the apparent size of the more distant Earth. He catches himself on that, perhaps because he knows on some level that he's confused about this simple concept.
Second mistake:
The intuitive notion is that the Moon must be at its farthest distance to us when it enters the frame, closest while at the center, and then when it reaches the right side of the frame it must be more distant again. In other words, the camera is positioned so exactly in line with the Earth and the Moon's orbit that it has captured the Moon at it's closet to the camera just at the precise moment when the Moon is in front of the Earth from the camera's viewpoint. This is just another hasty intuitive conclusion based on common experience. He's thinking in 2 dimensions as if he's standing on the ground looking at a carousel. But this depends on the relative position of the camera and the Moon's orbit in 3 dimensions. The camera isn't likely to be precisely aligned to plane of the Moon's orbit. We've also got to consider where the barycenter of the Moon's orbit is at that moment. And whether it is near perigee or apogee in it's elliptical orbit. Without a diagram, this is all hard to explain in words. But the Moon may be approaching the camera or moving away from the camera the whole time. As a matter of fact, that is the most likely scenario as far as I can tell.
Third mistake:
The intuitive idea is that we should be able to see a difference in the diameter of the Moon as it is moving in its curved orbit. We should be able to see it moving in a curved path. That it should look like a horse on a carousel. Again, the problem is scale. He doesn't appreciate the fact that in the 4:55 hours from when we first see the partial image of the Moon to when we see the last partial image as it leaves the frame, the Moon is only moving through a small arc of its orbit. Just a few degrees. It's completely unreasonable to think that we could see a difference in its size or that it would look like a horse on a carousel.
I'm going to attempt some math. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to correct any mistakes and expand on this:
(The Moon's orbit is eccentric and there are all sorts of other things to consider; but I'm going to treat it like a circle and use average values because any error is irrelevant to the argument at hand, which is one of scale.)
The Moon's orbital velocity is 1.023 km/s
The time the Moon is visible in the video is 295 minutes
60 secs x 295 = 17,700 seconds
1.023 km/s x 17,700 secs = 18,107.10 km
The Moon traveled in an arc of 18,107.10 kms during this video.
The Moon's orbit is 2,418,977 km in circumference
2,418,977/360 degrees = 6,719.38 kms per degree
18,107.10/6,719.38 = 2.69 degrees
If I have this right, the Moon only traveled in an arc of 2.69 degrees during the entire video. Less if you only count the time in which the whole Moon is in view.
Even if the Moon is approaching or retreating from the camera the whole time, that's a total difference of 2.69 degrees: a small amount of the total orbit. (If it was advancing and retreating, as the author said, it would only be a total difference of 1.35 degrees.) It's beyond my math to calculate the total difference in apparent size. Maybe someone will do that math. In the meantime, here's a protractor. How much of a difference would movement along a 2.69 degree arc make in apparent size?
Later, he compares images of the Moon he has captured and thinks that they are different sizes after all from the beginning to the end; which to him makes no sense. I'm skeptical that he's seeing a real difference. Of course there is a small difference, which could be detected by a scientific instrument, but is it enough of a difference to see in this simple way?
- The Moon is Out of Focus
It's blurred because of the offset layering of three different images (RGB).
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...n ... e-of-earth
"EPIC’s 'natural color' images of Earth are generated by combining three separate monochrome exposures taken by the camera in quick succession. EPIC takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband spectral filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used in these color images.
Combining three images taken about 30 seconds apart as the moon moves produces a slight but noticeable camera artifact on the right side of the moon. Because the moon has moved in relation to the Earth between the time the first (red) and last (green) exposures were made, a thin green offset appears on the right side of the moon when the three exposures are combined. This natural lunar movement also produces a slight red and blue offset on the left side of the moon in these unaltered images."
Not only are there artifacts on the edge of the Moon, but the entire image is blurred because it's an overlay of three offset images.
The author even mentions something about this problem in the beginning of his video but he doesn't connect the dots.
- There is No Shadow of the Moon on the Earth
- There Should always be a Solar Eclipse With Each New Moon
These issues are related because they rely on the naïve idea that because of what we see in the video, the Sun, the Deep Space Climate Observatory, the Moon and the Earth must all be lined up in a completely straight line. Of course the Sun is behind the the Deep Space Climate Observatory and the Moon is between The Earth and the satellite. But are they in such perfect alignment that the satellite would cast a shadow on the Moon and the Moon would cast a shadow on the Earth?
The intuitive conclusion is that this must be so. Because we see the Moon pass over the "bright spot" on the Earth. In a reaction to a comment about this, the author added this text to his video: "Why no eclipse seen on the Earth? The Moon is within 5 degrees of the equator and directly in front of the sun, yet no solar eclipse anywhere!"
This is put forth not only as evidence that the NASA video is fake, but that the spherical Earth theory is itself faulty. There should be a solar eclipse with every new Moon.
Again the problem here is scale. The author and his fans don't understand the size of the Sun, the size of the Earth and Moon, the distances involved and the geometry of the system. They are picturing playground balls at cozy inside-the-room distances getting in front of the light from a lamp.
Diagram of true Earth-Moon size and distance. The satellite is 3/4million miles farther out and the Sun is 92 million miles farther still.
The Sun is large and distant, the rays from the sun are effectively parallel and the Earth, Moon and the satellite are at astronomical distances from one another. It would take a much longer post to explain all this in detail, and perhaps someone will take the trouble.
But just because the Moon passes over the bright spot in the video doesn't at all mean that there should be an eclipse. The Moon and the satellite are lined up just right to see the Moon pass in front of the Earth. It doesn't follow at all that the Sun must also be in this same exact alignment.
Maybe someone here will be kind enough to produce a diagram of this situation.
There is also the geometry of a specular reflection on a sphere to consider. If an object passes in front of the specular reflection from one's viewpoint, that doesn't necessarily mean the object is in between you and the light source in a straight line.
Here's an example:
The camera is not at all in between the ball and the light source. Yet we could put an object in front of the camera which would obscure the specular reflection of the light source.
The ball in this example is not fully lit by the light source from the viewpoint of the camera, but it shows how much more complex the geometry of this is than the author and his fans assume.
Even with objects this size, within comfortable distances, using a telephoto lens, one could easily arrange a light source to fully illuminate the ball from the camera's viewpoint, yet not have the camera or the obscuring object and the light source in a completely straight line. They would be in a mostly straight line. But not enough for the camera or the object to cast a shadow on the ball. Yet the object could obscure the specular reflection.
This whole notion, however, is further extended in the comments section to support the notion that because the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth in this video, the Moon will always be in this relation on every new Moon, and thus there should be a solar eclipse with every new Moon. This implies that the spherical Earth model is fatally flawed. An ultra-naïve opinion, of course.
This last one is mentioned several times in the comments section and in comments sections in various mainstream media stories:
-Antarctica not visible
It's summer in the northern hemisphere. Do I really have to go on? Well, yes, because you have to spell out every thing to these people.
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/seasons/en/
Oops, I linked to the Great Deceiver - NASA
Anyway, the Deep Space Climate Observatory is between the Sun and the Earth. It is summer in the northern hemisphere. The north polar region is tilted toward the Sun - and thus the camera - and Antarctica is tilted away from the camera, thus Antarctica doesn't show up in the photo. Pretty simple.
