Thats zooming, honey. It's what telecopes are for.
But I don't want to shit on your flat earth parade or whatever.
No one has all the answers and all I know is that the official story holds less water than grandma on a road trip.
I'd say the main appeal of the official narrative concerning the Apollo missions is mostly just nostalgia. If they would dish out the same bullshit today - basically saying 'Here look we put people on Mars they should be all disoriented and frightened but to combat boredom we gave them a god damn dune buggy without a roll cage to fuck around in! Aren't we great?!' - people would call out the psy op so fast...
I don't want to rant but man just look at the photos. Fine, they had a magic camera (or touched the photos up) so over exposure to light and radiation wasn't a problem. They had magic film that didnt mind the freezing vacuum. But they also trained their astronauts to not have to use viewfinders? Bitch please.
The earth is 4 times bigger than the moon. A satellite passing behind the moon taking a picture of both together would appear to show the moon bigger than it is, which happens in the video. In this case the moon looks like it's about half the size of the earth, not a quarter.
We have, many times, sent satellites beyond the moon.
It's funny how you don't see the difference between what you think you've done and what you think "we've" done when you use 'inclusive' language like that.
Way to cope.
So do the math, would ya, how big is the moon vs. the earth in that 'image'?
(hint: you won't come to a ball-earth friendly conclusion because it's an not a real 'photo', it's an artists rendition)
Nigger, what are you talking about? A picture from the surface of a sphere makes the close object, the surface, look huge compared to the background. Look at the sun during sunset. The sun is 300 times the size of the earth.
And we have, literally dozens of times, sent satellites out beyond the moon.
The surface that your on is going to appear massive compared to the object that you're viewing from the surface at a distance.
In the video here, the surface of the moon appears massive with reference to the earth in the exact same way that the surface of the earth appears massive with respect to a picture of a sunset.
If you took a picture of a mountain with a small camera from the surface of a basketball, the basketball would appear massive with respect to the mountain. This isn't a mystery. This is simple perspective.
The fuckin' retard here is the retarded fuckin' nigger that thinks the earf is flat.
There were 2 images. The 1st was from the surface of the moon, showing a massive moon surface and the whole of the earth. I guess you're okay with that picture.
The second is a picture of both the earth and moon together. In that picture the moon appears to be slightly less than half the size of the earth. This is because the satellite taking the picture is closer to the moon than the earth. Again, perspective. In reality, the moon is less than 1/4 the size of the earth, so the moon appears bigger than it actually is because of "perspective".
You do not need a tilt shift lens to distort the relative size of objects. All you need is relative distance. I could take a photograph of an ant standing in front of a bus, and with the proper lens and framing, the ant will appear bigger than the bus.
Now from such an image would you conclude ants are bigger than busses, and busses are smaller than ants, or will you recognize that with camera optics and relative object framing you can make things appear virtually any size you want in relation to each other.
There is only one correct answer, and by answering correctly, you will also disqualify anyone that tries to proclaim they will determine the relative size of the earth and the moon from any single image, without knowing the precise optical setup used to create the image in question.
Otherwise you have to declare that ants are indeed bigger than busses, because that's what you saw in the image, and therefore it has to be so. Your pick.
You do not need a tilt shift lens to distort the relative size of objects. All you need is relative distance. I could take a photograph of an ant standing in front of a bus, and with the proper lens and setup, the ant will appear bigger than the bus.
I'd like to see that even come close.
Regardless, both images are artist's renditions, so it's not like it matters much.
You can find tons of these types of images online. They are not renderings, but taken with proper camera equipment and framing.
I don't know why I have to explain this to you. Were you really not aware how camera optics work? You simply can't just outright assume anything about relative sizes in any image, without knowing the precise image, camera, lens, distances, and sensor metrics.
That's just how it is. I can't help it, but it's the truth.
Now whether the images of the earth and moon are renderings or not is basically irrelevant - you can't make any statements about the relative sizes of the earth and moon from those images regardless. And anyone who tries to tell you that you can, is either ignorant, or lying. That's just how it is.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 12:34:26 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] qwop
[ - ] qwop -1 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 05:38:20 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] jerkofalltrades
[ - ] jerkofalltrades -2 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 04:17:44 ago (+1/-3)*
But I don't want to shit on your flat earth parade or whatever.
No one has all the answers and all I know is that the official story holds less water than grandma on a road trip.
I'd say the main appeal of the official narrative concerning the Apollo missions is mostly just nostalgia. If they would dish out the same bullshit today - basically saying 'Here look we put people on Mars they should be all disoriented and frightened but to combat boredom we gave them a god damn dune buggy without a roll cage to fuck around in! Aren't we great?!' - people would call out the psy op so fast...
I don't want to rant but man just look at the photos. Fine, they had a magic camera (or touched the photos up) so over exposure to light and radiation wasn't a problem. They had magic film that didnt mind the freezing vacuum. But they also trained their astronauts to not have to use viewfinders? Bitch please.
[ + ] SumerBreeze
[ - ] SumerBreeze [op] 0 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 12:51:48 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 07:22:39 ago (+0/-1)
Technologically, I'm interested in how one would explain this phenomenon. (really just to see the flailing)
I agree with you that the appeal of the official narrative of the Apollo missions seem to be entirely based on nostalgia.
The moon is not an object we can 'visit', I think. (obligatory; space is fake and gay)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 08:33:35 ago (+1/-1)
We have, many times, sent satellites beyond the moon.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -2 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 08:37:47 ago (+0/-2)
It's funny how you don't see the difference between what you think you've done and what you think "we've" done when you use 'inclusive' language like that.
Way to cope.
So do the math, would ya, how big is the moon vs. the earth in that 'image'?
(hint: you won't come to a ball-earth friendly conclusion because it's an not a real 'photo', it's an artists rendition)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 08:44:07 ago (+1/-1)
And we have, literally dozens of times, sent satellites out beyond the moon.
What fucking math are you talking about?
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 08:48:16 ago (+0/-1)
The math of the relative sizes of the moon and the earth.
Fuck you're retarded.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 08:54:28 ago (+0/-1)
In the video here, the surface of the moon appears massive with reference to the earth in the exact same way that the surface of the earth appears massive with respect to a picture of a sunset.
If you took a picture of a mountain with a small camera from the surface of a basketball, the basketball would appear massive with respect to the mountain. This isn't a mystery. This is simple perspective.
The fuckin' retard here is the retarded fuckin' nigger that thinks the earf is flat.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 08:56:24 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 09:05:50 ago (+0/-1)
The second is a picture of both the earth and moon together. In that picture the moon appears to be slightly less than half the size of the earth. This is because the satellite taking the picture is closer to the moon than the earth. Again, perspective. In reality, the moon is less than 1/4 the size of the earth, so the moon appears bigger than it actually is because of "perspective".
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 -1 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 09:16:19 ago (+0/-1)
Lol, no, they're both artist's renditions.
"Space" is fake and gay.
But please, keep sucking NASA's dirty kike dick and gargle their ball-earth, you retarded nigger.
[ + ] qwop
[ - ] qwop 0 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 18:23:11 ago (+0/-0)*
Now from such an image would you conclude ants are bigger than busses, and busses are smaller than ants, or will you recognize that with camera optics and relative object framing you can make things appear virtually any size you want in relation to each other.
There is only one correct answer, and by answering correctly, you will also disqualify anyone that tries to proclaim they will determine the relative size of the earth and the moon from any single image, without knowing the precise optical setup used to create the image in question.
Otherwise you have to declare that ants are indeed bigger than busses, because that's what you saw in the image, and therefore it has to be so. Your pick.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 18:25:48 ago (+0/-0)
I'd like to see that even come close.
Regardless, both images are artist's renditions, so it's not like it matters much.
[ + ] qwop
[ - ] qwop 0 points 3 daysApr 26, 2025 18:51:55 ago (+0/-0)*
Is the camera larger than a human?
https://files.catbox.moe/mwupdg.jpg
The shoes are bigger than the girl?
https://files.catbox.moe/bphnon.jpg
You can find tons of these types of images online. They are not renderings, but taken with proper camera equipment and framing.
I don't know why I have to explain this to you. Were you really not aware how camera optics work? You simply can't just outright assume anything about relative sizes in any image, without knowing the precise image, camera, lens, distances, and sensor metrics.
That's just how it is. I can't help it, but it's the truth.
Now whether the images of the earth and moon are renderings or not is basically irrelevant - you can't make any statements about the relative sizes of the earth and moon from those images regardless. And anyone who tries to tell you that you can, is either ignorant, or lying. That's just how it is.
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 1 point 3 daysApr 26, 2025 18:54:39 ago (+1/-0)
Now only if those images or space were real. 😂