NASA’s ‘Blue Marble’ Earth is a fake

When we think of Earth, this iconic image of the “Blue Marble” immediately comes to mind.

NASA BLue Marble 1972 from Apollo 17 small

We’ll call the above image “Blue Marble I”.

From Wikipedia:

The Blue Marble is a famous photograph of the Earth, taken on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft, at a distance of about 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles). It is one of the most iconic, and among the most widely distributed images in human history….

The image is one of the few to show an almost fully illuminated Earth disk (slightly gibbous), as the astronauts had the Sun behind them when they took the image. To the astronauts, Earth had the appearance and size of a glass marble, hence the name.

The photograph was taken about 5 hours and 6 minutes after launch of the Apollo 17 mission, and about 1 hour 54 minutes after the spacecraft left its parking orbit around the Earth, to begin its trajectory to the Moon.

Or maybe that’s not the Blue Marble you have in mind. Maybe it’s this iconic image of a more vividly-colored Blue Marble which was released by NASA in 2002. Let’s call it “Blue Marble II”.

NASA Blue Marble 2002

Blue Marble II is so familiar to us in part because it was the default image on the first iPhone.

Blue Marble on iPhone

But some sharp-eyed geeks discovered “anomalies” in Blue Marble II, specifically duplicate clouds, as you can see in a cropped section of Blue Marble II (below):

2002 Blue Marble anomalies

The discovery of duplicate clouds has led to accusations that not only is the 2002 image (Blue Marble II) a fake, the original Apollo 17 image (Blue Marble I) was likely a fake as well. That, in turn, has led some to question whether everything NASA did and said was fake. See, for example, this post from Plane Not A Planet blog.

The problem is that, in the years after the first Blue Marble photo was taken by Apollo 17, NASA has released many Blue Marbles, “Blue Marble II” being one of the best known and most popular.

As NASA explains about the 2002 “Blue Marble II”:

Metadata

  • Data Date: February 8, 2002
  • Visualization Date: February 8, 2002

This spectacular “blue marble” image is the most detailed true-color image of the entire Earth to date. Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet. These images are freely available to educators, scientists, museums, and the public.

Much of the information contained in this image came from a single remote-sensing device-NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, or MODIS. Flying over 700 km above the Earth onboard the Terra satellite, MODIS provides an integrated tool for observing a variety of terrestrial, oceanic, and atmospheric features of the Earth. The land and coastal ocean portions of these images are based on surface observations collected from June through September 2001 and combined, or composited, every eight days to compensate for clouds that might block the sensor’s view of the surface on any single day…. The cloud image is a composite of two days of imagery collected in visible light wavelengths and a third day of thermal infra-red imagery over the poles. Global city lights, derived from 9 months of observations from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, are superimposed on a darkened land surface map.

In other words, rendered in simple English, NASA is saying that the 2002 “Blue Marble II” is not a photo. Instead, the image is a COMBINATION and COMPOSITE of many “satellite-based observations” (whatever that means), which were “stitched together” (whatever that means) by scientists and “visualizers” (whatever that means).

In other words, Blue Marble II is a fake — which would explain the duplicate clouds.

Here’s an admission by Robert Simmon, one of the “visualizers” who “stitched together” Blue Marble II, as related by David Yanofsky in his March 27, 2014 article for Quartz, “The guy who created the iPhone’s Earth image explains why he needed to fake it“:

As it turns out, much of what one might assume about this beautiful image is not true…. It isn’t actually a photograph of earth. And that blackness surrounding it? That’s not space, either….

Simmon, a data-visualizer and designer at NASA’s Earth Observatory, created the image in 2002. He told Quartz it’s not a photograph, but a sophisticated visualization. 

Images of the earth may seem commonplace, but there are actually very few pictures of the entire planet. The problem, Simmon said, is all the NASA earth-observing satellites are in low-earth or geostationary orbit, meaning none of them are far enough away to see a full hemisphere. The most familiar pictures of the entire Earth are from the 1960s and 1970s Apollo missions to the moon.

As realistic as it looks, the image is a composite of four months of light data collected in 2,300 km (1,429 mi) wide bands as NASA’s Terra satellite orbited from pole to pole, and the earth rotated beneath it.

That data was then stitched together and applied to the surface of a digital ball, then modified in Photoshop.

Simmon readily admits there are numerous fakeries in his image. The atmosphere is Photoshop blur. Some of the clouds are collaged together using Photoshop’s clone tool to cover gaps in the satellite’s coverage. The black area around the earth is not the void of space. It is simply a background of black color that Simmon placed the earth on top of. (This is standard practice, Simmon says: most actual “photographs” of the earth—including the Apollo images—present the planet on a black background).

Without these alterations, the image wouldn’t look very earth-like. Simmon said he based his manipulations on reality, “in the sense that I’ve looked at a lot of imagery to see how thick should that be, how blue should that be.” But, he later added, “It’s more hyper-realistic than realistic.”

“Without these alterations, the image wouldn’t look very earth-like.”

That’s a doozy of a sentence, because our visual images of earth all came from NASA in the first place as none of us has flown into space to actually see the entire Earth.

Given the admission that Blue Marble II is a fake, we have every reason to wonder about other NASA fakeries and lies, such as the 1986 Challenger explosion (see “Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive?”) and whether those photos taken on the Moon are real.

See also:

~Éowyn

Advertisements

68 responses to “NASA’s ‘Blue Marble’ Earth is a fake

  1. Thanks for additional evidence.

    Today, while readers of ResearchGate debated the validity of the “Standard Solar Model,”

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_Sir_Fred_Hoyle_BLOW_THE_COVER_ON_THE_BIGGEST_LIE_in_STALINS_SCIENCE

    Drs. Takaaki Kajita of Japan and Arthur B. McDonald of Canada were awarded the Nobel prize in Physics for saving the Standard Solar Model by reporting that most solar neutrinos oscillate away before reaching the neutrino detectors:

    http://nypost.com/2015/10/06/2-share-nobel-prize-in-physics-for-work-on-neutrinos/

    Their findings are contradicted by these experimental measurement, hidden from the public after WWII:

    “Solar energy” (17 March 2015): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Like

  2. Just when I thought I couldn’t get more freaked out.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Allow me to have a little fun:

    The Obama biography is a “COMBINATION and COMPOSITE” that was “stitched together” by “visualizers”. … “Without these alterations,” the man “wouldn’t look very earth-like” or, especially, American. Obama’s life story is “more hyper-realistic than realistic.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Why would they go to so much effort and trouble to fake a damned “blue marble” picture or two? Maybe the Earth ISN’T ROUND!! Maybe the APOLLO Program DIDN’T HAPPEN! Maybe that missing airliner flew off the edge of the World and the Dragons got it! (sarc)
    Sorry-just blowing off some steam over a truckload of little frustrations and irritations-I’m okay now.

    Like

  5. just a bunch of liars…take any space ship hollyweird movie and call it a nasa expedition…same result

    Like

  6. And NASA wonders why many people think they faked the Moon landing in Hollywood…

    Liked by 1 person

    • I just looked into that a month or so ago. I had never studied the expedition photos closely. I was shaken, to say the least. I crawled into bed late and asked my husband, “How many light sources did they have on the moon? Did they have big movie lights on the lander?” He said, “No way, they would be too heavy. The only light source is the sun. Period.” So I didn’t say anything else, because I didn’t want to tell him about this additional doozy. He forgot about it by morning, so I suffer alone with this. Sigh. Plus….no stars in the pictures!

      Liked by 1 person

    • The only reason why people believe that nonsense is because people will believe anything with no good evidence to support it. This is what happens when you raise people to not think critically and be skeptical.

      There isn’t any good evidence for a flat earth or for Nasa faking space travel. People believe a narrative and then look specifically for only that evidence which supports their beliefs.

      Like

      • Kyle is it nonsense when we, using their calculations of the curvature of the Earth, discover the plane is flat to say it is flat? Remember this is the math “they” say is valid. I truly hope you pull your proverbial head out of your arse soon. No offence. Use your brain please.

        Like

      • This is how scientists perform experiments to validate their theories as well….

        Like

        • get a life doofus

          Dear Dr. Eowyn,
          The ORIGINAL Blue Marble can in now way have been been created with CGI as it was a photograph taken from Apollo 17 when it was 28,000 miles from the earth using a 70-millimeter Hasselblad camera with an 80-millimeter Zeiss lens in 1972 … when CGI was just not capable of creating something like that.
          There is another “Blue Marble” which was used by iphone as a background which was created from imagery and CGI – the guy who made is discusses it here http://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
          Many people have used this image to try to prove that we never went to the moon.
          But compare that to the original https://www.nasa.gov/content/blue-marble-image-of-the-earth-from-apollo-17 !! This photo can be enlarged and is not a composite.
          There are also a number of other similar images which are composites which are available. But the ORIGINAL blue marble is one photograph, taken in the days when the film in the camera had to be developed and then printed. It is not a composite, no overlays or CGI or retouching at all.
          But what you see on your computer is a scan … the only digital method used on this photo.

          Like

          • Why only ONE picture of the earth, with all that film on board. Wow! I’m so excited to be on the moon that the earth is nothing now, I can’t think about that right now? Well, I guess they thought about it one time. But one time, you’ve got to be kidding! When are you going to have a change to take such a picture again?

            Sounds pretty fakey to me. Oh, yes, could this indeed not be an actual full blown photo like Hollywood creates and shoots all the time, even back then. They wouldn’t have to us CGI. Just make a mock up and shoot the picture, no?

            And why no stars in all the moon landing shots? Somethings definitely out of sync here.

            I sure don’t under all this but some surely is not right; more at it looks like someone is pulling our chain.

            Because there are so many questions and so few real satisfying answer… what’s the obvious direction a thinking mind going to go in?

            Like

          • Watch this clip through about 13:00 (the end part is different and has a lot of cursing). The first part shows how the astronauts faked “super high altitude” while being in low Earth orbit. They even faked the time delay in the radio calls. https://youtu.be/4F5LU1jRNtc

            Like

  7. Is it all showmanship after all? Once again we are in a hall of mirrors.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. All right, this Blue Marble II is a composite. But there have been other photos of Earth taken from the ISS. My late father worked in the defense industry on Long Island. He worked on electronic components for spacecraft, from the Mercury rockets to Skylab. Take it from me: We landed on the Moon.
    As for the astronauts of the Challenger surviving the explosion, it turns out some of them MAY have survived the explosion itself, only to die—and to get smashed to pieces—when the spacecraft hit the water. If that spacecraft, travelling at several Mach suddenly dropped—in one piece or several—the speed of it hitting the ocean surface would have ripped the thing apart.
    A lot of what the government is unrealistic, but real nonetheless. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we’re any better off for it.
    But the advantages of the space program have been great. (And I consider Obama’s ending of the Shuttle program to still remain an impeachable offense.) Man is a NOETIC being—capable of projecting his thoughts and activities into the future. Ending (or even curtailing) the space program does all of us the grave injustice of depriving us and future generations of the further discoveries we would have made, even if some of them are accidental. These discoveries are not limited to new heavenly bodies or meteors or comets. They are pharmaceutical, medical, even industrial. Or they could be. The laptop I am writing my reply on to you now would have been impossible without the applications that came, directly or indirectly, from the space program: Capacitors, silicon chips, even the internet system itself. More things and applications are waiting to be discovered. And their uses will turn out to be legion!

    Liked by 1 person

  9. NASA should forever be suspect:

    Moon Landing: NASA False Reality
    http://moralmatters.org/moon-landing-nasa-false-reality/

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry, but that site is garbage. Please look at my post lower down on the page.

      Additionally, the reason why the shadows seem to be coming from multiple light sources is because the camera is using a wide angle lens which causes a fish bowl like effect, curving the image. This causes the shadows to appear like they’re not coming from a single point.

      Example:

      The following image was taken at 70mm which wouldn’t have that effect. Notice how the shadows all point to a distant single point?

      Also, look at the top… stars.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Out of all the “conspiracy theories” out there, the Moon landing is NOT one of them. My mom’s cousin was part of the ground control team in Houston and interestingly enough…. the Saturn V rockets were built about 800 yards from my house where i’m typing this right now.

        here’s a photo from the 60’s of the North American Aviation facility where they built the rockets. My dad told me how they had to take down the power lines so they could move the huge rocket sections down Seal Beach Blvd to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. There they loaded them on to ships and they went south through the panama canal and all the way to Florida.

        This is Seal Beach Blvd and the cross street toward the top is Westminster Blvd.
        Here’s the inside of one of the buildings in the complex across the street.

        Amazingly enough, the old buildings are still standing. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7578673,-118.0792846,355m/data=!3m1!1e3
        The new parts of the facility are Boeing’s Space and Defense division.

        Liked by 1 person

        • The Moon Landing may not be a hoax: It all depends on whether the moon rocks are authentic. It doesn’t help that the moon rock given to Holland by astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin turned out to be fake. But the video images of the Moon landing are most certainly very suspect, for reasons that include:
          1. A pitch-black sky with no stars.
          2. An Earth that was smaller than what it should be.
          3. No tracks of the Moon rover in the “sand”.
          4. Images of the Moon shuttle landing on the Moon: Who/what could have taken those images?

          Like

          • While I haven’t absolutely made up my mind on this, the preponderance of the evidence suggests it was a fake. Most notably, the fact that it has been impossible to “reproduce” due to concerns over radioactivity.

            Anyone who doesn’t buy “The 9-11 Production”, should have absolutely no problem seeing this as a fake. Just because they built, and even launched, rockets doesn’t prove anything.

            Have you ever looked at that alleged footage of the “Lander” taking off from the Moon? I could do better with a fishing rod and some styrofoam.

            People get all caught up in their desire for “national pride”, etc., and let their common sense go right out the window. I do not trust NASA. It is not really a “civilian” agency. It is a lying agency.

            As to your article on Challenger I liked it very much. I have absolutely no problem believing it. As hard as it may be for some of us to believe that people would cooperate with these things, they will. Most people do not have a deep set of convictions and certainly not deep enough to overcome the lure of a little loose cash.

            Liked by 1 person

      • There are other moon photos that have shadows going vastly different directions. Also, there are surfaces in shadow (one side of the lander, for example) while the astronaut on that side of the lander (in the shadow) is fully illuminated. Sun and Earth in the distance are too small. And none of the pictures have stars, not even the shot of the distant Earth.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. When has our government been honest with us about anything? From UFOs, Aliens. Space travel, wars, debt, you name it.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Against all common sense and a life time of beliefs, the seed of an entirely different reality has been planted in my mind. Please don’t laugh but I now have to consider the possibility that our earth is in fact flat. Consider southern air traffic and flight times, the angle of sun shadows and the trouble seeing any curvature across open water and the lack of any real photographs of the earth from space, just to name a few of the discrepancy’s of a globe earth. Remember the image of earth rise from the lunar surface, shouldn’t the earth be 4 times larger than displayed? Finally check out the antarctic treaty. It’s all just so weird I really don’t know what to believe anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Remember the image of earth rise from the lunar surface, shouldn’t the earth be 4 times larger than displayed?”

      Agree. Also, the sky above the Moon, although the Moon has no atmosphere, in all those Moon Landing pics is pitch-black with no stars, whereas:
      1. The sky we see on Earth is full of stars.
      2. Even the view from satellites and the International Space Station has stars.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You don’t see the stars because of the filters used on the lens and the insanely fast shutter speed. If you were to take a photo on the surface of the moon using any consumer grade camera, it would turn out almost completely white because of how incredibly bright the sun reflecting off the lunar surface is. They had to use specially modified cameras that not only accounted for that, but also to prevent the sun from destroying them in direct light. If any of the cameras used were pointed even once at the sun, they’d be toast. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

        Also, a second reason why you wouldn’t see stars is because of the camera’s aperture and focus. Unless you’re focusing a camera directly on the stars, you wont see them in the background of an image if you’re using a wide angle or standard telephoto lens. Only a very long telephoto lens would have captured both the astronauts and the stars in the background.

        Like

    • “Consider southern air traffic and flight times.” I have, and they are consistent with the round earth model, and completely impossible on the flat earth model. For example, Qantas 27/28 between Sydney and Santiago in 12 hours, LAN 800 from Auckland to Santiago in 10.5 hours, and South African 280 from Johannesberg to Perth in 9 hours.

      “….the angle of sun shadows….” Also consistent with the round earth model.

      “….the trouble seeing any curvature across open water….” Exactly as what should be seen from the surface of a ~6370 km radius sphere. You can, however, see the effect of the earth’s curvature by watching a tall-masted ship disappear from the bottom up as it moves away from you.

      “….the lack of any real photographs of the earth from space….” There are thousands of real photographs of the earth from space. Many are composites, but “composite” does not mean “fake”. Photo compositing is simply stitching together multiple photographs to create an image with a wider field of view than possible with just a single exposure. The panorama mode on your digital camera or smartphone creates composite photos — does that mean that the image is fake? Of course not. But if you are stuck on the whole composite thing, there are dozens of full-earth photos taken daily from DSCOVR and Himawari-8.

      “….Remember the image of earth rise from the lunar surface, shouldn’t the earth be 4 times larger than displayed?” You can take a photo of the moon from the earth’s surface that makes it look not much bigger than a star, then immediately after, take a second photo which makes the moon look absolutely massive. It all depends on the focal length of the lens. And with a bit of basic trigonometry on the focal length of the lens used on the Apollo missions, the size of the earth, and the distance from the earth to the moon, you will find that the earth is in fact the correct size in the photos from the lunar surface.

      Like

  12. Have to correct the assertion of “capacitors came from the space program”…concept developed in the 1700s, and your home was full of them before NASA existed.

    Like

  13. Can’t say this is surprising, lest we forget NASA is pretty tightly associated with the JPL (couldn’t get off the ground without them, right?), the JPL which was founded by satanist, one time head of the los angeles ordo templi orientis chapter, and buddy of spyentology cult founder hubbard, “jack” parsons. If the image did turn out to be false, it really wouldn’t be terribly surprising… after all, the present govt. of the U.S. is built on deceit, from the monopoly-colored “just to add insult to injury” money, usury which everyone has been tricked into calling “interest” & paying “taxes” to the government (for what?), to people being hoodwinked every 6 months or so into believing that “daylight” can be “saved” by setting a clock wrong, and finally public education systems backed by freemasonry that teach all life originated from wet rocks.

    These lies have been passed off on society and society largely believes them, and even if some people don’t, they still cater to them.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Stitching together photographs is very common in any satellilte/probe photography. What they do is take a series of photos which are then placed on a grid using sophisticated software and this software slightly alters the “seams” where they are put together in order to make the large image. The “stitching” process leaves a slightly smudged region at each seam and is the cause of the vast majority of “Nasa is covering up the truth!!” comments regarding Mars photos.

    Here’s a great example of photo stitching because due to the images being shot with a wide angle lens, the composite image has jagged edges which lets you see how the photos were stitched.

    Like

    • Thanks, andrewlbc, for explaining what “stitching” means. Of course, that doesn’t excuse Photoshop being used to “clone” the clouds, which was admitted by one of the Blue Marble II’s “visualizers.”

      Like

  15. I just visited the “flat earth” site that you linked. The guy running it obviously has a very limited understanding of physics and very little common sense as well. I hope you guys don’t believe his theories. It’s great to see other points of view but when they show many glaring faults you have to laugh them off, I hope.

    He seems to think that we should be flung off of the planet’s surface, like water from a spinning tennis ball, without seeming to understand basic principles like proportions. I needed a good laugh, I just hope simple-minded folks don’t believe it just because they hate TPTB.

    He also seems to think that there should be 1000 mph winds due to the earth rotating, or something like that.

    You can’t fix stupid and when you try to it just makes you look like a fool too.

    Like

    • Rob B,

      Linking to an article as my source is simply responsible scholarship. It’s not an endorsement of the entire website.

      Like

    • Put it this way Rob, the father of physics you can say is Newton so lets look at Newton’s character;

      Newton discovered this bogus thing we call gravity which is nothing more than density and buoyancy. Anything in this world can be scientifically proven to either rise and fall in both the air or water given it’s weight in relation to the molecules around it. Gravity on the other hand is some force that causes everything to stick to a ball even though we know for a fact water would fly off a spinning ball (hence insert gravity). The problem is though, because anything in the world can be proven to rise and fall based on it’s weight in either water or air, is a completely different concept than gravity.

      One is true, one is fake, one can be proven, the other is just hot air. Seeing as you brought up physics, then I’m certain you can agree how it’s easily testable to see whether something will rise or fall given it’s weight ;).

      So now we go back to Newton, the guy drums up this fake thing called gravity, so what does that tell you about physics?

      False and false. Sorry dude, but the world is flat, thermal imaging conclusively proves it 100% of the time, all the time, every time, because thermal imaging cannot under any circumstance detect mirages. Checkmate junior 😉

      Like

  16. Pingback: exohuman | Why Are There No Photos of the Earth?

  17. Pingback: Why Are There No Real Photos of The Complete Earth? = NASA has never been into space far enough from the Earth to get the whole planet in the frame | Truth11

  18. iknowdastruth

    Reason why the Earth looks like a globe is because they can’t take a photo of the whole thing because we actually live inside of it. So they stitched it together to make it easier for us to see and navigate. Now we have CGI it should make it easier for us to navigate to what it really is, hollow and inverted like a toroid sphere.

    Like

  19. get a life doofus

    So the original “Blue Marble” was taken in 1972.
    Computer Graphics were incredibly primitive at that time, in fact this image was heralded as the best CGI ever created in 1975

    So how did they fake the original without today’s computer graphics? Did they paint it?
    And what about all of these photos which were all taken between 1963 and 1972?
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
    Were these all faked? All 14,233 of them? Because many were shown on TV, and published in magazines and books at that time.
    Were they all painted?

    Like

    • Mr./Ms. Doofus:

      And your point is?
      This post is not about all the images of Earth. This post is about a particular image of Earth dubbed The Blue Marble, that clearly was contrived — the proof of which is presented in this post — instead of being a photograph that NASA claims it to be.

      Like

    • So you posted this question about 5 months ago, and sure it’s a valid question, but it’s easy to address; yes they are all fake, all of them.

      Shown on all the news media? Are you asking this implying that you think the media isn’t controlled? I would hope anyone on this planet now would know the media is controlled, so the media shows you what the people who control it want to show you.

      The images of earth in those pics? People have already plastered those in paint or photoshop and verified big square borders around the earth images meaning they were injected into the picture. It was never a part of the original picture (I say picture because it is not a photograph).

      Also as part of those images were several pictures of the lunar module prior to it landing on the surface, the problem is though, WHO took the pictures? They haven’t landed yet. So the only way that picture works is if it’s a created picture. So if we can see hoards of the photos are already faked, once a liar always a liar.

      Now the last part of your question which is interesting, CGI being primitive at that time, but by what context? By what you see on TV? What makes you think they would divulge the full extent of their CGI capability to the public, especially when they intend on faking photos.

      What about the earth CGI of today? You notice how it hasn’t really changed too much? They’ve created some more images that are more detailed but again bring more questions as to how the size of the continents either shrink or get larger yet the size of the earth in the pic remains the same.

      Another good example is watching the bogus ISS feeds. It looks likes imagery that was used back in the late 90’s to create. It actually resembles a couple of sandbox universe games found on the Steam platform. So their CGI has fallen behind what is now available today, or should I say, what people are capable of drumming up. This is why they are cutting the ISS feed permanently, and also why they’ve not gone back to the moon, or provide any other bogus images of earth.

      What they have done now (and created a big blunder again), is try and show a fake Jupiter aurora borealis effect. The problem is the picture they showed of Jupiter with the aurora (2016) is the exact same image as one NASA provided 2 years earlier (2014), right down to ever finite detail. Now are we to believe the clouds on Jupiter didn’t budge in over 2 years? NASA is absolutely terrible at trying to fake things.

      Like

      • “pictures of the lunar module prior to it landing on the surface, the problem is though, WHO took the pictures? They haven’t landed yet.”

        What an excellent question to ask, that seems to have escaped everyone. Of course, NASA’s answer would be “It’s an artist’s conception”. If so, why portray and pretend those pics as real?

        Like

  20. If the earth is flat can someone explain to me how it can be day time in one part of the world and night in another part?

    Like

    • Joe, I have a better question for you because this asinine question keeps coming up, so lets put this into perspective and do a little experiment.

      Picture our solar system, except now remove all the planets and just imagine earth and the sun in their respective spots. Now the experiment:

      Grab a flashlight and a marble, preferably big flashlight and a small marble because the sun is a lot larger than the earth. Hold the flashlight in one hand, and the marble in the other. Turn the lights out in the room, now shine the flashlight on the marble. Tilt it, spin it, orbit it around the flashlight (while keeping the light on it), and orbit any way you want, do you notice something?

      No matter how you tilt it, how it spins, or how it orbits, HALF of that marble is lit up at any given time. Now ask yourself this; is half the earth always lit up at any given time? NO. Does north and south receive sunlight at the same time? NO. Does a place like L.A and china receive sunlight at the same time? NO.

      So how in this world does the solar system model we’re provided make sense to provide daylight in one area in the world while it’s dark in the other, when clearly half the world should always be lit up?

      We do NOT circle the sun, doing so would make our seasons, day/night cycles, and time zones flat out impossible in this model and that can simply be proven with a flashlight and a marble.

      The only way our day/night cycles, seasons, and time zones work is when the sun circles over-head from west to east. That is the ONLY way it works.

      Like

  21. Of course it’s fake because the earth is not a globe and neither is it moving around the sun. There are no satellites and we never went to the moon because you cannot go there. Space is fake, it doesn’t exist.

    There is bullet proof hard evidence for a flat earth, however there is nothing but science fiction and erroneous theories for a globe that cannot be demonstrated. Gravity is their only damage control to explain their barking mad fantasy of planets and galaxies.

    To cap it all off, they put a dribbling idiot up there whose every mumble cannot be questioned. Then they say we’re mad for questioning it. That’s how insane this world is. It takes a lot of conviction to step back and de program yourself from all the bull they drill into your head at school, yet most will go to their graves believing it.

    Like

  22. Pingback: Frednesday: War or the Worlds | SPIKED KOOL AID

  23. Of course the image is fake, all of them are. Even right on the NASA website this is what Robert Simmons has to say:

    “Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble”

    He admits point blank they take a flat map and wrap it around a ball. Everything at that point is then integrated to match our expectations. That is not a photograph, call it a painting, call it photoshop, call it what you want, but it’s not a photograph. Photographs of earth do not exist.

    Like

  24. All these idiots that claim the world is flat have obviously never been round the world in a plane.

    But they do use gps, so I wonder how they think the satellites that provide this service stay up for so long. After all, if they’re not in an orbit, then they need constant power to remain up there.

    And do they really think those that make and launch satellites, and all the other millions of scientists are all in on some big secret? Like, the moment someone graduates with a science degree, they’re taken into a room and told everything they learned was fake, and they have to keep this secret?

    What I wonder, above all, is how these idiots tie their own shoelaces.

    Like

    • Sorry Mr Mark, the world is flat, thermal imaging has already proven it conclusively. It made Neil Degrasse go quiet since he was challenged with it.

      Your words “But they do use GPS” yet you fail to look it up showing GPS is triangulation based off GROUND TOWERS.

      Your words “so i wonder how they think the satellites”, yet you down realize they are fake. Take the most famous orbiting up there the ISS, look up some doozy videos of that with people caught on camera stating they are talking to callers from “across the united states” when they should be up in space. Then watch as they get an earful off camera.

      Your words “and all the other millions of scientists” yet you fail to realize what compartmentalization is. People on a need to know basis are just that. That is like saying every teacher in the world is lying to you, yet you fail to realize THESE SAME PEOPLE GREW UP IN THE SAME SYSTEM. Ever heard of a hierarchy? The people at the top know a lot more than the people under them. The only thing the people under them know is what they are told.

      Here is the problem Marky boy, nobody is fooled, because every person’s eyes out there tell them it’s flat. The problem with people is they are too dense to just believe whatever someone with title behind them as verbatim.

      Ask yourself those questions while your attempting to tie your shoelace 😉 Following people like sheep when the answer is clearly in front of your face isn’t acceptable in any stretch, especially when thermal imaging cameras are abundant across the globe to prove the shape to yourself.

      Like

  25. Thermal imaging, GPS, and their own maths prove a flat earth.
    The evidence is stacked against NASA and the Globalists, yet we are the crazy disbelievers for questioning them.
    Ha…..Im just glad they cant burn us, at the moment at least, because I am sure we would all be labeled heretic and done away with

    Like

  26. Pingback: Why Are There No Real Photos of The Complete Earth? - NASA Sucks

  27. Pingback: NASA’s “Blue Marble” Earth is a fake | Plane Not A Planet

  28. Pingback: Tajemnice wszechświata #2 – Pani Profesor

  29. Pingback: هل الأرض كروية Spherical أم مسطحة Flat ؟ | الباحثون المسلمون

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s