bishop's failures to deliver on accusations, assertions, commitments

Fixed my link above.

Quote

As for why they look different, there could be several explanations:

1) Different camera

Are you implying that the expensive color hasselblad cameras taken up on the Apollo missions were unable to perceive the color green?

No, but a different camera, especially an old camera good produce a grainy picture, thereby making green look somewhat like brown.

Quote

2) Different lighting

A camera's flash from space will not illuminate the earth.

I meant the sun's lighting, not the camera flash.

Quote

3) Different film

Are you implying that the cutting edge Kodak film  taken up on the Apollo missions were unable to perceive the color green?

No, put it's old film that could distort colors.  If you look at old photographs compared to new ones, the new ones are much more colorful while old photos are dull.

Quote

4) Different picture resolution.  The blue marble project is a series of hi-res pictures.

How does increasing or decreasing the resolution of an image eliminate the color green?

You can see more detail, which may produce brighter and richer color.  Maybe.  It's not likely though, the picture would just look better

Quote

5) Since the Blue Marble project is made to look pretty, NASA could be spicing up the image to make it look more appealing than the Apollo 16 picture.  One example is that in the Blue Marble project, the images are sorted through in order to remove as much cloud coverage as possible.

That's a valid cop-out. NASA does have a nasty habit of adding false color to its images. Every Hubble image, for example, comes in black and white. All stars and space phenomena produce white like. In reality there are no red, blue, or yellow hues from nebulae. It's all added in for visual effect.

Yes, this is the most likely reason for discrepancies between NASA pictures.  For example, the Blue Marble has the added sunlight reflection effect.  It would be very appealing to NASA to make the continents pretty and green.

Quote

Also, earth's color can change.  Here are two images, on taken in January of 2004 and one taken in July of 2004:

This is valid criticism. However, the Apollo missions took place all throughout the year. If you study the Apollo images of the earth closely you will find that there is not one spec of green on any of the continents. The continents appear as a uniform brown in each and every Apollo shot.

Yes, but again, the most likely reason would be photo editing by NASA.

now the question - why is an image with badly faked stars hosted on a nasa.gov subdomain?  i don't know, but you "conveniently" only provided a link to the jpeg.  i googled the link itself, and turned up no actual page contianing it (which might have provided clarifying details).  for all i know, it could have been on a page highlighting bad fakes, or user-submitted content.  provide a link to the page with the image *and* descriptive content, then we'll talk more.  until then, it's irrelevant as an obvious fake.

I found the image using Google Image Search. The image didn't have a corresponding webpage, however. The image came from an inaccessible  directory.

I've zoomed in on the stars in the image I provided and I didn't see any tell-tale marks of an MS Paint hack job. The stars are all anti-asailed. The stars are clearly coming from within the image - not painted on with MS Paint.



In fact, one of the stars seems to be half-obscured by the earth. This suggests that the stars cannot be grain marks on the film; but are in truly the scene.

Additionally, to further demonstrate that Trekky's NASA-hosted image is a fake with painted on black marks to blot out the stars, I've adjusted the levels of the image here:

I didn't paint them on!!! 

You make me sad...


Anyway, the stars don't look like real stars.

Stars should not be able to be seen with a fast exposure camera.  The stars just aren't caught by the camera in the time it takes to take the picture.  If the exposure were extended, then we would be able to see stars.

So again the question rises:  Why are there two different pictures from the same photo, one with a bad MS Paint job to blot out the stars and one with stars that shouldn't be there?

Every Hubble image, for example, comes in black and white. All stars and space phenomena produce white like. In reality there are no red, blue, or yellow hues from nebulae. It's all added in for visual effect.

I'm going to put this as simply as possible:  That is a clean-cut lie.

Buy a telescope and examine any of our neighboring emission nebula, like the Orion nebula.  I look at the Orion nebula whenever I get the chance; and to the binocular aided eye, it appears green.  There is no question about that.



It's the same with the stars.  Examine some of our celestial neighbors through a telescope.  Rigel, Vega, Denab, Sirius; They are bright blue.  Antares, Aldebaran, Betelgeuse; Deep shades of red.

Or look at Albireo, a colorful binary in Cygnus.



Celestial phenomena display many more hues then just 'black and white.'

Now it's true that many of the Hubble images have had false color added in order to provide more useful information (like temperature, density or composition.)



But to say that there are no hues coming from space phenomena, (nebula especially) is fantastically incorrect.

Engy I am looking in your direction

And yet, you still haven't proven me wrong.  So who it the one that is full of it?

I didn't paint them on!!!

You make me sad...

I didn't suggest that painted them on. I mentioned the image as yours because you found it an presented it on page one of this thread. Of course it was NASA who blotted out the stars. The image is hosted on NASA's website, not yours.

So again the question rises:  Why are there two different pictures from the same photo, one with a bad MS Paint job to blot out the stars and one with stars that shouldn't be there?

One hypothesis I've heard was that NASA blots out the stars in its images because an amateur astronomer could easily see that the stars do not match up to known constellations. Since the image of the earth is warped through a Fish-Eye lens or other warping technique to create its rotundity the stars in the scene are also warped - essentially creating entirely new constellations.

Buy a telescope and examine any of our neighboring emission nebula, like the Orion nebula.  I look at the Orion nebula whenever I get the chance; and to the naked eye, it appears green.  There is no question about that.

My mistake then. I have never seen the Orion nebula through a telescope.

But even so, my primary point was that there's no denying that NASA adds false-color to its images. NASA is never truly and entirely honest about its images.

If you have found more obvious fakes on the NASA website, could you please share them?

But even so, my primary point was that there's no denying that NASA adds false-color to its images. NASA is never honest about its images.

On the contrary, NASA is very honest about it's images.

Like I said, they don't add false color for any nefarious purposes.  They do it to provide useful information, and because quickly extracting information from a color scheme is much easier than quickly extracting information from a numerical plot.

Again, examine this photograph of the orion nebula from the Spitzer IR space telescope.



It's not green.  But that's not because NASA is being dishonest.  It's because viewing the nebula in visual light isn't what this image was taken for.  It was taken in the infrared in order to learn about properties of the gas that makes up the nebula.



Or again, from a ground based observatory:



They're not being dishonest.  They are just presenting the data in the most useful format.  In this case, white has been arbitrarily picked to represent the areas with the strongest H-alpha emission lines, and therefore the regions that have the highest temperatures.

Nothing dishonest, they just displaying the color scheme in order to provide the most useful information.

On the contrary, NASA is very honest about it's images.

If NASA is so honest about its imagery then why does it release images with stars and then change its mind later down the road and decide that there were no stars in its earth images by crudely blacking them out?

Here's another original scan I found of the released images:

http://ilewg.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS17/148/22686.jpg

This image apparently escaped the tantrum of NASA's photoshoppers. We can see beyond doubt now, that these stars are actually in the scene and not simply put on with MS Paint.

Furthermore, the full shot images of the earth from the same collection seem to have had odd warping techniques applied to them.

Original:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_h_118_18885.gif

Image with Adjusted Levels:

http://i16.tinypic.com/6x1322x.jpg

Yeah there could be a number of reasons for the colouring being a little different. The first time they landed a rover on Mars to take pictures, they had to wait for the data to be sent back to put together a colour image. They filtered in too much blue at first showing Mars with a blue sky.  However, the next day they sorted it out and showed Mars to have a pink sky.

then for decades, they miscolored mars too red - from rover pics to hubble pics.  in reality, to human perception (which no person has witnessed firsthand without obscuring earth atmosphere), mars is really more orangish.  conspiracy theorists use this as proof that either mars doesn't exist or something, or that nasa never went to mars and hubble telescope doesn't exist.  which is a very curious argument, because nasa didn't have to "fix" the "problem", and it wasn't really a "problem" in the first place. 

the issue was with the fact that nasa is and has intentionally never been very "accurate" with colors - in terms of matching what humans see.  while most earth satellites pics that people like tend to favor accuracy for human perception over scientific value (due to our intimate familiarity with the colorings of earth), most other pics "out there" use one, two, three, or more separate exposures (or sensors) with very narrow filters over them, and those filters usually do not resemble at all the peak sensitivities or curves of the eye.  with astronomical photos for example, they substitute broad human red perception for a very harrow frequency that hydrogen shows up best in.  some more recent astro work substitutes blue for x-ray images from different devices altogether.  getting any such photos to look "natural" to the human eye is an art, not a science, but nasa was primarily interested in the science of what each color told them.  and for a long time, the "art" portion of the coloring of mars were based on low-res film-based images taken through alot of atmosphere.  it wasn't until cameras arrived over mars with more human-perception accurate imaging that the truer (to our eyes) colors were discovered.

Bishop's "logic" is amazing. several pictures taken from different angles, of different parts of the earth, taken at different local times, dont look exactly the same, so...they must all be totally fake?!?!

your "false color" is just light enhancement to make the colors brighter!

anyone remember the famous "Io volcano" pictures from Voyager? the cloud was not even visible till a technician told the computer to enhance it-so she could see the stars better!

(of course Bishop claims Voyager and Hubble are totally fake)

Quote from: Gabe on December 16, 2007, 06:57:39 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 16, 2007, 06:48:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Dipshit on December 16, 2007, 06:34:46 PM

@ Mr. Ireland. cpt_Bthimes does make things enjoyable. Tom Bishop's stupidity and CPT's (very) short temper is the reason I come here.

Doing the exact same thing everyone else has but in a more excessive manner is enjoyable?  Sad.

I'm trying to understand your train of thought here.
No one else was ever really succeeding. Sure Tom had to ignore some posts here and there, and lead threads off topic and fight losing wars, but complete pwnage is extremely entertaining.

Don't you ever pay attention?  People 'pwn' Tom all the time.  Look at Gulliver.  All Gulliver did was hate on Tom day in and day out.  It's old.  It's boring.  It's sad.

there is a difference between hating and p0wning.  i don't hate bishop, i don't even know him.  i'm only tired of his bs "day in and day out", with few people calling him on it.  maybe it's because the people quite capable of shutting him down are tired of him and don't take him seriously.  but most of the active members at any given time are total noobs who don't know any better.  so bishop has become conditioned to just spout bs with reckless abandon, knowing no one will call him on it.  when anyone makes an attempt, he copy/pastes rowbotham, and that's somehow the end of it.  it's time to make a stand, and shout with one voice: "we will not cave in - to superstitious, pseudo-scientific, religious nonsense.  we will not go quietly into the night - with bishop's idiotic ideas".

/end patriotic music

so, you are wrong.  it's not old.  it's not boring.  it's not sad.  it is duty.  if you have given up on standing up for truth and a desire to understanding reality as accurately as possible, then you are a husk of a human and have no business on the internets, a battleground where truth seeks to stamp out unreason.  unreason may be winning globally at the moment, but that tide turns here.  now.  go ahead: stand up and take the shot heard round the world.  get on the boat, or get off (the boat).

/i guess the patriotic music was still playing.  now it's off.

edit: couple of spelling errors fixed, and want to point out more clearly that this is sarcasm.  the overall message is sincere though - that we have to stand up to unreason no matter how futile (the whack-a-mole problem).  and therefore "p0wning bishop" can never be allowed to get "old".  that's just contemptible intellectual lazyness.  bishop is nothing more than a symbol - of the superstitions, fears, prejudices, and sheer ignorant tendencies of the mammalian human brain.  only with courage and hard work can we stand up and try (but never allow ourselves to believe we have succeeded) to try to shake off the shackles of our ugly, primitive brains that have only recently become a liability.  shake off the gooey goblins like bishop, holding us back from attaining informed, rational enlightenment as a species.  (irony of my personal history duly noted.)  if i believed in god, and also held these views, i would have to conclude (based on faith like bishop's beliefs) that bishop was an agent of satan.

/man that patriotic music just won't stop, will it?  it's like the terminator.

Are you implying that the expensive color hasselblad cameras taken up on the Apollo missions were unable to perceive the color green?

Are you implying that the cutting edge Kodak film  taken up on the Apollo missions were unable to perceive the color green?

you really have no idea how cameras work, do you.  i am not expert, but even i understand these basic principles.  both positive and negative color film try to capture similar light frequencies, curve widths, and amounts that the human eye sees.  but both are not very good at it, any more than modern ccd's are good at it.  negative film in particular is horrendously bad and requires extensive tweaking.  but positive film is much worse than negtive film is also not very good and is much worse at capturing dynamic range - so proper exposure becomes crucial and unforgiving of mistakes.

but all film is merely an extremely gross aproximation of human perception, anyone remotely involved in photography for any length of time in even the most casual way understands this.  which is compounded by the fact that no two humans perceive colors the same way, and thus what is perceived as an "accurate" reproduction of color will vary among widely them (several different kinds and levels of color blindness aren't even the tip of the iceburg) - as will the actual results themselves as initially adjusted for accuracy by different humans.

you can prove this to yourself.  get two rolls of film: one positive, one negative.  take pictures in varying yet controlled conditions - e.g. indoors, outdoors, shade, even just different directions from the sun outdoors.  get the films developed.  then take both sets of film to two different shops to have prints made.  finally, go back in to one of those same shops, and have the same prints of the same films made by the same shop on the same equipment, but by a different technitian.  you will have three sets of prints each from two different rolls of film.

you will get results incredibly all over the map.  i know this firsthand, i have esentially done that experiment in the film days, albeit through experience rather than controlled conditions.  "accurate color" it is not a science, or even a meaningful term, due to human perception and the vast limitations of film.  it is an art, and will never be anything but.  as long as there were more than one technician making prints or scans of science films, and/or working on different days, and/or different location, and/or different equipment - there will be very noticeable differences in at least hue, contrast, brightness, white balance, and other things i'm not sophisticated enough to know about.  furthermore, you won't get a group of humans to even consistently agree on what those differences are.

you are testing my patience, bishop.  and severely cramping my entire forearm and hand.

That's a valid cop-out. NASA does have a nasty habit of adding false color to its images. Every Hubble image, for example, comes in black and white. All stars and space phenomena produce white like. In reality there are no red, blue, or yellow hues from nebulae. It's all added in for visual effect.

it's not a "nasty habit", it is explicitly stated goals, [insulting expletive deleted].  the "false" colors of hubble are done for science, not your personal [expletive deleted] viewing pleasure.

you really have no idea how cameras work, do you.  i am not expert, but even i understand these basic principles.  both positive and negative color film try to capture similar light frequencies, curve widths, and amounts that the human eye sees.  but both are not very good at it, any more than modern ccd's are good at it.  negative film in particular is horrendously bad and requires extensive tweaking.  but positive film is much worse than negtive film is also not very good and is much worse at capturing dynamic range - so proper exposure becomes crucial and unforgiving of mistakes.

but all film is merely an extremely gross aproximation of human perception, anyone remotely involved in photography for any length of time in even the most casual way understands this.  which is compounded by the fact that no two humans perceive colors the same way, and thus what is perceived as an "accurate" reproduction of color will vary among widely them (several different kinds and levels of color blindness aren't even the tip of the iceburg) - as will the actual results themselves as initially adjusted for accuracy by different humans.

you can prove this to yourself.  get two rolls of film: one positive, one negative.  take pictures in varying yet controlled conditions - e.g. indoors, outdoors, shade, even just different directions from the sun outdoors.  get the films developed.  then take both sets of film to two different shops to have prints made.  finally, go back in to one of those same shops, and have the same prints of the same films made by the same shop on the same equipment, but by a different technitian.  you will have three sets of prints each from two different rolls of film.

you will get results incredibly all over the map.  i know this firsthand, i have esentially done that experiment in the film days, albeit through experience rather than controlled conditions.  "accurate color" it is not a science, or even a meaningful term, due to human perception and the vast limitations of film.  it is an art, and will never be anything but.  as long as there were more than one technician making prints or scans of science films, and/or working on different days, and/or different location, and/or different equipment - there will be very noticeable differences in at least hue, contrast, brightness, white balance, and other things i'm not sophisticated enough to know about.  furthermore, you won't get a group of humans to even consistently agree on what those differences are.

you are testing my patience, bishop.  and severely cramping my entire forearm and hand.

So in other words you don't really have an explanation for the color discrepancies.

Do you have any evidence demonstrating that any of these earth images were truly taken from space?

If you study the Apollo images of the earth closely you will find that there is not one spec of green on any of the continents. The continents appear as a uniform brown in each and every Apollo shot.

new accusations of fraud require new evidence submissions to back them up.  you should no by now that no one is just going to believe "your word".  show us the pictures.

No, put it's old film that could distort colors.  If you look at old photographs compared to new ones, the new ones are much more colorful while old photos are dull.

also, some digital images are are second or third-generation scans from prints, rather than direct negative scans.  as ccd's have just as many issues with "perceptual accuracy" as film, it's no surprise that scans from prints look like crap.

I found the image using Google Image Search. The image didn't have a corresponding webpage, however. The image came from an inaccessible  directory.

so again, we have no idea why those images are there.  it is proof of exactly nothing.  just because you have crack cocaine in your business - with no other contextual clues - doesn't mean you aren't in the business of forensic testing for drugs.

I've zoomed in on the stars in the image I provided and I didn't see any tell-tale marks of an MS Paint hack job. The stars are all anti-asailed. The stars are clearly coming from within the image - not painted on with MS Paint.

wrong.  you failed to execute the self-proof i outlined.  1) open up a paint program.  2) draw white marks with no anti-aliasing.  3) save it as medium quality jpeg.  you get the results you see.  depending on your program, you may also try resampling the image up or down (with or without jpeg compression), which achieves exactly similar results to what you see.  furthermore, the aliasing is not the same as the earth's.

tray again.

Additionally, to further demonstrate that Trekky's NASA-hosted image is a fake with painted on black marks to blot out the stars, I've adjusted the levels of the image here

congratulations, you've repeated what i already said.

Quote

you really have no idea how cameras work, do you.  i am not expert, but even i understand these basic principles.  both positive and negative color film try to capture similar light frequencies, curve widths, and amounts that the human eye sees.  but both are not very good at it, any more than modern ccd's are good at it.  negative film in particular is horrendously bad and requires extensive tweaking.  but positive film is much worse than negtive film is also not very good and is much worse at capturing dynamic range - so proper exposure becomes crucial and unforgiving of mistakes.

but all film is merely an extremely gross aproximation of human perception, anyone remotely involved in photography for any length of time in even the most casual way understands this.  which is compounded by the fact that no two humans perceive colors the same way, and thus what is perceived as an "accurate" reproduction of color will vary among widely them (several different kinds and levels of color blindness aren't even the tip of the iceburg) - as will the actual results themselves as initially adjusted for accuracy by different humans.

you can prove this to yourself.  get two rolls of film: one positive, one negative.  take pictures in varying yet controlled conditions - e.g. indoors, outdoors, shade, even just different directions from the sun outdoors.  get the films developed.  then take both sets of film to two different shops to have prints made.  finally, go back in to one of those same shops, and have the same prints of the same films made by the same shop on the same equipment, but by a different technitian.  you will have three sets of prints each from two different rolls of film.

you will get results incredibly all over the map.  i know this firsthand, i have esentially done that experiment in the film days, albeit through experience rather than controlled conditions.  "accurate color" it is not a science, or even a meaningful term, due to human perception and the vast limitations of film.  it is an art, and will never be anything but.  as long as there were more than one technician making prints or scans of science films, and/or working on different days, and/or different location, and/or different equipment - there will be very noticeable differences in at least hue, contrast, brightness, white balance, and other things i'm not sophisticated enough to know about.  furthermore, you won't get a group of humans to even consistently agree on what those differences are.

you are testing my patience, bishop.  and severely cramping my entire forearm and hand.

So in other words you don't really have an explanation for the color discrepancies.

Do you have any evidence demonstrating that any of these earth images were truly taken from space?

There's been quite a few likely explanations given on this thread for colour discrepancies.  I don't think it's even worth debating really, if you take a photograph, and your friend takes the same picture with a different camera, the photographs often look different.  There's loads of factors, like how much exposure the camera is supposed to give. I dunno what kinda cameras they use, but I've got a couple of books of Nasa's photos, and they often filter in certain colours less than others in order to highlight particular features.
It's quite funny, this sight reminds me of that guy who wrote a book saying how the moon landing was fake. He approached Buzz Aldren and wanted him to swear on the bible that he went to the moon. Buzz punched the guy in the face, nice one! I saw a video of it somewhere...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2007, 09:31:31 AM

Every Hubble image, for example, comes in black and white. All stars and space phenomena produce white like. In reality there are no red, blue, or yellow hues from nebulae. It's all added in for visual effect.

I'm going to put this as simply as possible:  That is a clean-cut lie.

...

But to say that there are no hues coming from space phenomena, (nebula especially) is fantastically incorrect.

i think what bishop was trying (very poorly) to say, was that the hubble telescope takes separate exposures with different filters, with a sensor underneath that only measures luminance.  i know you know this, fagan, i'm just trying to clarify bishop's position.  (wow - me, defending bishop?)

the part he failed to mention - either out of ignorance, negligence, or intent to deceive - was that there are filters of varying center frequencies and...i forget the proper term denoting the width of the curve...over each grayscale exposure, which limits the frequencies of recorded light accordingly.  the resulting individual grayscale images are primarily useful science in and of themselves.  and for public consumption (and some science), the grayscale images are often combined with different colorings than their original filters - sometimes just pure r, g, and b.  the result looks like (and is in both relative and absolute terms) a color image, but often not quite what the human eye perceives.

so, as his assertion sounded, he is categorically wrong.  but i think as he meant to or could have more accurately said, it's correct.

fagan, i see you already addressed some of this before this post, earlier in this thread.  maybe more elegantly with examples.

One hypothesis I've heard was that NASA blots out the stars in its images because an amateur astronomer could easily see that the stars do not match up to known constellations. Since the image of the earth is warped through a Fish-Eye lens or other warping technique to create its rotundity the stars in the scene are also warped - essentially creating entirely new constellations.

there it is, just as i predicted: the conspiracy cop-out.  the dreaded "five-year-old using ms-paint conspiracy", to be precise.  it just doesn't stand up to reason or occam's razor, nor the very well-understood and demonstrated properties of film and ccd's (notably their severe constraints on dynamic range).

Buy a telescope and examine any of our neighboring emission nebula, like the Orion nebula.  I look at the Orion nebula whenever I get the chance; and to the naked eye, it appears green.  There is no question about that.

My mistake then. I have never seen the Orion nebula through a telescope.

you haven't!?  man that's one of the first objects in the sky that people with telescopes look at.  even i have imaged it myself with my camera with nothing more than a tripod, high iso setting, and 30-second + exposure (slightly blurred of course).  oh, i get it: you bought your telescope just to watch children splashing on the beach, safely hidden from 33 miles away.

But even so, my primary point was that there's no denying that NASA adds false-color to its images. NASA is never truly and entirely honest about its images.

um, where is your evidence to back up your flimsy accusations that no one believes by themselves?

If NASA is so honest about its imagery then why does it release images with stars and then change its mind later down the road and decide that there were no stars in its earth images by crudely blacking them out?

again bishop (although in your defense you did post this before i set you straight), images completely isolated from their intended context is proof of nothing.  as another random illustration, just because i find you with a handgun on your person, doesn't mean you are carrying it illegally.

Here's another original scan I found of the released images:

http://ilewg.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS17/148/22686.jpg

This image apparently escaped the tantrum of NASA's photoshoppers. We can see beyond doubt now, that these stars are actually in the scene and not simply put on with MS Paint.

huh, really?  because, those "stars" look an awful lot like dust on the film to me.  they don't look like any kind of stars i have seen.  they are of varying blurriness, and many are not round.  and are we to presume that the white lint-shaped objects are stars as well?  clearly this is a baseline scan (without "digital ice" on consumer and some pro scanners).  if you want your original alpha version of this photograph, this looks to be about as original as you can get.  no stars.  you fail.  badly.

Furthermore, the full shot images of the earth from the same collection seem to have had odd warping techniques applied to them.

tell me again what you think that proves?  "odd warping techniques"?  what does that mean?


edit: proper bishop quote about warping inserted, rather than unlinked quote.

As we're on the topic of photographs of the Earth, you guys might find this interesting. This is from astronaut Joe Tanner in ther book 'Spacecam' by Terry Hope,
         "If we are taking pictures of the Earth in daylight then we could be shooting at shutter speeds of 1/250 sec to 1/500sec, and you should be pretty safe hand holding the camera under these circumstances. If you're taking a low light shot, however, things are more difficult, and we use a mechanical arm that is very stable, although this can be a little hard to set up sometimes.  We can also use something called a lockline , which is a piece of flexible plastic that wouldn't hold the wait of the camera on Earth, but in space it holds just fine.  There are considerations to bear in mind when you are photographing the Earth from a spacecraft in orbit. You have to be very cautious about stray light in the cockpit if you're taking a dark shot.  You also quickly realize that your target is moving: you are travelling at five miles a second, and if you are using a slower shutter speed you need to perfect the art of panning the camera to keep track with the movement of the Earth and to maintain focus.
            In terms of pictures of Earth, Nasa has been doing this now for over 40 years, and it's very interesting to compare locations and the way they have changed in this time.  In locations such as Africa you can track the deforestation abd the encroachment of desert regions....."

There's loads more, but there's a snippet anyway about their photography anyway
 

huh, really?  because, those "stars" look an awful lot like dust on the film to me.  they don't look like any kind of stars i have seen.  they are of varying blurriness, and many are not round.  and are we to presume that the white lint-shaped objects are stars as well?  clearly this is a baseline scan (without "digital ice" on consumer and some pro scanners).  if you want your original alpha version of this photograph, this looks to be about as original as you can get.  no stars.  you fail.  badly.

and as for your other color-distorted image, tell me again what you think it proves?  "applied distortion" or something?

I don't see any dust. I see stars. If it was just dust on the film, why is there no dust overlapping the earth?

I don't see any dust. I see stars. If it was just dust on the film, why is there no dust overlapping the earth?

you need to try harder before opening your mouth, otherwise you look foolish.  since you are apparently fond of doing simple contrast stretches, try loading the image into your photo editor and stretch the contrast.  you will see the dust on the earth.

if you paused to think for a moment before responding so hastily, you would notice that that the dust, fuzz, and lint specks are very light gray.  the earth in the image is very bright.  if you isolate the luminance values of one of the specs and compare it to luminance of the earth, they are extremely similar, in fact often just slightly darker especially over bright cloudy areas.  the specks just don't show up very well on the bright earth, unlike the stark contrast of light gray over dark gray of the space background in this scan.  but as you can see, they are there if you bother to look.

bishop, you are a master of exactly and only three things:

a] making random unfounded assertions

b] defending them with rowbotham copy/pastes

c] and/or running away from the hard questions that naturally follow either disappearing, or by introducing *new* random, unfounded assertions and lies that derail attention from your original unfounded assertions and lies .  kind of like the liar's version of a ponsey scheme.

every *new* random, unfounded assertion you have introduced into this thread has been thoroughly shot down.  and yet you keep making new ones faster than the old ones can be discussed.


so let's review the status of the original hard questions:

1.1] "The color of continents between shots is not constant, they turn from bright green to a dull brown"  status: bishop failed to adequately support.  another baseless and inexcusable accusation of nasa fraud.

1.2] "The earth emits a glare in tandem with a polished billiard ball in one scene but not another."  status: bishop failed to adequately support.  another baseless and unconscionable accusation of nasa fraud.

1.3.a] "Clouds have shadows in one image but no others."  status: bishop forfeited.  another baseless and cowardly accusation of nasa fraud.

1.3.b] "Et cetera."  status: huh?  where does this belong in rational debate as an accusation?

2] bishop can see a beach from 33 miles away while viewing through a telescope just above water level.  we need a commitment from bishop to provide evidence.  status: failure to even just commit, much less deliver.  another random assertion pulled out of [some dark and nasty area].

3] on oct 31, bishop stated "I do have video evidence for reproductions of Rowbotham's work coming in today through the post. I'll have it converted and uploaded online within a few days."  status: bishop gets a pass on this one, with nothing proven or disproven.  he was [conveniently?] thinking of a different video.

Do you have any evidence demonstrating that any of these earth images were truly taken from space?

Yes, I used my James Bond grapple hook to hitch a ride on a passing stratellite and took the pictures myself.

I don't see any dust. I see stars. If it was just dust on the film, why is there no dust overlapping the earth?

this also of noteworthy interest in another way: he directly contradicts himself.  (for the ten zillionth time.)

in a post on this very thread, while dicsussing the horrible ms-paint job on the stars in the earth shot, he confidently states: "The stars are clearly coming from within the image"

then later in this same thread, he finds what he claims (and seems to be) the original, much higher-res scan of the same scene, mysteriously and completely lacking the giant ms-paint "star" blobs - but now with dust, lint, and fuzzies on the image.  to which he states equally as confidently (my emphasis): "these stars are actually in the scene"

both cannot be true at the same time, yet he has stated unequivocally just that.

edit: fixed concatenated quote.

there is a difference between hating and p0wning.  i don't hate bishop, i don't even know him.  i'm only tired of his bs "day in and day out", with few people calling him on it.  maybe it's because the people quite capable of shutting him down are tired of him and don't take him seriously.  but most of the active members at any given time are total noobs who don't know any better.  so bishop has become conditioned to just spout bs with reckless abandon, knowing no one will call him on it.  when anyone makes an attempt, he copy/pastes rowbotham, and that's somehow the end of it.  it's time to make a stand, and shout with one voice: "we will not cave in - to superstitious, pseudo-scientific, religious nonsense.  we will not go quietly into the night - with bishop's idiotic ideas".

/end patriotic music

so, you are wrong.  it's not old.  it's not boring.  it's not sad.  it is duty.  if you have given up on standing up for truth and a desire to understanding reality as accurately as possible, then you are a husk of a human and have no business on the internets, a battleground where truth seeks to stamp out unreason.  unreason may be winning globally at the moment, but that tide turns here.  now.  go ahead: stand up and take the shot heard round the world.  get on the boat, or get off (the boat).

/i guess the patriotic music was still playing.  now it's off.

edit: couple of spelling errors fixed, and want to point out more clearly that this is sarcasm.  the overall message is sincere though - that we have to stand up to unreason no matter how futile (the whack-a-mole problem).  and therefore "p0wning bishop" can never be allowed to get "old".  that's just contemptible intellectual lazyness.  bishop is nothing more than a symbol - of the superstitions, fears, prejudices, and sheer ignorant tendencies of the mammalian human brain.  only with courage and hard work can we stand up and try (but never allow ourselves to believe we have succeeded) to try to shake off the shackles of our ugly, primitive brains that have only recently become a liability.  shake off the gooey goblins like bishop, holding us back from attaining informed, rational enlightenment as a species.  (irony of my personal history duly noted.)  if i believed in god, and also held these views, i would have to conclude (based on faith like bishop's beliefs) that bishop was an agent of satan.

/man that patriotic music just won't stop, will it?  it's like the terminator.

Everything you are doing is old.  Everyone has had their time making arguments against Tom, and there's no need to go repeating the same shit over and over again every time Tom does a copya pasta (as the argument you present will be made by any worthy noob anyway).  Tom is a troll, you are doing nothing but supporting him by pointing out how wrong he is every time he posts.  If noobs can't defeat Tom, then that's their problem.  Let them sort out their business with Tom's FE theory (although some [not 'TOM U IZ RONG LOL'] intervention is great).  Pointing out he's wrong is alright once in a while, but when it's all the time it's old.

Courage and hard work? lol internetz 

Quote

On the contrary, NASA is very honest about it's images.

If NASA is so honest about its imagery then why does it release images with stars and then change its mind later down the road and decide that there were no stars in its earth images by crudely blacking them out?

Here's another original scan I found of the released images:

http://ilewg.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS17/148/22686.jpg

This image apparently escaped the tantrum of NASA's photoshoppers. We can see beyond doubt now, that these stars are actually in the scene and not simply put on with MS Paint.

Tom,

Can you honestly not tell that that is dust?

I mean, come on, the image looks dirty, looks like it has eyelashes on it (or some type of small hair) and dust.  The reason we can's see the dust on the Earth?  The Earth is a lighter color.  The same reason you can see dandruff on a black shirt easier than on another shirt (such as very light blue, like the Earth).