What is Google Erath?

Who says they can’t? Just because it hasn’t been made available to the masses or even demonstrated doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Wouldn’t logic dictate that if a $500 Nikon can do what it does that it’s a certainty that more expensive cameras that the government uses can do better?

I'm not getting why they should be taking live video of cargo ships.

What's the purpose of this post?

The purpose is for hoops to be jumped through to believe anything those ((LIARS)) at NASA have to say.

sigh

My guess is the satellites are not just up there to zoom in to random places. Most NASA satellites serve a purpose, such as recording data like temperature or aresol density. I think only clandestine agencies would have satellites like you are saying.

They can get very detailed live video/photos from space -- they just don't make it available to the public.

live view of earth from satellite : https://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth?imgsize=320&opt=-z&lat=36&ns=North&lon=332.237&ew=West&alt=13&img=learth.evif

....Your point?

That's not very detailed at all

That is not their purpose..... At all. For example, juno orbiting Jupiter has instruments for gathering scientific data. These imagers often cover various bands but are rarely, if ever visible light bands. The wonderfully fancy images of Jupiter that have been published recently are not "visible light photographs" of Jupiter. They are composite images using source material likely in the ibfrared and ultraviolet bands, composited, matched and coloured by hand.

NASAs mission is science, not high res real colour images. That would be if virtually no scientific value in many cases.

What do you mean "they cannot" ?

I was a kid when the US government was boasting about their military satellites being able to read car licence plates.

hows it bad to protect privacy?

NASA doesn't have a big budget...

Look at the cost of various projects vs their budget.

how would your privacy be invaded if nasa streamed a high definition video of the moon?

Maybe those are just drones?

Realistically I believe that they may have the capability but atmospheric interference probably prevents real image acquisition from space. On the other hand, license plate reading from 30000 feet is very likely using planes equipped with telescopic cameras.

Modern U.S. IMINT satellites are believed to have around 10 cm resolution; contrary to references in popular culture, this is sufficient to detect any type of vehicle, but not to read the headlines of a newspaper.

Weird

Yeah that's weird

Space and satellite imagery are all incredibly suspicious yet the blind-tards here refuse to see it.

How are they suspicious?

Mostly looks fake/CGI especially older stuff, and there's not nearly enough full disc images or videos of earth given the thousands of geosyncronous satellites in orbit 22,000 miles away easily capable of taking full disc images.

.Mostly looks fake/CGI especially older stuff,

buzz doesn't pass the test.

That's not an argument. Your standard for "oh it looks fake" is not only irrelevant but also bullshit.

Please, qualify your statement.

.away easily capable of taking full disc images.

How do you know they're "easily capable" of such a feat?

How do you know they're "easily capable" of such a feat?

Do you know what a camera is?

Yes, they are complex devices that operate under a very narrow set of circumstances.

So how about you answer my question?

So let me get this straight -- this thread is a conspiracy that the government does not have advanced technologies that they hide from the general public?

This is such a strange place.

You could say the same thing about CCTV footage of terrorist attacks.

I doubt they'd spend millions of not billions on a telescope just to point it down to earth. Plus the earth would be too close, it would be like using binoculars to look across the room.

No idea why they don't point at the moon though and show the landing sites....oh yes I do. There's none.

When you are on Earth you can track the moon across the sky easily because it moves about 20 degrees every 90 minutes. This movement is slow enough that it allows for long exposures.

The IIS is moving across the surface of the earth at 4 miles per second. It makes an entire orbit of the planet in 90 minutes.

It is basically impossible to take a handheld telescopic exposure from the ISS pointed toward the earth because it would be blurry. The earth is simply moving too fast to track.

A telescopic camera system that moves with the space station's orbit to enable it to focus on a telescopic detail would still only be able to get brief still images because the IIS moves too fast. In just a minutes the target would be out of view. Plus, it would be extremely expensive, like NRO satellite expensive.

FWIW, most NRO satellites have a much higher inclination so that they are moving over the ground much slower than IIS.