File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Picture taken this past Saturday.
>> Anonymous
>>67983
And I took it.
>> Anonymous
>>67991
Meanwhile, I fucked your mom in the ass.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I guess this thread is really going somewhere. My wallpaper. Pic taken last July and I assume by>>67991and indirectly by>>67992
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Another
>> Cache
>>67983
Oh yes, NASA protocol 69: Polish the Space Shuttle's knob.
>> Anonymous
Are those tiny white specs in the ocean ships? That is the ocean, right?
>> Anonymous
Also, I like how they say that you can see the stars as clear as day when you clear Earth's atmosphere, yet, it's pitch black out there. WTF?
>> Anonymous
>>68023

Your eye can focus on really whatever it wants. It will automatically focus an object at a far distance (i.e. a star). The pictures taken have the focus set at a certain distance and only those objects will appear with nearly 100% clarity. Everything else will get more out of focus the farther away from the object that is in focus. Since stars are pretty small as it is to see, other than the sun, you really won't see them in these pics.

I don't know if the objects below are ships in the ocean. It is the ocean, but I doubt they're ships. I would probably guess islands.
>> Anonymous
It also has to do with the camera's they use.
If they were sensitive enough to see star light the space ship and astronauts would be alot brighter. The sun is alot brighter when you are out of the earth's atmosphere. Hence why the astronauts where special visors
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Actually, I just found a picture where you can see some stars.
>> Anonymous
I just compared that latest picture to the one over the ocean. It's crap on the camera lens! The same exact spots have the same colored pixels.
>> Anonymous
Aside all the other reasons given, this shot was taken in bright sunlight (its daytime on the earth below) so its highly unlikely the stars would be visible because of that simple reason.
>> Anonymous
Because of the way the cameras are set up,
not just because it's daylight.
as I said before it's because of the camera sensitivity
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
2 more pics coming up. This one is one way they do a cardio workout. Go figure. Probably the most expensive cardio machine ever made, lol.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>68039

Last one for now. I have one word for this--balls.
>> Anonymous
>>68034
>(its daytime on the earth below)

Earth is round, and it's always daytime and night somewhere..
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>68042
He obviously meant the part that was pictured was when there was sunlight.

I.e. this picture is at sundown...

Btw, I messed up the subtext on the 3rd to last pic. It's for taking pics of the outside. The workout machine was a diff pic that I didn't post.
>> Anonymous
>>68029

I'm not going to bet money on it, but I'm fairly sure those "stars" are actually hot pixels or other related artifacts from the digital camera used. eg: Longer exposure, much higher chance of radiation passing through the camera sensors/etc since it's in space, and I don't think even the best digital SLRs have a wide enough dynamic range to get regular star light and anything lit directly by our sun exposed decently all at once.
>> Anonymous
it's not the blue in the sky in the daytime that prevents you from seeing the stars, it's the washout from the refracted light from the sun that does.

Even if there were no atmosphere on earth and the sky was black in the daytime, you would not be able to see the stars. Kinda like how you can't see the stars while in a city or place with lots of light during the night.