The stars in the NASA photo are sus. I have a lens for an old film camera that will make light sources look like the flairing stars. It's due to crosshatching on the lens. The thing is, though, it will make all light sources flair, not just certain ones.
Yes. I remember the article that came with the poster. They, Johns Hopkins and NaSa were working on the Hubble at that time and claimed the picture was from the Large Space Telescope from the ground hence why the 'photo was so fuzzy. This lead to more funding for the Hubble program supposedly to get better quality photos and images of stars and galaxies.
"...hence why the 'photo was so fuzzy. This lead to more funding for the Hubble program supposedly to get better quality photos and images of stars and galaxies."
Yes exactly money laundering. But for what? Dumbs perhaps, dark projects. I remember them saying one mirror for the Hubble cost 200 million USD. In the 80s, Right.
I got the name from the slideshow and searched for posters of the same name. It did seem like Webb couldn't be the source, too new. The girl is blocking a lot of it in that picture which doesn't help--one field of stars looks much like another. I remember Omni magazine fondly from the Golden age of popular science. Lots of old Omnis for sale on eBay including 1983. The June issue cover is the Horsehead Nebula with Stonehenge at the bottom and I think that image has been widely used, clearly not the same. In fact a number of their covers were rendered as posters, e.g.
https://www.dpvintageposters.com/posters/american-literary/twentieth-century/omni-magazine-original-vintage-literary-poster-march-1983_1017
But we are looking for stars only, not the other stuff. Hubble pictures are common as dirt, but it was put up in 1990, so it couldn't be the source in 1983. At that time Astronomy Magazine had the best photos and were the source for other magazines. Search "astronomy stars photos 1983" and you will see why we needed Hubble and Webb. Big objects, faint starfields. One widely disseminated one that is possible is a globular cluster, M13 Hercules, if the girl is in front of the cluster and we only see the stars around it.
The colors look "right" for the age and photo deterioration--that is, there has been a shift to magenta, which you can see in the girl as well as the stars. In these older pictures as now, the brightest stars have cross-shaped rays. I don't think artists did that to a million pictures by touching up, it must be a camera artifact.
"In these older pictures as now, the brightest stars have cross-shaped rays. I don't think artists did that to a million pictures by touching up, it must be a camera artifact."
The thing about this, though, is that the mirrors on modern telescopes are supposed to be near perfect. They have to be in order to minimize distortion. If it's a camera artifact, then why don't all of the brighter areas show at least some minimal ray effects. It's either all or nothing. How can this be?
I don't see rays in areas, only individual stars. In any picture *from the same scope *, you will see the same number of rays, but the same star field photographed through a different scope might have a different number. Just because they look next to each other in a picture doesn't mean they are in the same area, they could be a hundred light years deeper in space, and probably are. Distance and brightness make a difference too, and atmospheric haze in the earthbound scopes.
They took photos of the same exact parts of the skies with the newer telescope. So some of the pictures are duplicates of Hubble photos, but with far more detail and clarity. The original photos are in infrared, so these are all artistic renditions to a degree. At least that's my understanding, but don't quote me on this.
Just because someone lies doesnβt mean that other liars are right.
Look at it this way: If a republican lies and gets caught in corruption, it doesnβt automatically mean, democrats are honest people who tell the truth.
Both are shit, just like nasa and flat earthers.
Sound logic. And, I am not a flat-earther. I'm just asking a question beccause one lie could lead to more lies, which then leaves us with more questions.
I am not a flat earther. I am just asking because one lie could lead to a lot of other lies. Then what is the truth? And how do we know that the truth is the truth?
Spherical doesn't equal ball. You don't even need a telescope to see the moon on a clear night, a good set of binoculars reveals quite a bit of the moon. Binoculars don't see well over 200k plus miles, yet you think the moon is that far? Psh.
So the sun magically shines a concentrated beam to earth yet only diffracts once it hits our atmosphere? You think the sun is actually 93m miles away yet you see it as a pinpoint in the sky? Psh.
Yes, that's exactly what a sphere is. A ball, dumbass, psh. The moon is obviously a sphere, so would it be a sphere but the earth be flat, dumbass. Diffracts? I dont know what that word means. A concentrated beam? Where did you get that retarded idea from, who says light from the sun is a concentrated beam?
The stars in the NASA photo are sus. I have a lens for an old film camera that will make light sources look like the flairing stars. It's due to crosshatching on the lens. The thing is, though, it will make all light sources flair, not just certain ones.
NASA is pulling a fast one on us, methinks.
I just took a look and I found the exact same photo of the background -- and I mean exact. It's #6 in the slideshow here:
https://www.9news.com.au/world/nasa-space-photos-stars-planets/2e460bc9-fea4-4243-93cc-95d7a1e52745#6
Either the school photo has been shopped, or we're being taken for a ride by NASA.
Yes! I used to have this poster on my wall as a kid. It came from an Omni Magazine centerfold around 1983. π
Are you serious?
Yes. I remember the article that came with the poster. They, Johns Hopkins and NaSa were working on the Hubble at that time and claimed the picture was from the Large Space Telescope from the ground hence why the 'photo was so fuzzy. This lead to more funding for the Hubble program supposedly to get better quality photos and images of stars and galaxies.
Two wolfs reminiscing of the past
Howls
Webb and Hubble telescope Decodes
https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2022/01/06/great-awakening-fake-deaths-james-webb-scope-brady-material/#james-webb-telescope
"...hence why the 'photo was so fuzzy. This lead to more funding for the Hubble program supposedly to get better quality photos and images of stars and galaxies."
Translation: This lead to more money laundering.
Yes exactly money laundering. But for what? Dumbs perhaps, dark projects. I remember them saying one mirror for the Hubble cost 200 million USD. In the 80s, Right.
Nevermind. Someone found the photo. You're right -- it IS an old photo! Unbelievable!
I found an archive of Omni magazine. Any chance you can find it? I've been unsuccessful so far:
https://archive.org/details/OMNI197908/OMNI_1983_12/page/n83/mode/2up
I'm not sure I was very young then but I did find this on pinterest all of the Omni covers interesting reads some of them.
https://www.pinterest.com/curatedbyyvette/omnivore-the-art-of-omni-magazine/
Here you go. It is called "Webb's first deep field." https://www.etsy.com/listing/1267468749/webbs-first-deep-field-poster-james-webb
Obvious time lapse smearing of many of the pink objects.
u/WeekoWolf
Aghh! This isn't an old photo. After further review, the etsy photo is from the new telescope, supposedly. This same vendor is selling another poster:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/1266997655/james-webb-space-telescope-poster-cosmic?click_key=fb090d0747eb7a8340bb809ee0798cb59e351b67%3A1266997655&click_sum=59e7956e&ref=related-1&pro=1&frs=1
"πJuly 12, 2022 poster of the first images of the james webb space telescope."π
The question then becomes, how did they get posters so quickly if the photos were just released??
To me, this particular photo looks like an artist's rendering. It doesn't look real.
I got the name from the slideshow and searched for posters of the same name. It did seem like Webb couldn't be the source, too new. The girl is blocking a lot of it in that picture which doesn't help--one field of stars looks much like another. I remember Omni magazine fondly from the Golden age of popular science. Lots of old Omnis for sale on eBay including 1983. The June issue cover is the Horsehead Nebula with Stonehenge at the bottom and I think that image has been widely used, clearly not the same. In fact a number of their covers were rendered as posters, e.g. https://www.dpvintageposters.com/posters/american-literary/twentieth-century/omni-magazine-original-vintage-literary-poster-march-1983_1017
But we are looking for stars only, not the other stuff. Hubble pictures are common as dirt, but it was put up in 1990, so it couldn't be the source in 1983. At that time Astronomy Magazine had the best photos and were the source for other magazines. Search "astronomy stars photos 1983" and you will see why we needed Hubble and Webb. Big objects, faint starfields. One widely disseminated one that is possible is a globular cluster, M13 Hercules, if the girl is in front of the cluster and we only see the stars around it.
The colors look "right" for the age and photo deterioration--that is, there has been a shift to magenta, which you can see in the girl as well as the stars. In these older pictures as now, the brightest stars have cross-shaped rays. I don't think artists did that to a million pictures by touching up, it must be a camera artifact.
"In these older pictures as now, the brightest stars have cross-shaped rays. I don't think artists did that to a million pictures by touching up, it must be a camera artifact."
The thing about this, though, is that the mirrors on modern telescopes are supposed to be near perfect. They have to be in order to minimize distortion. If it's a camera artifact, then why don't all of the brighter areas show at least some minimal ray effects. It's either all or nothing. How can this be?
Here's an article about getting the "starburst" effect with a camera deliberately which goes into the optics a little. They are diffraction lines. https://www.lightstalking.com/starburst-effect/ You notice his examples have many rays. The number of starburst rays on real stars depends on the internal structure of the telescope, can make 2,4,6,8 points. https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11156/what-causes-horizontal-and-vertical-lines-coming-out-of-pictures-of-stars https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/why-do-stars-look-crosses-photographs
I don't see rays in areas, only individual stars. In any picture *from the same scope *, you will see the same number of rays, but the same star field photographed through a different scope might have a different number. Just because they look next to each other in a picture doesn't mean they are in the same area, they could be a hundred light years deeper in space, and probably are. Distance and brightness make a difference too, and atmospheric haze in the earthbound scopes.
Ho Lee Fook! it IS the same photo! We are being taken for a ride.
Excellent work, fren!
Here you go. It is called "Webb's first deep field." https://www.etsy.com/listing/1267468749/webbs-first-deep-field-poster-james-webb
Obvious time lapse smearing of many of the pink objects.
Getting a 429 error now on your link fren.
They took photos of the same exact parts of the skies with the newer telescope. So some of the pictures are duplicates of Hubble photos, but with far more detail and clarity. The original photos are in infrared, so these are all artistic renditions to a degree. At least that's my understanding, but don't quote me on this.
I ran the background through Tineye and the oldest photo it came up with is from July 11th, 2022, not that this necessarily proves anything.
They have scrubbed many of the doctored photos since that time. I did find a site with some of what they call Hubble space photos..
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/multimedia/index.html
They would have had to scrub them -- and they apparently did, as I'm sure something would have popped up on Tineye.
Excellent work, fren! We caught them red-handed.
Does this mean the earth is flat?
No, it means NASA is a fraud.
Right. I get that. So, is it possible, then that the flat-earthers are right?
No, not possible.
Just because someone lies doesnβt mean that other liars are right.
Look at it this way: If a republican lies and gets caught in corruption, it doesnβt automatically mean, democrats are honest people who tell the truth. Both are shit, just like nasa and flat earthers.
Sound logic. And, I am not a flat-earther. I'm just asking a question beccause one lie could lead to more lies, which then leaves us with more questions.
Why would the earth be flat, but the sun, and every planet that any amateur with a good telescope can see is spherical.
I am not a flat earther. I am just asking because one lie could lead to a lot of other lies. Then what is the truth? And how do we know that the truth is the truth?
Everything from NASA is CGI.
Yeah, I saw that picture and I IMMEDIATELY knew I had seen it before.
Here's a good Hubble image...notice the Q.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/multimedia/index.html
Funny how awake people consider themselves until a core narrative is challenged.
Earth is spherical, just like any other planet in this universe.
Why is nothing else flat then? Any amateur can point a telescope into the sky and see spherical bodies spinning.
Spherical doesn't equal ball. You don't even need a telescope to see the moon on a clear night, a good set of binoculars reveals quite a bit of the moon. Binoculars don't see well over 200k plus miles, yet you think the moon is that far? Psh.
So the sun magically shines a concentrated beam to earth yet only diffracts once it hits our atmosphere? You think the sun is actually 93m miles away yet you see it as a pinpoint in the sky? Psh.
Yes, that's exactly what a sphere is. A ball, dumbass, psh. The moon is obviously a sphere, so would it be a sphere but the earth be flat, dumbass. Diffracts? I dont know what that word means. A concentrated beam? Where did you get that retarded idea from, who says light from the sun is a concentrated beam?
Oh dear, Oy vey, Oops.