16 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-07-29 1230 +Atom Storm

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-07-29 1230 +Atom Storm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C4qHzmLT20&lc=z13gx5zi5rydefcjo04ccztotqvber4rkk40k
https://pastebin.com/n7vjVy7c
__

+Atom Storm __ I like your reasoning. If we can exchange messages using technology _and stuff_ then anything ought to be possible! But still - it is the case that every picture of the Earth from space resembles artwork. _They just do._

When we look at photos and footage of the Moon they have an unmistakable "realness" to them - so why is it that we never see photos and footage of the Earth from space with a similar "realness"?

I mean - we can exchange messages using technology _and stuff_ so it ought to be possible, right?

Do you have a plausible answer for that? As to why images and footage of the Moon have "realness" but equivalent visuals of the Earth from space don't? (I do - but I'd like to hear your answer first.)



__________
2017-07-29 1345

+Slamz Dunk __ Howdy. Cartoons are not real. Every purported photo of the Earth from space better resembles artwork when compared to equivalent photos of the Moon.


__________
2017-07-29 1525

+Slamz Dunk __ Yes - this is YouTube and this is the right place to ask questions of people such as yourself.

Can you tell me where all the photos of Earth from space that - when compared to photos of the Moon - have "realness" and don't better resemble artwork?

I have been through the "NASA", "JAXA" and "ESA" archives. Have you? They have none so can you point me in the right direction or not?



__________
2017-07-30 0120

+monokhem __ *"That's a nonsense question" is a nonsense reply*. It is undeniable that *every* purported photo of the Earth from space better _resembles_ artwork _because_ they lack *the same kind of "realness"* that can be _readily observed_ in photos of the Moon. Put photos of the two side by side and compare them for yourself if you genuinely don't understand what I am talking about.

Just don't make the boring low IQ mistake of assuming this simple observation suggests I am some kind of "flat Earther" or "space denier". I am not. A courtroom sketch artist creates artwork of real things *but we do not pretend on the Internet that such sketches have the same "realness" as a genuine photo*.

Good grief - they just don't. It is *nonsense* for you to suggest that they do.

If you cannot respond meaningfully to my question then leave the conversation.




__________
2017-07-30 0230

+Vitaddict Dad __ I sure do have an explanation but if you are someone who genuinely *perceives* the available images of Earth from space as having _the same_ degree of "realness" that photos of the Moon have then my explanation is going to whiz over your head like the "ISS".

When you closely examine the available images of Earth from space _and compare them_ to the numerous photos of the Moon (put them side by side on a large monitor) can you agree that the photos of the Moon have a distinct "realness" quality to them whereas photos of the Earth from space have a more "lifeless" quality/feel to them.

The "realness" quality/feel I am drawing your attention to is not something that can be easily described but - _just like p0rn_ - it is something you will immediately recognise once you see it.

Do you understand this "realness" quality/feel I am talking about? And if so - do you agree that when compared to photos of the Moon the available photos of Earth from space lack that same degree/extent of "realness" to them?

It's okay to reply: "But Lesta - the images of Earth from space were all taken with old cameras and that's why they lack the same degree of realness that Moon photos have". For now - all I am looking for is that you understand what I mean by this "realness" quality and that you can acknowledge it's lacking with Earth from space photos.




__________
2017-07-30 0355

+Slamz Dunk __ How is your reply not one of pure projection? It is not me who is in denial. "Realness" is an often indescribable quality which can be instantly recognised. Many CAPTCHA tests involve a person selecting something "real" out of a set of things that are not *because* humans are _very good_ at recognising "realness" whereas a computer still cannot outperform guesswork.

A children's cartoon obviously lacks "realness" and you would never think of it as real (though with you I am not so sure). On the other hand - some special effects found in big budget movies possess a lot more "realness" which can temporarily fool movie goers who have *suspended disbelief*.

But when we carefully compare a movie's CGI to actual real things the CGI depicts (such as by juxtaposing a CGI car with a real car on a large monitor) we can soon discern that what _seemed_ real in a movie theatre lacks the quality of "realness" upon scrutiny. _Even if we cannot quite describe why._

Are you really going to double down and insist that you are ignorant of these fundamental concepts? Please - never go full retard. I have given thoughtful replies on this thread and it is becoming apparent that you are a low IQ time-waster who does not know sh!t about sh!t.

Either respond civilly and thoughtfully or wait quietly for others who can.



____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.