2250
Comments (485)
sorted by:
195
Formerlurker92 195 points ago +198 / -3

Most of the photos you see from space have been re touched

109
RiffFantastic 109 points ago +114 / -5

by pedophiles

48
Hanging_Chad 48 points ago +48 / -0

pediatrically doctored

28
bubadmt 28 points ago +29 / -1

A podiatrist is just a doctor that studies Podesta.

9
ExecutiveWoodchipper 9 points ago +10 / -1

Rumor has it that planetarium has a basement

7
Everyonelovesblacks 7 points ago +7 / -0

Planet Arium

4
Reefay 4 points ago +4 / -0

South Park. I see you, fam.

3
EuropeanRepublican 3 points ago +3 / -0

A special basement for studying Uranus.

1
Cuenom 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pepperonium

2
cyberrigger 2 points ago +2 / -0

lymph node nebula (is it chorizo)

1
Cuenom 1 point ago +1 / -0

Comet pizza references only

1
SpaceAgePolymer 1 point ago +1 / -0

So, just like the Alamo! That must be where the bike really is 😂

3
TipperHangsChad 3 points ago +3 / -0

What’s up?

3
Hanging_Chad 3 points ago +3 / -0

kek. nm u?

0
Spunas1 0 points ago +1 / -1

You meant pedophilically? Did I miss this swoosh-style?

3
AOCDickPics 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm a SCIFILE

49
Desperado 49 points ago +55 / -6

Not retouched. Artist's impressions from soup to nuts. Remember the first "images" from Hubble? Looked like something from a sci-fi novel cover?

There's a reason for that.

SPEZ: I see I (re)touched a nerve. Half my replies are hidden behind the "continue reading thread" bullshit, the reason for which I've never understood, other than to limit eyeballs and stifle dissent.

And don't give me that "too many replies" bullshit. If that's all it takes to initiate the "continue reading thread" quasi-censorship, don't you think shills and handshakes would jump in to initiate just such a result? Which is what happened here IMO. (This site is far from perfect and this is one reason why).

60
Colonel_Chestbridge 60 points ago +62 / -2

It’s because the cameras they use pick up wavelengths outside the visible region, and they map these wavelengths to colors we can perceive.

34
Desperado 34 points ago +39 / -5

That's understood. But most people didn't know it then, don't know it now and, in the final analysis, how do any of us have any evidence that the "representations" are in any way accurate?

If they'd just wasted the money and "painted shit", how would we know any different?

21
deleted 21 points ago +21 / -0
4
Highspergamy 4 points ago +4 / -0

One that's non-binary I'd imagine.

19
EvolutionIsFake 19 points ago +21 / -2

Wait until you guys see what they do with the pictures of "alleged human ancestors".

They take a tooth, or a small handful of fractures of bones that might or might not actually go together, and have artists recreate them with how they believe the whole creature looked. Then they take these creations and put them in textbooks.

It's a complete fabrication.

7
basedfloridian 7 points ago +7 / -0

Username checks out. 👍🏻

3
Highspergamy 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's by no means "set in stone".

0
Spunas1 0 points ago +1 / -1

An over 250 lbs. name!

13
DickTick 13 points ago +20 / -7

You do know that with a couple of thousand dollars, and even less if you know what you're doing, you can have your own astro-photography set up and take absolutely fucking stunning pictures from all sorts of shit in our own galaxy and beyond..... You know that right?......

You can literally take the same exact pictures Hubble took except for you can take them in visible light.... of course yours won't be as fancy and clear but you can see some extremely gorgeous shit from home......

10
ghost_of_aswartz 10 points ago +11 / -1

exact pictures Hubble took

False. The atmosphere itself makes our images from ground very blurry and inaccurate; that's precisely why they are putting telescopes in space. That said, lots of truth to what you're saying. You can get telescopes that have the power to see jupiter for example, but what you get is nothing like 2001 a space odyssee which is what people are expecting. Yes I know that was 1960s era cgi from nasa

7
Desperado 7 points ago +18 / -11

Sounds like bullshit. Prove me wrong by linking to your own work or that of others.

SPEZ: "You can LITERALLY take the exact same pictures Hubble took except for you can take them in visible light..."

No. Not on any level. Just no. Jesus Christ. This clown is currently in updoot land...

Unless he means I can shoot the equivalent of white noise and have an "artist" make it look "purty"?

Well, what "artist" couldn't for the right price? Just let me call NASA...

9
ExecutiveWoodchipper 9 points ago +11 / -2

Hi-def butthole galaxy photos incoming

2
Necrovoter 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hi-def butthole galaxy photos incoming

FBI: "We're watching you."

Astronomers with thousand dollar telescope: "We're looking at Uranus and it has a blue tinge"

Hubble: "Uranus has a dark spot."

Fauci: "Entire planet sick with Monkey Pox, We need to vaccinate everyone now!"

Pete Buttigieg: "Don't blame me, I have an alibi"

1
CyberMagaUnderground 1 point ago +7 / -6

go to fucking astrobin you fucking subhuman

1
Desperado 1 point ago +9 / -8

Oh my God! Why so salty? What did I ever do to you? Just stating facts offends you this much?

-1
AtomicCade -1 points ago +7 / -8

Kill yourself

2
Desperado 2 points ago +7 / -5

Salty?

7
deleted 7 points ago +12 / -5
4
Desperado 4 points ago +14 / -10

So you're saying you want me to take your word for it? You sound like NASA.

Here's an idea. Print the real truth or nothing at all. If it looks unattractive...I don't care. But producing sci-fi novel-worthy "images" is nothing but a NASA fundraiser.

6
White-tailed_Eagle 6 points ago +9 / -3

If images taken in the Infrared spectrum were rendered into printed pictures using light frequency matching inks, all you would get are blank pictures as the human eye cannot detect them. If you wished to see digital versions of these pictures then there is an additional problem; the LCD/LEDs used in the screen likely cannot even display IR frequencies.

NASA is aware of the limitations of the human eye so uses false colours to display and study the images.

-4
Desperado -4 points ago +6 / -10

And...if I were a con-man operation who wanted to rip off the taxpayer...I'd hire some talented artists to conjure some amazing images and keep counting my ill-gotten loot.

Where's the PROOF that these "representations" bear any resemblance to reality in or out of the visible spectrum?

You should be able to provide that, right? Got a source? Or should I just take your (and NASA's) word?

Just level with me. If you have it, provide it. If you don't, admit as much. Simple as.

4
PraiseBeToScience 4 points ago +6 / -2

People like you wouldn't believe anything anyway, so why try to appease you? You're perpetually miserable malcontents.

-1
Desperado -1 points ago +3 / -4

Now type Praise Be To God.

Bet you can't or won't.

If not, why not, "patriot"?

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
1
Saremei 1 point ago +1 / -0

Stfu please. You just make yourself sound ignorant. There is next to zero scientific value in visible light imagery. The few times they include visible light cameras on probes are for public consumption only. Its more impactful, meaningful and all around better at showing what is there for the images to be infrared to ultraviolet false color images.

0
AtomicCade 0 points ago +9 / -9

Kill yourself, retard

4
Desperado 4 points ago +9 / -5

Great argument!

3
doug2 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think the James Webb was real images

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
dukeofdoorcounty 3 points ago +3 / -0

with gold mirrors there is no blue light.

1
Saremei 1 point ago +1 / -0

James webb is all infrared. Not a single visible light spectrum image. Thus to this man, he would call them fake. False color images like webb are simply more important. Hubble is a visible light telescope with ultraviolet and infrared sensors as well and those enhancements are what hes claiming makes them faked images...

1
Desperado 1 point ago +1 / -0

Think or thought?

3
6daysandrest 3 points ago +3 / -0

If they'd just wasted the money and "painted shit", how would we know any different?

This is where I am with "science" now. I used to be a major sci-fi nerd. I'm an engineer too (nearly 20 years now). At this point, if I cannot prove it myself or if I am not using something based on a certain physical claim they make, I immediately distrust it.

3
Desperado 3 points ago +3 / -0

Amen.

0
Faulkner 0 points ago +6 / -6

We "mapped the wavelengths" of shit you can't see but which totally happened, and published the photos without telling you what we'd done.

Trust us.

11
Colonel_Chestbridge 11 points ago +14 / -3

I work with infrared cameras all the time. Are you suggesting this technology just doesn’t exist or something?

If you want to learn more about the methodology you can certainly do that. It’s not like it’s being kept secret.

-3
Faulkner -3 points ago +7 / -10

LOTS of technology exists which can be used to mislead people.

Are you suggesting that none of these THOUSANDS of different methods for misleading people are ever used for misleading people or something?

8
Colonel_Chestbridge 8 points ago +12 / -4

No, I’m suggesting that screaming “ITS FAKE” without even a marginal understanding of how the technology works just makes you look like a fool.

-4
Faulkner -4 points ago +4 / -8

I didn't say it was fake, numbnuts.

2
FFDTW 2 points ago +4 / -2

Are you saying you don't believe UV, IR, X-rays, radiowaves etc don't exist? Really?

4
Antisocialdilemma 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think he's saying that printing fake pictures of shit people can't even really see with their eyes is misleading and a way to launder billions of dollars to whatever the fuck they want. No, that's what I'm saying. And don't forget: all those scientists at NASA will swear up and down that man made climate change is going to end all life on earth unless we eat the bugs and give them another 10 billion bucks. But totally trust their "photos".

1
Faulkner 1 point ago +1 / -0

You know I didn't say any of that. This is just weak, bad-faith bullshit.

1
FFDTW 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your sarcastic "We "mapped the wavelengths" of shit you can't see but which totally happened" implies that you don't believe that these wavelengths exist, because if you believe they do exist, then why wouldn't you believe that NASA scientists are doing astronomy in those frequencies? Seeing as that's what astronomers do. As others have pointed out on here, thousands of other people in countries around the world carry out astronomy in non-visible wavelengths the same way. You can do it yourself with off-the-shelf gear. It's not a NASA conspiracy.

0
when_we_win_remember 0 points ago +1 / -1

Or don't trust them. If you aren't able to even verify the images that they send out then what's it to you? In other words, this data has some actual scientific value to someone, who can tell if it's fake. If for you it's only a pretty picture then who cares how they made it?

0
PraiseBeToScience 0 points ago +4 / -4

Yeah we should listen to you, a guy who probably unclog septic tanks by hand, I'm sure you have the fucking brains to know what you're talking about.

0
Faulkner 0 points ago +2 / -2

I'm sure you grasp at talking about septic tanks because you have the fucking brains to participate in this conversation.

If you're not any smarter than this, then just shut the fuck up.

-1
PraiseBeToScience -1 points ago +2 / -3

You're right, I leave that for the help.

11
DickTick 11 points ago +11 / -0

That's not really true at all. Scientific telescopes tend not to take visually pretty photographs because that's not what they're for so they do have to be color corrected, but I have about a $6,000 telescope setup and I can take absolutely amazing pictures of nebula and all sorts of shit in our own galaxy without having to do much of anything to the pictures at all besides snapping them.....

3
ghost_of_aswartz 3 points ago +4 / -1

Please tell us the make and model of your telescope for our benefit. Some here like myself may want to get something like yours in the future and it sounds like you know what you're talking about. I've looked through a 'pro-sumer' model thing that was about 2k and I was less than impressed with what I was able to see.

11
weme06 11 points ago +11 / -0

As a boy I scratched my head about the photos. Look like paintings

9
Desperado 9 points ago +19 / -10

They are paintings. Beautiful, and awe inspiring, but paintings nevertheless. That much has been admitted. But in the small print. Most (me included back than) took them as real, as we were invited (and likely expected) to do.

11
Barbs 11 points ago +13 / -2

Kinda. Hubble didn’t use visible light, it used ultraviolet and infrared for its images. All the artist did was add in the colors you would see if the photos were in the visible spectrum.

So an artist did the coloration, but they used scientific reality to do it. They know what wavelengths of visible light the different elements emit in space, so coloring it accurately isn’t very hard to do.

-1
Desperado -1 points ago +6 / -7

You have direct knowledge of the things you assert? How so?

3
PraiseBeToScience 3 points ago +7 / -4

Maybe because he's not a double digit IQ conspiracy retard like you. Do you actually think you're an intelligent person? What on earth fucking ever gave you that idea? Stay in your lane, which is presumably doing manual labor and taking orders from others.

2
Desperado 2 points ago +3 / -1

Ha ha ha!

0
Antisocialdilemma 0 points ago +2 / -2

It sounds like your lane is looking down on people who actually have the strength and stamina to do hard labor. Also sounds like you are threatened that people are waking up to your grifting bullshit. Also, in the real world if you talked up like that you would get your pansy ass beat down. That's why you talk like a wannabe tough guy. We all know you're a little bitch though. I bet you think your ancestors are fucking monkeys. Go get another booster science faggot.

1
Saremei 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because nasa releases all the data and people can assemble the photos from the data themselves?

1
TrumpsBigBalls 1 point ago +2 / -1

yes...I actually do. My brother IS ONE OF THE 'Artists'

0
Desperado 0 points ago +2 / -2

Go on.

3
AtomicCade 3 points ago +7 / -4

They're not paintings, dumbass. Do you call black-and-white photos taken by a color camera paintings?

-3
Desperado -3 points ago +5 / -8

They are paintings. Albeit they might have been photographed once they'd dried.

SPEZ: These replies are hilarious BTW. It's like a collage of handshake art.

Or finger-paintings if you will...

Amazing. Kekking and resting my case.

1
AtomicCade 1 point ago +7 / -6

Actual retardation. Fuck off to 4chan

1
FliesTheFlag 1 point ago +6 / -5

Fake AF is what all the shit is. Their latest is no better from the Webb fakeass telescope, "Corina Nebula" is a god damn mirror image of the Algerian coastline. https://i.redd.it/pnf78vef6bb91.png

4
Desperado 4 points ago +5 / -1

What a coincidence! It's all such bullshit I can scarcely believe that "believers" can tie their own shoes.

Thanks for the image. Reminded me of the image of the cartoon character Pluto on "Pluto". They ate that shit up too. Maybe they deserve whatever hell is coming...

3
Pegases 3 points ago +3 / -0

actually the photo of the ground is fake

1
Desperado 1 point ago +2 / -1

I will not argue about that one way or the other. The night is late and my energy is limited. But I did see, once upon a time, a NASA photo of "Pluto" with a dog face.

They're punking 99% of the human race. I guess I was born with two eyes...and lucky.

2
PraiseBeToScience 2 points ago +6 / -4

I love how it doesn't line up at all but you just pretend it does and lie about it.

Also, he retard, we have AI that can simply generate images on the fly. Do you think they actually sat there and repainted a piece of fucking coastline? HOnestly rope yourself faggot.

2
Pegases 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have determined the land is fake in your photo

3
Necrovoter 3 points ago +4 / -1

SPEZ: I see I (re)touched a nerve. Half my replies are hidden behind the "continue reading thread" bullshit, the reason for which I've never understood, other than to limit eyeballs and stifle dissent.

I don't know what triggers the "continue reading" issue, but it is super annoying. The site's main admin/web administrator u/Doggos has specifically mentioned that particular bug and that it is high up in the queue of things that will be fixed.

We used to have the duplicating post bug - Doggos fixed that relatively recently

3
Desperado 3 points ago +3 / -0

Cheers. It's bugged me forever. Not even on threads I'm active in. I'm in the middle of reading an interesting exchange and...SYSTEM SHUTDOWN. So annoying. Kek!

23
agentgruer2 23 points ago +23 / -0

Ya, and Nebulas do not look as colorful as they appear in photos, they tend to be a greyish with hard to distinguish color. It was a disappointing night when I looked at nebulas for the first time through my telescope... Still neat though.

16
alfredbester 16 points ago +16 / -0

The Ring nebula is the most impressive through a telescope, I think. Kind of like viewing Saturn's rings for the first time.

http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/ring-p.html The image on the left is what you'll see through most telescopes, for example. Not stunning if you're expecting the image on the right, but still cool.

8
wolfsettler 8 points ago +8 / -0

Light travels far. Color does not. Allegedly the colors are taken from radiation sources that are translated into color to show how .... I dunno.... A cat would see them perhaps?

I mean I get WHY they do it. But when you tell them that, they wanna fight about it.

2
pikX 2 points ago +2 / -0

this. the moon and planets are reflecting the sun's light. that's why they have color (well, you get what i mean for the moon). nebulas do have color. that, and im pretty sure the atmosphere also messes with it to an extent.

think of it this way. we say the sun is yellow, and to an extent, that's true. but you can't see the sun's color from earth, even in orbit. as well as any other stars. you would need to see that star's reflections, which is basically impossible because the sun overrides all of that with the mix of wavelengths it produces. it simply produces primarily light in the yellowish region. all the mixing from the various wavelengths it makes it impossible for the human eye to see. if i had to guess, they basically apply a type of contrast filter to it (thats a gross oversimplification) in that it sees what the most common wavelength being produces is and so it uses that as the primary color in the image. it also produces a fair amount of oranges and reds, which is the other way you will commonly see the sun in pictures.

both color-tuned filaments and light filters can be used to make similar results, but both mechanisms do exist. im sure you (the reader, not just the person im replying to) have seen very yellow and very blue lights before (relatively speaking).

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
2
White-tailed_Eagle 2 points ago +2 / -0

Colour is a property of the frequency of light. Light has a constant speed in a vacuum so its frequency (and therefore colour) would be unchanged from its source to the observer. The only distortions to this would be if it travels through matter on the way to the observer or is redshifted/blueshifted due to relative velocities of emitter and observer.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
wolfsettler 2 points ago +2 / -0

Correction. Color DOES carry, it's our eyes unable to see it from far distances due to how they work. They still do not receive these images in color using their telescopes, they add them late anyway from grayscale images and as I said before, the radiation and other such things they pick up using their instruments. They are still man made images.

0
PraiseBeToScience 0 points ago +2 / -2

"Light" is the entire electromagnetic spectrum. VISIBLE light, which has color information to our eyes, does not travel far, it's easily blocked by space dust and since visible light is such an itty-bitty piece of the spectrum, minor gravitational anomalies can shift the light out of visible range into ultraviolet or infrared.

They take space images in infrared, H+, x-ray, radio, etc. because different wavelengths are blocked at different levels. A composited image of multiple wavelengths together can form a coherent image.

They then will typically use spectrographic imaging (when available) to determine the composition of iron, oxygen, helium, etc. and then give them rough colors based on that.

10
ultra-tera-maga 10 points ago +11 / -1

Always look for the asterisk noting it's from an artist familiar with celestial objects.

2
Barbs 2 points ago +3 / -1

Space Chorizo sounds like the Netflix adaptation of Spaceballs.

3
SteersBeersandQueers 3 points ago +3 / -0

Are completely fake

70
45FortheWin 70 points ago +71 / -1

master troll level achieved

42
RusherOfDin 42 points ago +61 / -19

This shit pisses me off because it's giving fuel to all of the "Space is fake" idiots. And if you are a "Space is fake" idiot then you're a fucking idiot, you fucking idiot.

24
weme06 24 points ago +26 / -2

Oh God, some of them are on our side, aren't they?

17
Clownsallthewaydown 17 points ago +19 / -2

Yes. A lot of them.

7
Sumarongi 7 points ago +11 / -4

Just the CIA plants. Nobody’s actually fucking believes that garbage

0
Trump_Underground 0 points ago +2 / -2

They're everywhere, we should pool some resources to launch a couple into orbit, in an unpressurized capsule, of course. Maybe when it floats back down with a couple corpses that instantly boiled in the vacuum of space, the others might get smart.

1
weme06 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol

-13
PraiseBeToScience -13 points ago +3 / -16

This is what happens when you are tolerant towards conspiracy theory in all forms and why I have been militantly in favor of their suppression and elimination.

-19
MustBeTrump -19 points ago +10 / -29

One of the main issues with "our side" is that a very large portion of "us" believe in a supernatural omnipotent creature that created us and worship him daily.

Their morals and logical conclusions are often the same as ours, but that kind of belief is just as insane as the radical leftists that believe in communism or gender theory.

Although the "space is fake" shit is new to me.

21
krzyzowiec 21 points ago +27 / -6

You can’t be moral or logical without God.

-9
todiwan -9 points ago +1 / -10

You can't be moral or logical while being a believer, as being a believer requires suppressing critical thinking, which results in insane and immoral actions.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't have to suppress critical thinking to believe in God. I was an atheist for a long time before I believed in him, so I know what you're all about and how you think.

1
todiwan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sorry to hear that you lost your way.

-9
MustBeTrump -9 points ago +7 / -16

Utterly insane.

If you're only acting moral because you think it'll impress an imaginary creature, then you're not moral.

Our moral compasses are probably incredibly similar, except I come to my moral conclusions based on my own reasoning, you do it based on trying to impress a supernatural being so that he'll be nice to you when you die.

It's as insane as the radical leftists who believe in communism and that men can be women.

8
Block_Helen 8 points ago +12 / -4

except I come to my moral conclusions based on my own reasoning

No, you don't.

1
MustBeTrump 1 point ago +4 / -3

Feel free to elaborate.

10
Block_Helen 10 points ago +12 / -2

Secular people often think they come to their morals via their own reasoning, but they don't. They get them from their culture, and their culture mostly got them from religion, i.e. God.

The Western world is a vastly different place since the rise of Christianity. Most Westerners gravitate toward Christian morality, even if they claim to have thought it up themselves.

Ask yourself if your self-reasoned morals differ widely from the morals of those you know to be religious. If they don't, why don't they? Plenty of societies throughout history and around the world have espoused values completely antithetical to Christian values. In theory, you could have reasoned your way to those values - but I'm guessing that you didn't.

That's the best I can do, gotta run but I'll be back later.

4
DownWithGovernment 4 points ago +5 / -1

What is "good," and why?

3
PhilosoGuido 3 points ago +4 / -1

What possible value can a human life have if all you are is a pile of overdeveloped pond scum whose existence is pure chance and who is doomed to a short meaningless existence and then death? You have no ontological significance or value and therefore how any other overdeveloped pond scum treats you has absolutely zero moral significance whatsoever. You're all going to die and that will be the end of you. If someone kills enslaves or exploits you along the way, it has no moral significance whatsoever. This gives rise to genocidal behavior because, why not? Nietzsche understood this and Hitler was a big fan of Nietzsche. It is logically impossible to have any framework for ethics or morals with an atheistic worldview.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

you do it based on trying to impress a supernatural being so that he'll be nice to you when you die

That's your bigotry speaking. What gave you the idea that I'm trying to impress God? I wouldn't even know what morality was without God. I'm grateful to him for opening my eyes and allowing me to be better than I was.

15
deleted 15 points ago +16 / -1
-4
MustBeTrump -4 points ago +3 / -7

I have no doubt that you're a good person, but your belief in the supernatural makes you as unhinged as the radical left.

I am on the side of logic and facts and reality.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
-12
AtomicCade -12 points ago +3 / -15

I think you need to understand you're wrong. Out of the 40,000 years of religion and the hundreds of millions of gods, your god and religion being right is impossible. If you were born a Jew, you'd think the exact same thing about your religion. If you were born a Muslim, you'd think the exact same thing about your religion. If you were born a Hindu, you'd think the exact same thing about your religion.

Whether there is a god of the universe cannot be proven. The god of the bible, the torah, and the quran 100% does not exist.

6
DownWithGovernment 6 points ago +6 / -0

"You're wrong because many others are wrong."

Wow, what a good argument. Not. Lol.

Nothing makes me laugh as much as atheist cope.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
-1
Litterboxer1 -1 points ago +1 / -2

How is your God right and all the Hindu and other gods are not?

1
DownWithGovernment 1 point ago +1 / -0

The same way my view of the Earth's shape is right and all the others are wrong.

The wrongness of 99 other views doesn't make the 100th one wrong.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
-3
AtomicCade -3 points ago +1 / -4

You're wrong because you're no different from all the other wrong people. You only believe in what you do because your parents instilled it into you. Very few delusional people convert as adults for a reason.

2
DownWithGovernment 2 points ago +2 / -0

"you're no different than other people."

You're welcome to feel that way.

"You only believe in what you do because your parents instilled it into you."

You're welcome to feel that way. You shouldn't because that's a very 14 year old take, but youre welcome to feel that way regardless.

6
deleted 6 points ago +7 / -1
13
NOT_GLOWING_AT_ALL 13 points ago +15 / -2

Fuck off Marxist, God created your precious "space" and gave you enough free will to question even Him. Yet, at the end of all days you'll be left behind.

-8
MustBeTrump -8 points ago +3 / -11

This is what insanity looks like.

We probably agree on all major issues, you're probably a genuinely good person, but the main difference between us is that you believe in ghosts and fairy-tale and magic and I believe in reality and facts and logic.

Calling me a Marxist and insulting me because I questioned your fragile reality only furthers my point.

6
DownWithGovernment 6 points ago +7 / -1

You believe in your mere opinion that God doesn't exist. Really is nothing more than an opinion, a pseudo-religion.

1
Litterboxer1 1 point ago +1 / -0

What evidence is there that your or his position is more correct?

2
DownWithGovernment 2 points ago +2 / -0

There is quite a bit of evidence for the gospel accounts. Visit Readonable Faith for more info, it's too much for me to lay out here.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
11
deleted 11 points ago +13 / -2
0
Litterboxer1 0 points ago +1 / -1

Where did the creator come from?

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
3
Millipede1776 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's pretty long winded, but I like the way Chuck Missler approaches Christianity, from a more "scientific" point of view.

If you really want to learn more about how we approach this topic as Christians, I recommend listening. I will say outright that it is LONG, but it might broach the topic in a way your more logical mind can understand. His line of reasoning helped ferment my belief. Each segment is about an hour and a half long, but maybe you can play it while doing something else?

2
Litterboxer1 2 points ago +2 / -0

I respect your opinion but everything I've heard this far from other peoplejust seems like something a fifth grader would say. Maybe I will give him a listen some time.

2
Millipede1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

Save the link and come back to it then, but that way you can find it if the thought ever pique's your interest.

3
ShekelJa 3 points ago +3 / -0

Even if you do not believe God is real, the belief of God in of itself facilitates people to act the way they do, you can argue that it is not genuine behavior, but at the end of the day, it is the closest we have to moral fiber in the US given that every other outlet of morality has decayed

4
DownWithGovernment 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's the only possible path to moral humans. You can't have wide-scale morality without religion.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
DownWithGovernment 1 point ago +1 / -0

God's laws for a good life are absolutely deducible with logic, but that doesn't make an absolute standard of "goodness."

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-1
Litterboxer1 -1 points ago +1 / -2

If you need religion to be a good person, you probably aren't s good person.

3
Millipede1776 3 points ago +3 / -0

Some Christians believe that humans are inherently evil. We start from a place of greed, pride, and selfishness and we learn to be better through God. Think about feral humans — those few cases of people documented to have been raised without family structure or other humans at all. They become nearly animalistic and cruel. So those with this belief actually DO believe you need Christ to be a good person.

You could also argue the only "morally correct" culture to have evolved was one founded by Christianity. A culture that rose above the subjugation of its fellow man, teaching that all men are created equal under their creator. We wrote our laws parallels to God's laws, no other nation has accomplished that in the same way our has.

We may not agree that God exists, but we can agree America is the greatest nation on Earth, and everything the founding fathers emphasized in the foundation of our nation was formed from their belief in God.

2
Litterboxer1 2 points ago +2 / -0

I understand where you are coming from and appreciate your input. I am not an atheist, by the way, but I do feel how a lot of people here act like it's the christian way or the highway is really cringe.

1
DownWithGovernment 1 point ago +1 / -0

You don't, but you do need religion to justify your notion of "good."

1
MustBeTrump 1 point ago +1 / -0

I would choose the Christian lifestyle over any other major cultural lifestyle that exists today. I have no issue with Christians or the majority of their belief system, except when it comes to their belief in the supernatural.

If you only act a certain way because you think it'll guarantee you an eternity in paradise, you're not necessarily the most moral person.

11
wolfsettler 11 points ago +12 / -1

Space can be observed with a simple telescope and shown to be real quite easily. The problem is when they use their super powerful telescopes and and have all these photographs online on official sites that turn out to be man made images.

Oh look at the horse head nebula! Isn't it beautiful?

No.... That's all added colors and shit. It most likely looks like a big black cloud with ZERO colors.

Look at this photograph of the earth! Isn't our blue and green ball amazing?

No.... That's an artists rendition of our planet, not an actual photograph.

3
deleted 3 points ago +11 / -8
8
wolfsettler 8 points ago +9 / -1

So basically we have man made photos of what our computers tell us everything looks like. That's literally what I just said. Why would you repeat that back to me?

8
Wharf_Rat 8 points ago +9 / -1

We don’t have a single real photograph of the Earth that has not been photoshopped

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
White-tailed_Eagle 1 point ago +3 / -2

I for one would love to see pictures of the ice wall but thanks to NASA's secret pact with Kodak, they are contractually obligated to shop it out of all photos. I can understand why they do it, the revelation of that much free real estate would crash global property prices overnight.

People keep talking about how the world will be ice-free in x number of years but the ice wall's diameter is 69,420 km wide and 666km deep (both figures are + or _ 102%). That amount of ice will take millions of years to melt.

People think that the film "Waterworld" is fictional, it is actually based on simulations of the earth if the ice wall fully melts.

1
Pegases 1 point ago +1 / -0

feel free to go and take a photo of it. you will be world famous if you do.

0
Mtnlion667 0 points ago +2 / -2

Pale blue dot.

The earth rise photos from the Apollo missions.

You're talking about satellite images that are stitched together because they're taken so close that they can only see a slice.

1
Mtnlion667 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even visible light can be observed better w a camera.

I pointed my 12" dobsonion at the orion nebula. Looked like a bunch of stars w a glowing white cloud. Pretty cool, not that impressive.

Put my cell phone mount on the eye piece and took a 3 sec exposure. The depth and introduction of color, mostly violet, was amazing. Looked so much more impressive than just looking through the eyepiece.

7
chickeninoven 7 points ago +13 / -6

Calm your tits, nerd.

You can go on thinking Star Trek is real regardless of what others believe.

3
bigdickhangsright 3 points ago +4 / -1

What's Star Trek have to do with real life space research?

1
Drewski1138 1 point ago +1 / -0

A lot, actually, since it inspired generations of scientists and engineers that have gone to space, made our gadgets, and gave us actual sliding doors.

1
bigdickhangsright 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right so it can inspire us but that mean we believe or hope it's real

4
24601 4 points ago +4 / -0

This.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
35
RIPIsaacKappy 35 points ago +37 / -2

I like chorizo more than I like space crap. You can't eat Saturn.

24
GunsWithGooglyEyes 24 points ago +24 / -0

Stacey Abrams takes that as a challenge

16
chickeninoven 16 points ago +16 / -0

She'd rather eat Uranus.

3
MightyEighth 3 points ago +3 / -0

🤢

11
Memecaliber 11 points ago +11 / -0

But* you can eat Uranus.

9
ProphetOfKek 9 points ago +9 / -0

This is why we have the homopox.

1
AussieTrumpFan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Like a corn on the cob!

Please insert $41 million to continue this conversation...

7
Goldsteinbergsky 7 points ago +7 / -0

I've got some "chorizo" for you, ese. 😜

4
RIPIsaacKappy 4 points ago +4 / -0

God dang it lol

6
Here_I_Be 6 points ago +6 / -0

Not with that attitude!

3
ultra-tera-maga 3 points ago +4 / -1

Coolest thing I ever heard about space is that dude that brought home moon rocks to have out of this world sex.

27
GodKingHarambe 27 points ago +27 / -0

"TRUST THE SAUSAGE!"

14
JMaN 14 points ago +15 / -1

He did this to teach a good lesson:

"Let us learn to be wary of arguments from authority as much as of the spontaneous eloquence of certain images…."

26
80960KA 26 points ago +26 / -0

Let us learn to be wary of arguments from authority as much as of the spontaneous eloquence of certain images….

I like this guy.

6
Chodeus 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yep. Seems he was trying to convey to people to not blindly trust the soyience!

18
PleaseFaceWall 18 points ago +18 / -0

Consoom interstellar space deli

14
Coprolite 14 points ago +16 / -2

That's awesome. I'm sure glad they stole billions of dollars to "build" that thing. $20 says it doesn't even exist, they are already claiming dust has damaged it.

-3
deleted -3 points ago +7 / -10
4
80960KA 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not as good in visible, but way better in infrared.

Still largely frivolous given we can barely get out of our gravity well effectively.

-3
AtomicCade -3 points ago +1 / -4

Tf are you talking about

5
80960KA 5 points ago +5 / -0

Stuff above your head, obviously.

2
AtomicCade 2 points ago +2 / -0

Looking through what else you said on the thread, I think you're not one of the "space is fake" retards at least.

1
PraiseBeToScience 1 point ago +3 / -2

lol and what education and knowledge and general IQ do you base that analysis on?

JWST took a clearer picture of the Hubble Deep Field in only a few hours that Hubble took two weeks to photograph, and returned half the detail.

1
jamrs 1 point ago +1 / -0

The first images they released were pretty lackluster imho. They are only cool if you understand all of the back story. From a marketing perspective, that's a big fail. They should have kept the public waiting till they had some really good shit

14
NazisWereSocialist 14 points ago +14 / -0

That’s hilarious

12
24601 12 points ago +12 / -0

Scientists are allowed to joke around, you know.

Perhaps he should have posted on April 1st.... but he told the world the image was a joke.

11
Hunter_Slaptop 11 points ago +11 / -0

solar chorizo sounds good

2
Fact 2 points ago +2 / -0

Solboys represent.

11
MythArcana 11 points ago +14 / -3

Top French scientist Etienne Klein.

This is getting so tiring.

35
80960KA 35 points ago +35 / -0

The whole point of the dude's post was to prank idiots that blindly believe authority.

I don't know anything about this guy and he's probably not "based" but he's not wrong here.

11
JMaN 11 points ago +12 / -1

He did it for good reason:

"Let us learn to be wary of arguments from authority as much as of the spontaneous eloquence of certain images…."

2
AussieTrumpFan 2 points ago +2 / -0

I tried to drink from one of his bottles, only it was almost impossible to fill. Then even harder to empty...

Yay for Cliff Stoll.

8
deleted 8 points ago +15 / -7
6
chickeninoven 6 points ago +7 / -1

This guy... I don't know what he does, but he does it

4
DownWithGovernment 4 points ago +5 / -1

This is... surpirisingly based. S0ace futurism is indeed gay atheist cope.

-2
TrumpsBigBalls -2 points ago +1 / -3

You think so eh? Please...define 'Based' then.

3
JiubUnbound 3 points ago +4 / -1

Damn, is that pasta homemade?

1
freebass 1 point ago +2 / -1

Everybody knows, the best copypasta is homemade copypasta!

2
JiubUnbound 2 points ago +2 / -0

If it's an original recipe, then it's the best I've seen in years.

0
freebass 0 points ago +1 / -1

Pretty damn...uh...good?

2
Wexit-Delecto 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kek

1
Plugthegamey 1 point ago +1 / -0

Haha you're not wrong. Someone out there is going to say BUT DIDNT YOU SEE THE MOVIE ARMAGEDDON?!?!

8
Petiteputnam1 8 points ago +8 / -0

Space fags on suicide alert

6
NvJohansson 6 points ago +6 / -0

That meats the scientific standards of the day.

5
Meddlesom 5 points ago +5 / -0

I literally took a picture of a potato and fooled people into believing it was asteroid Itokawa. This is that picture. The "stars" are just bits of dust on my black table.

5
Texas_81 5 points ago +5 / -0

KEK <——- this one

kek

KeK

kEK

2
alfredbester 2 points ago +2 / -0

Epic shitposting

4
IncredibleMrE1 4 points ago +4 / -0

Lmfao that is legitimately hilarious.

4
GrayManNumber333 4 points ago +4 / -0

Top notch post by a true scientist. He says the image was the joke. The real joke was the morons who didn’t get the joke and just posted it as images of a star.

4
replies_reshmies 4 points ago +4 / -0

Definitive proof the Earth is flat.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
0
ghost_of_aswartz 0 points ago +1 / -1

Cannot tell if one above yours is sarcasm so cannot up or downbort

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
based_trekkie 4 points ago +8 / -4

Space is fake and gay

We live in a simulation

6
flashersenpai 6 points ago +7 / -1

I think most people who are on board with simulation theory are people who have no computer science background (especially game development) or ones who do that want to feel relevant.

Sim Theory is the backronym of spiritualism.

6
80960KA 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yep, The Simulator is indistinguishable from God, it fits all the "god" parameters.

Omnipotent, can write any bit in the universe. Omniscient, can read any bit in the universe. Omnipresent as a combined side effect of the former.

It's just God + Star Trek.

4
RusherOfDin 4 points ago +4 / -0

I see it more as turtles all the way down rehashed to use quantum computing.

0
freebass 0 points ago +1 / -1

You should check out Devs.

6
alfredbester 6 points ago +6 / -0

your face is a simulation

6
Sumarongi 6 points ago +6 / -0

how would you know?

3
BannedbyTD 3 points ago +3 / -0

This would explain why photo realistic faces in video games and other media trigger the "uncanny valley" response in most people. It's a simulation within a simulation.

3
artifex_mundi_x 3 points ago +3 / -0

He actually did it as a prank to show you should not trust authority, which I can applaud.

3
Sumarongi 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes governments lie.

But if every part of knowledge you possess comes from the government the you are a retard

You know that people knew about space and that the earth is round way before the US ‘government’ even existed, right?

3
Pepe_longcockings 3 points ago +3 / -0

Now i think it really might be possible to eat uranus

3
Illuminaughtie 3 points ago +3 / -0

nom nom nom

3
TheLesserBambino 3 points ago +3 / -0

God Tier Troll. To bad he's French.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
barwhack 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is how "safe and effective" was accomplished, too.

3
Joes_Hippocampus 3 points ago +3 / -0

Stunning and brave!

3
LibtardJesus 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh Jesus. I thought the flat earther faga would be all over this post.

2
huang7776 2 points ago +2 / -0

Another banger from Babylonbee... wait this is not the bee!?

2
TheOne1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Artists rendering

2
SOL170 2 points ago +2 / -0

Spanish or Mexican chorizo? It matters, I need to know what kind of potential system Im looking at here.

2
deepbake 2 points ago +2 / -0

M Class Chorizo

2
peterthegreen 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fill my breakfast taco, Scotty 🖖

2
OPsMom 2 points ago +2 / -0

We know what stars are made of. You never know what chorizo is made of.

1
LibtardsAreTrash 1 point ago +2 / -1

Oh yes we do, we just don't wanna think about it

2
ThisTrainHasNoBrakes 2 points ago +2 / -0

So it was just a picture of the moon?

2
Highspergamy 2 points ago +2 / -0

"REEEEE! SCIENCE IS REEEEEAL!"

Yes, science is real, but blooper is also reel. What do ya have to say about that?

2
The_Kuru 2 points ago +3 / -1

When those first amazing images came out from the Hubble telescope, people thought they were real because they were being presented as real. They were complete artistic hoax renderings. Then a few years later NASA claimed to find proof of life on Mars from a meteor they found on Earth that they said came from Mars. They had a huge press conference and were crying and hugging each other.

All they do is hoax.

2
jamrs 2 points ago +2 / -0

He was calling out group think and tweeted an hour later that it was chorizo

2
DRalter69 2 points ago +2 / -0

It was a joke!

2
dr_gonzo 2 points ago +3 / -1

Well in his defense, the scientist did it intentionally to illustrate to people why they should be weary of appeals to authority. Something every leftist engages in constantly, whether it be for vax mandates, environmental fascism etc.

This is why the Marxists intentionally engaged in their Long March through the Institutions. Slap a label "scientist" on an ideologue, and to an idiot, their words equate to truth.

Mao explained this himself when he coined the term "politically correct" in an essay he wrote in the early 60s. His argument was that science is the search for truth, and the state is the ultimate manifestation of science, therefore the state defines truth. Ipso facto, you're either "politically correct", or you're false.

2
AussieTrumpFan 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, you would not be surprised to know that the turbo faggots are upset about STEM and have been trying to turn it into STEAM, where the A is for Arts. Of course, this completely invalidates the concept of STEM but, like a bucket of crabs, none of us is as dumb as the rest of us. And they're awfully fucking dumb.

2
the_sky_is_falling 2 points ago +3 / -1

Dude was literally just having some fun.

This turned into a "this be proof that all the soyience is fakes" and "how dare you have fun mocking the latest great scientific telescope. Bow down to mighty science and face despair"

Fuck both these sides.

The man just wanted to have some fun. It was meant as a joke to laugh at and move on.

2
Malice 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cyrano de Bergerac and Pinocchio come to mind

2
1776ThereIsaidIt 2 points ago +2 / -0

You never sausage a star.

2
Mtnlion667 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm glad a scrolled far enough to find this!

2
VulpineBard 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh, so that's what "ham planet" means.

2
conryf 2 points ago +2 / -0

I call bullshit. French people dont know what the fuck chorizo is

1
Octomonkey 1 point ago +1 / -0

Safe and effective telescope image

1
doug2 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's actually kind of funny