Apollo 8, Hasselblad 500 EL 250mm, Kodak Ektachrome 220, 1/250s at f11...24 Dec1968 1639z
The Public Watching NASA Space Cartoons
Did you know that there is not one single raw photograph of planet Earth in existence? ALL of the ones we were shown in school, textbooks, the movies, etc. are photoshopped and/or CGI manipulated.
Kinda weird, right? https://blossom.primal.net/6b712177fb83721a3a6a7f95940a472cfbd4cebec30e3c2f757e74b549d235df.3gp
Discussion
Looks fake
so do many things that humans rarely if ever see...ever seen a totality during a solar eclipse?
I didnt see that. But you can load this image into Photoshop and see in 2 seconds its fake. http://blossom.happytavern.co/54f5dae483134a1c4bec3d83aac80aae18070485e5c0d93a82d8341b7ad87a76
No stars
Ektachrome at 1/250s and f11....try photographing stars with that setting - or even with a digital camera...stars are many orders of magnitude dimmer than the moon and earth in full sunlight, flim or digital photography don't have the dynamic range to show both at the same time. To properly expose for stars you need many seconds of exposure, and a tripod with a motorized equatorial mount (or high ISO film that will be less resolution)
just some quick calculations, with Ektachrome (iso 100) and shooting at f11, you would need 120-240 seconds (2-4 MINUTES) of exposure to properly expose the stars....vs 1/250s (4 milliseconds) this exposure was shot at
There's nothing in the space vacuum to get lit by the sun. What "full sunlight" are you talking about?
Stars around the moon are easily seen at night from earth, while it sits in "full sunlight" in space, allegedly.
On the inverse square law in regards to light:
https://odysee.com/@GLOBEBUSTERS:c/globebusters-bob-knodel-2019-feic:1
really? you can see stars around a full moon? maybe the very brightest, maybe -- now take a picture - photography does not have the dynamic range of a human eye
My shit phone camera can't even make a good moon photo, imagine Nasa giving such an excuse for a cool $90-100 million a day budget.
You can see a lot of stars during a full moon, outside of the cities tho. Nothing like the empty blackness Nasa has been pushing as space photos for decades.
I've shot a broad range of film (including Ekta) and digital, including some astrophotography and 2 solar eclipse totalities. You can accept the knowledge I'm offering, go out and test it, or take the blue pill continue to believe what you want to.
I shall, intrigued.
Blue pill is the mainstream pill, tho. Moon landings were all faked, you have missed the 90s leaks of Nasa footage staging "deep space" photo of earth during supposed moon missions, with the A-team of masons-astroNOTs.
What's the one thing every one of these "photos from the moon" has in common?
There are never any stars.
This is because stars would be too hard to fake without people spotting mistakes in constellations and whatnot.
Much easier to copy & paste an Earth ball on there, and call it a day. 99% of the world will blindly believe this, as the government showed it to them on TV and 10,000 Universal Pictures intros on the movies they watched as a kid (no offense to my Nostr globies out there, I still love you β€οΈ)
PS: NASA literally has a photoshopping department that exclusively works on creating these fake pictures - watch my #FlatEarth series on Rumble for video footage of interviews with them π