Photos of earth

[Bryanpoprobson]

Now that you've given him 15, can we expect, "Yeah, but there [sic] to [sic] SMALL!"

They're only the ones I did on a quick search, there are a couple more from 14 and some more on 17, I can't find the ones from 12 I, like you, thought there were some. I'm wondering if we are confusing them with the ones from 11?

[gwiz]

I've also done a quick scan through the Apollo 12 surface pictures, but couldn't find any examples of earth.  As with Apollo 14, the geometry of the Apollo 12 landing would only have given a crescent Earth. 

[Zakalwe]

Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.

Aw, diddums. Getting cranky all ready?

Your first post stated that there was only one. Now you say there's only two. Which is it?

And if you ask for help and then get grumpy when people answer you then why don't you go and do some research yourself???

[JayUtah]

Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.

You still haven't told us how many should have been taken and why.  Until you can do that, two is plenty.

[Bryanpoprobson]

You still haven't told us how many should have been taken and why.  Until you can do that, two is plenty.

A bit like going on a geology field trip to an island a couple of miles off the coast. Would you then stand on the beach when you got there, taking pictures of the coast where you just come from?

[JayUtah]

I can't figure out what "realistic looking" means in this context either.  That says to me there are some as-yet unknown expectations being applied.  Someone who says a thing isn't "realistic" should be able to go further and say, "It should look like _____ but instead it looks this other way."  That lets us talk about "should look like," which a useful discussion would include.

[onebigmonkey]

Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.

I don't know what you count as 'realistic' but you if you do a little more than 2 minutes research you will find that the Earth in those lunar surface pictures, including the live TV:

- Shows the Earth's terminator exactly where it should be at the time the photo was taken
- Shows the Earth at the correct angle
- Shows the correct land masses for the time the photographs were taken
- Shows time and date specific weather patterns exactly as recorded by meteorological satellites

The Apollo 14 images of Earth taken from the lunar surface also contain Venus, exactly where it should be.

So, if that doesn't seem realistic to you, it would seem you are on a different planet to the rest of us.

[raven]

And don't forget the  far ultraviolet images taken on Apollo 16, several of which contain the Earth.

[dwight]

Colin Mackellar over at honeysucklecreek.net used the hi-res version of AS11-40-5923 and found that when properly rotated the land mass seen is Australia, NSW in the morning hours, with the location of HSK being pretty much line-of-sight.

Ed Fendell also zoomed the GCTA onto the earth for all the J missions at least once per mission.

And may I add my concerns at your readiness, there Photo Hound, in getting cranky when given a list of quite a few photographs (and video) of something you claimed only one of which existed. What gives?

[Luke Pemberton]

Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.

I'm not sure if anyone else has asked you outright as I sometimes miss detail in threads that I have only just seen and skim read. I've been fairly busy all day with work, so sorry to the regulars. Here goes...

Photo hound, do you think that the moon landings were hoaxed?

[Luke Pemberton]

And don't forget the  far ultraviolet images taken on Apollo 16, several of which contain the Earth.

Easily one of my favourite of all the scientific experiments. Not sure if the retro-reflectors trump the UV images given the beauty of the latter.

[Echnaton]

Some of you "getting sick" will see that there are only two realistic looking photos FROM THE MOON SURFACE. stop linking me to photos taken from an orbital view. And you will see it takes more than two minutes research.

You can't really control a discussion by just dropping in with an occasional demanding posts.  How about taking a great part in the thread if you want something specific out of it. 

[darren r]

You can't really control a discussion by just dropping in with an occasional demanding posts.  How about taking a great part in the thread if you want something specific out of it. 

It's eerily familiar behaviour, isn't it?

[raven]

And don't forget the  far ultraviolet images taken on Apollo 16, several of which contain the Earth.

Easily one of my favourite of all the scientific experiments. Not sure if the retro-reflectors trump the UV images given the beauty of the latter.

And in this case, taking pictures of the Earth *does* have scientific value, thanks to the unusual spectrum imaged.

[JayUtah]

And in this case, taking pictures of the Earth *does* have scientific value, thanks to the unusual spectrum imaged.

And to the appropriate field of view.  Taking pictures of astronomical objects with a wide-angle lens is not very effective.