Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?

  • 115 Replies
  • 16344 Views
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2019, 03:13:44 PM »
Ive read all you have written, but you still have not answered the nub of the question. Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery that even mindless idiots on YouTube can find all the things you claim to be mistakes? If they were the kind of organisation you keep on claiming it to be, would they not be doing a better job?
I have answered but somehow it escaped you completely.
The moonlandings were state of the art film and photographic fakery ahead of anything present at those days.
Capricorn one barely reaches the level of Apollo.
But when you compare Apollo 11 with the footage of Apollo 8 and 10, the latter looks like a total joke by comparison.
Only in the last two decades our collective awareness about visual effects have gained an enormous boost simply because we are exposed to advanced trickery on a daily basis and we can discern much better.
So to answer your question again,..... NASA did beyond anything present in 1969 and only the last two decades photographers and a critical eye sees the fakery in the Apollo footage.
Quote
If they were faking it would they not be faking some really good stuff rather than the pretty mundane stuff they are doing? As it requires no real working technology why haven't they faked a whole series of moon landings? Why did they let the Chinese steal their thunder recently ?
They have faked some really good stuff in 1969 in relation to the film industry’s special effects of those days.
And i also explained that because they always claim mars looks very earth like, a red filter is basically all you need to present an extremely realistic earth like reddish alien planet.
The fakery is not about the impeccable footage of mars, the fakery is that our collective minds have all agreed that mars looks identical to Devon Island/Greenland apart from some little visual tweaks.
While not a single human being has ever been to mars in the first place, we seem to agree what it looks like because of NASA footage.
This is like i allready explained circular reasoning.
‘Mars looks earh like, because that is what mars looks like” ....and without a blink of an eye that seems a very logical and reasonable statement for most.

And the Chinese are into CGI most of the time and aren’t really good at it, so i really don’t want to discuss their claims.
Quote
Why have they not faked some really good stuff like a NASA city on the moon? If you say they are out for money would a big fakery project like that not get the cash really rolling in?
Huh ? Why go into an extremely more difficult direction of fakery ?
A city on the moon ? I really don’t get what you are trying to say here.
Quote
If Hollywood can create all that really great Fakery why is NASA not doing it now?
You claim to have all the real lowdown on the inner workings of NASA so you should have all the answers.....so what are they?
NASA is doing it with all CGI from fly by satelites in outerspace and an a supposed real camera pixel/dot that they claim is pluto.
Furthermore we live in an era where everything is under a magnifying glass,... why try your luck again ?
They surely know how large the group is worldwide whodismiss the moonlandings and mars claims.
Should they add another far more outlandish scenery somewhere in space to shut everyone up ?
I don’t think so, the fact that ‘Orion’ still not has solved the hazards of the Van Allen belts in the past years is telling.
Only because we have more delicate machinery ?
Hogwash, they are simply delaying the inevitable.... no manned mission will leave earth ever again in front of a worldwide audience that is so much more critical than the sheep of 1969.
Quote
As we are on the subject, how did you come by your inside information about NASA, do you have a spy on the inside working covertly? I hope your not going to say you got all your good stuff off the internet as that would be so disappointing.
Simpky looking at all the footage and the docu ‘American moon’ that confirms the Apollo footage looks fake and no amount of magic ‘moon circomstances’ explain away the obvious.


I find your analysis pretty diapointing, with you again missing the point, and why do you keep reffering to the distant past? I’m speaking about now!


This is 2019, recent Hollywood films have demonstrated that very complex situations can be rendered to appear real.


The question is why has not NASA taken this on board and faked something worthwhile? I don’t think a Pluto flyby is going to excite anyone bar a couple of nerds.


With today’s CGI and NASA’s budget that you keep claiming is massively huge, why have they not chosen to fake something sensational?  Why is all their stuff so mundane....pics of rocks in space!


Something sensational would be a new moon landing and a base being built! Why have they not done this?
Come on Dutchy you know all about NASA, why have they not faked more moon landings?


The fact you have no inside source is a bit of a letdown, you could just be making all your stuff up, and giving us just an opinion.




*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2019, 03:25:35 PM »
All you had to say, dutchy, is that you were fooled by a handful of artists.

 (yes, fasjon photography is nothing more than artt).

I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2019, 06:42:22 PM »
Dutchy, I have to ask who the deceivers are here? Obviously they include the makers of thst total fabrication.
What are you smoking ?
Could you for once please post anything that has some sort of relation to what i have written.
I did read your great ramble but found that:
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?"
2) None of it is evidence that the videos of the lunar landings were filmed on earth.
So rather than waste time I posted something that I thought might have been pertinent.

Quote from: dutchy
The so called moon hoax proofs you presented are not mine nor did i present any of them..
Of course the "moon hoax proofs you presented are not" yours! You have never given any "moon hoax proofs", no-one has!

Quote from: dutchy
I have made some very good anti Apollo arguments that you cannot refute and therefor make things up as you go.
It’s quite bizare when reading your reply....
You have never given any "good anti Apollo arguments".
All you give are conjectures based on psychological profiling etc. That can be made to "prove" any old thing.
And all the physical evidence in American moon is easily refuted nonsense put out by fraudsters trying to fool those ignorant of simple physics etc.

And you still seem to ignore all the 3rd party evidence of the time so I don't know why I bother.

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2019, 09:48:12 PM »
Dutchy, looks fake to "who" exactly? A guitar playing hippie?

Every single "anomally" pointed out by keyboard warriors, is explained by applying rational thinking and science. The most laughable is the YouTube videos proclaiming it is all filmed underwater, because of bubbles in space. The footage is crystal clear because of no atmosphere between the camera lens and astronauts and spacecraft, let alone water. The bubbles could be air bubbles trapped on the outside of the suits.

National geographic magazine time stamped it all with their moon mission issues with full color photos in 1969 and early 1970's. CGI did not exist back then.

You've been radicalized, Dutchy, and there's not even a promise of 77 virgins waiting for you, for blowing up your own reputation.

In response to the thread question, the answer is obvious. NASA hasn't faked anything, and reality on the moon and in space is slightly different to what's been portrayed in tv shows and movies.


?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2019, 12:37:01 AM »
I did read your great ramble but found that:
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
I have answered that.
1 in the past (1969) their fakery was state of the art compared to anything else,.... only in hindsight we see the fakery
2 The mars fakery is as real as it gets because it is real footage !
The fakery lies in the fact it was taken on earth, because it was impregnated in our sub conscious that mars resembles earth apart from being reddish.
3 NASA only uses CGI to show their space achievements.
From fly by's to 'moon crossing earth' and more.....  the general public has fully accepted that capturing anything with a conventional camera is futile because of the distances and wavelenght limitations,...we need camera's that capture wavelenghts far beyond the visual spectrum that are brought back into visuality by NASA photoshop artists.

This is the final time i answer you with some etiquette.
Next time you deliberately lie or willfully misinterpret my post i will completely ignore you from now apart from some basic comments about what a dirty little liar you really are.
Which is a shame for someone so pretentious like yourself about his presence at the flatearth forums.

Your choice.....
« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 12:40:43 AM by dutchy »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2019, 12:54:03 AM »
I did read your great ramble but found that:
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
I have answered that.
1 in the past (1969) their fakery was state of the art compared to anything else,.... only in hindsight we see the fakery
2 The mars fakery is as real as it gets because it is real footage !
The fakery lies in the fact it was taken on earth, because it was impregnated in our sub conscious that mars resembles earth apart from being reddish.
3 NASA only uses CGI to show their space achievements.
Why should I care what you say or think when come out with rubbish like this.

Quote from: dutchy
This is the final time i answer you with some etiquette.
Next time you deliberately lie or willfully misinterpret my post i will either completely ignore you from now apart from some basic comments about what a dirty little liar you really are.
Your choice.....
I do not willfully misinterpret your post. I ignore the parts that I deem to be worthless.
That is not "willfully misinterpreting" or being "a dirty little liar"!
I am entitled to my opinion of what "I deem to be worthless".

And you continue to ignore much of what I write, especially the bits on independent 3rd party evidence.
So why should I bother with your NASAphobic outbursts.

Here's one: Tracking Apollo-17 from Florida, Sven Grahn.

I know you'll ignore it all, but who cares ;D?

And especially this sort of stuff! Enjoy the massive copy-n-paste!

America used 2 GHz that amatures amateurs and the Russians could not track all the way to the moon , on the moon and back.

Incorrect! Again you have no idea what you are talking about!

NASA published all the frequencies and data needed and to claim that amateurs and the Russians could not track all the way to the moon is total idiocy.
Of course, one single amateur or receiving station could not track Apollo all the way because the earth rotates!

Stop claiming total Moon Hoaxer lies!

The Apollo missions were extensively tracked by numerous professional and amateur groups.
Read and find the description of NASA's data transmission protocols!
UNIFIED S-BAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNIQUES FOR APOLLO VOLUME 1 - FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION
by John H. Painter and George Hondros, Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas

And this too, if the noted communications "expert", ;D Ignoramus Dutchy ;D needs more detail, try:
APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT - S-BAND SYSTEM SIGNAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
Harold R. Rosenberg, Editor, Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas 77058[/b]


And you might read:
Quote from: Chris Graney
Eavesdropping on Apollo 11
The nearly forgotten story of how a radio amateur successfully detected transmissions from the first men to land on the Moon.


In July of 1969 a ham radio operator and amateur radio-astronomer by the name of Larry Baysinger, W4EJA, accomplished an amazing feat. He independently detected radio transmissions from the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface. Fortunately, his accomplishments were recorded by Glenn Rutherford, a young reporter for the Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal. “Lunar Eavesdropping: Louisvillians hear moon walk talk on homemade equipment,” sporting Rutherford’s byline, appeared in the Wednesday, July 23, 1969 issue of that paper — front page of section B, the local news section (see Figure 1).
     

Figure 1
Larry at the receiver

Rutherford opened the Courier story with “Thanks to some homemade electronic equipment, including a rebuilt 20 year old radio receiver from an Army tank (see Figure 2) and an antenna made of spare pieces of aluminum, nylon cord and chicken wire (see Figure 3 and 4), a small band of Louisvillians was able to ‘eavesdrop’ Sunday (July 20) night on the American astronauts’ conversation directly from the moon.”

Figure 2, The Antenna
     
Figure 3, Antenna Design

The story discussed how Baysinger recorded 35 minutes of conversation from VHF signals transmitted between astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins (he did not attempt to pick up the encoded S-band signals from the main Moon-Earth communication link).1 These 35 minutes included the time during which President Richard Nixon transmitted a message of congratulations to the astronauts.

Rutherford’s story briefly mentioned how Baysinger had been previously successful in constructing a device to detect radio signals from Jupiter and in tracking and reproducing pictures transmitted from Earth-orbiting satellites. It briefly described the antenna used for the lunar eavesdropping project — a fully steerable 8 × 12 foot “corner horn” — and it briefly discussed the amazing sensitivity of the receiver, which Baysinger specially modified for the lunar eavesdropping project. Rutherford finished the story with “Needless to say, the receiver worked to perfection Sunday night.”
. . . . .
Lunar Eavesdropping Link
More information on Larry’s lunar eavesdropping, including some audio clips, can be found on Christopher Graney’s Otter Creek-South Harrison Observatory Web page, Lunar Eavesdropping In Louisville, Kentucky.

Read a lot more in: ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio,

And from a more "professional" source!
Quote
The Bochum Radio Observatory, Germany
In the 1957 – 1975 period, the 20 metre parabolic antenna of the Bochum Observatory in (the then) West Germany was often in the news as it received transmissions from Russian and American space vehicles. The Director at the time, Professor Heinz Kaminski, was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and US space agencies.

During the later Apollo missions, the observatory received and recorded some of the Field Sequential Color TV transmissions from the Lunar Rovers on the Moon, as well as biomedical data and voice.

The 20 metre Bochum antenna inside its radome, in 1972.
Photo: Bochum Observatory. With thanks to Thilo Elsner.
An independent recording of the Lunar Landing.
During Apollo 11, the observatory ‘listened in’ on the first lunar landing.

The present Director, Dr. Thilo Elsner, has provided a short audio recording of transmissions received from the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, Eagle, at the time of Lunar touchdown.
The Moon was just above the horizon at the time of the landing, but it was below the horizon for the first step. (See graphic below.)

Hear the Apollo 11 Lunar Landing
audio 430kb mp3 file.
In this stereo mp3 file, the recording made at Bochum is on
the right channel – and the NASA Net 1 recording (recorded
at Honeysuckle, but coming from Goldstone) is on the left channel.

Charlie Duke (Capcom in Houston speaking with the astronauts)
 – and the associated Quindar tones – are heard only on the left
channel (i.e. the NASA recording) since Bochum could only hear
the transmissions from the Moon – not those being transmitted
to the Moon from the tracking stations on Earth.

Bochum and Net 1 recordings synchronised by Colin Mackellar.

This graphic shows the side of the Earth visible from the Moon at the time
Eagle touched down on the lunar surface (2018GMT Sunday 20 July 1969).

As seen from Bochum, the Moon was at a low elevation and was setting.
NASA Manned Space Flight Network stations at Madrid and
Goldstone both tracked Eagle to the surface.

From: The Bochum Radio Observatory, Germany

Dutchy, you make up so many fabricated stories to support your silly claims!

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2019, 12:14:40 AM »
I did read your great ramble but found that:
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
I have answered that.
1 in the past (1969) their fakery was state of the art compared to anything else,.... only in hindsight we see the fakery
2 The mars fakery is as real as it gets because it is real footage !
The fakery lies in the fact it was taken on earth, because it was impregnated in our sub conscious that mars resembles earth apart from being reddish.
3 NASA only uses CGI to show their space achievements.
From fly by's to 'moon crossing earth' and more.....  the general public has fully accepted that capturing anything with a conventional camera is futile because of the distances and wavelenght limitations,...we need camera's that capture wavelenghts far beyond the visual spectrum that are brought back into visuality by NASA photoshop artists.

This is the final time i answer you with some etiquette.
Next time you deliberately lie or willfully misinterpret my post i will completely ignore you from now apart from some basic comments about what a dirty little liar you really are.
Which is a shame for someone so pretentious like yourself about his presence at the flatearth forums.

Your choice.....


Avoidance yet again.....


Simple question Dutchy.....Why has NASA not faked any more moon landings?


You claim to know so so much about NASA! So why no more fake visits to the moon?

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2019, 01:40:12 AM »
I did read your great ramble but found that:
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
I have answered that.
1 in the past (1969) their fakery was state of the art compared to anything else,.... only in hindsight we see the fakery
2 The mars fakery is as real as it gets because it is real footage !
The fakery lies in the fact it was taken on earth, because it was impregnated in our sub conscious that mars resembles earth apart from being reddish.
3 NASA only uses CGI to show their space achievements.
From fly by's to 'moon crossing earth' and more.....  the general public has fully accepted that capturing anything with a conventional camera is futile because of the distances and wavelenght limitations,...we need camera's that capture wavelenghts far beyond the visual spectrum that are brought back into visuality by NASA photoshop artists.

This is the final time i answer you with some etiquette.
Next time you deliberately lie or willfully misinterpret my post i will completely ignore you from now apart from some basic comments about what a dirty little liar you really are.
Which is a shame for someone so pretentious like yourself about his presence at the flatearth forums.

Your choice.....

Avoidance yet again.....


Simple question Dutchy.....Why has NASA not faked any more moon landings?


You claim to know so so much about NASA! So why no more fake visits to the moon?
Are you seriously that simplistic ?
I will reply later .... but i am truly boggled after all the info i provided that you really think that ‘simply faking a city on the moon’ is what NASA could have done if the faked everything.
I am not sure i want to answer to this logic but i will.....

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2019, 03:15:51 AM »
Right? By this time, one would've expected NASA to pubnlish things like: "Probe sent to explore DeathStar Prima was mauled to bits by a horde of space sharks", not things like a flyby on Pluto. If you are going to fake something, always go big.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2019, 02:38:47 PM »

Those wonderfull moon conditions,.....only fools see a white prop line that shouldn't be there, but they ignore the ''moon special ingredient''....whatever that is..
I think we are witnissing a regular special moon reflection that is quite common on the moon you know... ::) ::) ::)
The other option is that China is much worse in faking, especially considering the fact they have a 2019 fakery arsenal at their exposal.


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2019, 03:20:32 PM »

Those wonderfull moon conditions,.....only fools see a white prop line that shouldn't be there, but they ignore the ''moon special ingredient''....whatever that is..
I think we are witnissing a regular special moon reflection that is quite common on the moon you know... ::) ::) ::)
The other option is that China is much worse in faking, especially considering the fact they have a 2019 fakery arsenal at their exposal.

That's typically not how you place talent/blocking/prop marks down on set. They are usually X's, T's or L's. But here are four more for you:


Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2019, 03:27:46 PM »
I did read your great ramble but found that:
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
I have answered that.
1 in the past (1969) their fakery was state of the art compared to anything else,.... only in hindsight we see the fakery
2 The mars fakery is as real as it gets because it is real footage !
The fakery lies in the fact it was taken on earth, because it was impregnated in our sub conscious that mars resembles earth apart from being reddish.
3 NASA only uses CGI to show their space achievements.
From fly by's to 'moon crossing earth' and more.....  the general public has fully accepted that capturing anything with a conventional camera is futile because of the distances and wavelenght limitations,...we need camera's that capture wavelenghts far beyond the visual spectrum that are brought back into visuality by NASA photoshop artists.

This is the final time i answer you with some etiquette.
Next time you deliberately lie or willfully misinterpret my post i will completely ignore you from now apart from some basic comments about what a dirty little liar you really are.
Which is a shame for someone so pretentious like yourself about his presence at the flatearth forums.

Your choice.....

Avoidance yet again.....


Simple question Dutchy.....Why has NASA not faked any more moon landings?


You claim to know so so much about NASA! So why no more fake visits to the moon?
Are you seriously that simplistic ?
I will reply later .... but i am truly boggled after all the info i provided that you really think that ‘simply faking a city on the moon’ is what NASA could have done if the faked everything.
I am not sure i want to answer to this logic but i will.....


You are always comparing NASA’s exploits with Hollywood productions. Over the last few years just think about all the really cool sci-fi stuff Hollywood has produced. ......and NASA.....photographs of Pluto and more recently a fuzzy rock! Why did they fake a dam fuzzy rock when they could have at least made it sharp and slightly interesting?


That aside why no good fakes, and why no more moon landing fakes? What’s stopping them? What’s stopping you explaining? You are the fake NASA expert, or so you claim!


All the stuff they fake, fake  according to you that is, is pretty boring so much so that the public shows little interest.


Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery given the huge amount of money it has, according to Flat Earthers?

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #42 on: January 18, 2019, 02:19:45 PM »
You are always comparing NASA’s exploits with Hollywood productions. Over the last few years just think about all the really cool sci-fi stuff Hollywood has produced. ......and NASA.....photographs of Pluto and more recently a fuzzy rock! Why did they fake a dam fuzzy rock when they could have at least made it sharp and slightly interesting?
Because they have to be very carefull nowadays.
The Baron report, the death of Gus Grissom, the outrage of Gus' family till this very date, the research after the supposedly ''tragic accident'', the Nixon presidency, the abrupt ending of moon missions.......
Of course many politicians had serious doubts off the record, the whole Apollo episode is a mixed bag of outragious claims, suspicious deaths (long list) that it makes far more sense why the congress didn't want to continue this ...instead of what you learned about  ''a lost of interrest'' and ''stupid congressmen that don't understand the benefits of space travel''.
Even recently NASA was questioned about their ''next step in space'' and it was extremely telling how the NASA spokesman responded in congress.
The congressman was punching holes in his defence ,but he simply couldn't tell what NASA's next step in space was.
If there was a moment of ''congress does not give a carte blanche to NASA for some wild guesses about what they are going to do with this money'' this was it.
I can present you the vids if you need them to convince yourself that congress is very critical about NASA's loose interpretetions of reality.

Bottom line, the playing field of NASA has been crippled severely, because many are aware that things NASA claims don't always allign with reality.
Quote
That aside why no good fakes, and why no more moon landing fakes? What’s stopping them? What’s stopping you explaining? You are the fake NASA expert, or so you claim!

All the stuff they fake, fake  according to you that is, is pretty boring so much so that the public shows little interest.


Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery given the huge amount of money it has, according to Flat Earthers?
You underestimate how many people off the record dismiss many of NASA claims.
Recently even Joe Rogan (a former moon hoax believer who made the biggest U-turn in history) told he seriously doubted the Apollo footage and other claims.
Remember that Neil deGrasse Tyson was present in several of Joe's podcasts and so was Elon Musk in an hours lasting episode.
To me it seems we are indeed prepaired for the inevetable.......NASA did fake the moonlandings.
Joe Rogan was a moon hoax'er but made a U-turn and defended the moonlandings 100% for years with a vengeance.
Many scientific outlets consider him worthy of a in dept interviews rarely found elsewhere...very enlightening indeed !!

And now Joe has changed positions once more, but very different this time.
He, althaugh he and Neil deGrasse Tyson get along in a way i have not seen elsewhere on the www, openly ridicule's some of the Apollo footage as an outrage and clear fakery !
Time for NdGT to step in and tell his friend to stop being a total moron ?
No.....NASA's Apollo claims are truly numbered wether you like it or not.

So to answer your question,....because NASA has claimed every single photograph was taken on the moon, not a single picture was manipulated, no wires or other fakery was ever involved makes them vulnerable.
They cannot change their position now.....everything was 100% genuine moon stuff...,so they still claim.
They simply keep quiet and do those things that will not create a fuzz of any sorts.
The fact that the Orion crew still not has managed the hazards of the VAB's after years of modern research with far superiour computer simulations (more delicate equipment compared to 1969 ?  ::)) is a sign on the wall.

Mark my words the Apollo moonlanding is NASA's millstone and therefore they cannot overdue their current claims, because several congressmen and millions of civilians understand we cannot really trust NASA and the money handed over to them.
So CGI and a few pixels of pluto is their current playing field.


« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 02:24:10 PM by dutchy »

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2019, 12:58:49 PM »
So to Answer my question.......then no answer?


Dutchy can sure produce a lot of words that don’t actually say anything. He is still going on about Apollo, a project that ended in 1972, just under 50 years ago!....why can’t he let go of the past and look at the present?


He is at a total loss to explain why NASSA have not tried to engineer more fake moon landings given the technology for fakery is so much more sophisticated now than it was in the 1970s.


This is where his whole argument comes falling down and exposes him as the real fake!

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2019, 02:33:36 PM »
So to Answer my question.......then no answer?


Dutchy can sure produce a lot of words that don’t actually say anything. He is still going on about Apollo, a project that ended in 1972, just under 50 years ago!....why can’t he let go of the past and look at the present?


He is at a total loss to explain why NASSA have not tried to engineer more fake moon landings given the technology for fakery is so much more sophisticated now than it was in the 1970s.


This is where his whole argument comes falling down and exposes him as the real fake!
I did answer it despite your personal attacks.

NASA is limited because many congressmen, the general public have come to understand something in NASA's history of superb claims simply don't add up.
Because you belong to a catagory that sees no NASA evil, hears no NASA evil, doesn't mean others validate NASA's achievements in the same applauding fashion.

I told you that NASA fundings were severely cut over the decades....why ?
Because congressmen are to stupid to understand the benefits of space travel ?
Or as i proved ,many congressmen have serious doubts about what NASA is going to do with all the money ?
Why would they ever doubt that if everything NASA has achieved was well worth the price ?

In order for NASA to achieve the next fantastic space exploration without budget limitations they need 100% back up from those who finance NASA and hundreds of sub contractors willing to develop the required tools for such a new space adventure.
But those who finance NASA aren't willing to give them what they want to go ''all out'' for another millennium break through in space travel...simple as that.

Please talk to me personally instead of ''Dutchy can produce a lot of words that don't actually say anything''..it sounds extremely weak and it seems you are hoping for someone to give you back up in your weak position.

« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 02:35:45 PM by dutchy »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2019, 02:38:49 PM »
The fact that the Orion crew still not has managed the hazards of the VAB's after years of modern research with far superiour computer simulations (more delicate equipment compared to 1969 ?  ::)) is a sign on the wall.
That is pure and utter garbage! To claim that you have to be totally ignorant of the type of radiation in the Van Allen Belts.
The particulate radiation in the VAB's can be blocked by light materials such as aluminium and plastics.
NASA knew far more about the VABs before the Apollo missions than you will ever know.

This has been explained to YOU over and over again but YOU simply cannot face the truth. Here READ this again:
You might read, CLAVIUS  ENVIRONMENT,  radiation and the http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
which has this quote from someone who knows infinitely more about the Van Allen belts than YOU!
Quote
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

and then read RADIATION PLAN FOR THE APOLLO LUNAR MISSION

By the way, the answer to my question is in CLAVIUS  ENVIRONMENT, here comes the sun.
The READ:
        Why Aren't The Van Allen Belts A Barrier To Spaceflight?
and  How NASA Got Apollo Astronauts Through the Dangerous Van Allen Belts, Not all radioactivity is equal.
and  How did Apollo deal with the Van Allen radiation belts ?.
and  SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo, CHAPTER 3 RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION

Look, dutchy, NASA know an infinite amount more about radiation than YOU ever will - get used to it!

But the Apollo missions spent only a very short time in the VABs and only a few days in space the Orion missions are intended to spend months in space.
But far bigger problems than the VABs (that ignoramuses like YOU concentrate on) are from cosmic radiation and solar flares.
Unlike the particulate radiation of the VABs, lightweight shielding against cosmic radiation is very difficult.
The short term Apollo missions could be timed to avoid the likelihood of solar flares and there we plans for an early return should one be detected.

Quote from: dutchy
Mark my words the Apollo moonlanding is NASA's millstone and therefore they cannot overdue ??? their current claims, because several congressmen and millions of civilians understand we cannot really trust NASA and the money handed over to them.
So CGI and a few pixels of pluto is their current playing field.
More total utter garbage - the SIX Apollo moon landings are NASA's triumph but they could only do it in the 1960/70s by a tremendous injection of MONEY!  Without the necessary funds after 1972 there was no way to do repeats or longer missions.

But why do you only bother with Apollo 11? What about Apollo 8 and Apollo 10?

Taken aboard Apollo 8 by Bill Anders,
this iconic picture shows Earth peeking out from beyond
the lunar surface as the first crewed
spacecraft circumnavigated the Moon.
     
'Countdown':
Apollo 10, a Mission That Almost Ended in Catastrophe
And then there is this "earth rising" photo taken, not from Apollo 8 but taken by a Russian spacecraft:

Russian Zond 7 "Earth Rising"

What about the all the robotic "soft landings" on the moon? Soft moon landings through the decades.
Why is Apollo 11 so special?

But, dutchy, why is your nemesis NASA? They were not first in space and now there are many others!

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2019, 02:56:10 PM »
More annoying copy paste gibberish from you as usuall.
Look at the vid below and this is what the NASA engeneer claims :
''Naturally we have to pass through this dangerous zone twice...one's up and once back....''
''we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space''

He is solely addressing the Van Allen Radiation Belts you deliberate fool....not your lame excuses about ''months in space compared to Apollo''
He says they still not know how to simply cross the Van Allen Radiation Belts TWICE with human tissue inside the Orion capsule....

Of course after this video came out everyone objected because crossing the Belts should be quite easy since the successfull Apollo missions.
The ''repair'' team introduced an argument not presented in the video....that we should understand that NASA was talking about ''months in space'' instead of ''simply crossing the VAB's''
But the spokesman clearly talks about the latter not your hysterical excuses added in the after math in this damaging NASA video about the VAB's and the difficulties to put men through them twice.



« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 03:06:07 PM by dutchy »

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2019, 03:04:43 PM »
So to Answer my question.......then no answer?


Dutchy can sure produce a lot of words that don’t actually say anything. He is still going on about Apollo, a project that ended in 1972, just under 50 years ago!....why can’t he let go of the past and look at the present?


He is at a total loss to explain why NASSA have not tried to engineer more fake moon landings given the technology for fakery is so much more sophisticated now than it was in the 1970s.


This is where his whole argument comes falling down and exposes him as the real fake!
I did answer it despite your personal attacks.

NASA is limited because many congressmen, the general public have come to understand something in NASA's history of superb claims simply don't add up.
Because you belong to a catagory that sees no NASA evil, hears no NASA evil, doesn't mean others validate NASA's achievements in the same applauding fashion.

I told you that NASA fundings were severely cut over the decades....why ?
Because congressmen are to stupid to understand the benefits of space travel ?
Or as i proved ,many congressmen have serious doubts about what NASA is going to do with all the money ?
Why would they ever doubt that if everything NASA has achieved was well worth the price ?

In order for NASA to achieve the next fantastic space exploration without budget limitations they need 100% back up from those who finance NASA and hundreds of sub contractors willing to develop the required tools for such a new space adventure.
But those who finance NASA aren't willing to give them what they want to go ''all out'' for another millennium break through in space travel...simple as that.

Please talk to me personally instead of ''Dutchy can produce a lot of words that don't actually say anything''..it sounds extremely weak and it seems you are hoping for someone to give you back up in your weak position.


What tools do they need? For CGI all they need is some computers and some software. As for money how much is actually required for a fake film?.....sub contractors! Why would they need sub contractors when every thing according to you is CGI?


I think you need to get your story right. If it’s all fakery then there’s nothing to stop them from faking anything they like!  and still my question is why haven’t they done some fakery on a grand scale rather than the pretty pathetic blurry pics of big space rocks fakery? Why bother to fake blurry space rocks pics?


Your back peddling is rather unconvincing a bit like your pretty lame argument.


When all’s said and done you haven’t a clue to explain why NASA is so rubbish at its fakery, a bit like why you are unable to explain why the ISS is clearly visible to anyone who cares to look up!

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2019, 03:13:44 PM »
More annoying copy paste gibberish from you as usuall.
Look at the vid below and this is what the NASA engeneer claims :
''Naturally we have to pass through this dangerous zone twice...one's up and once back....''
''we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space''

He is solely addressing the Van Allen Radiation Belts you deliberate fool....not your lame excuses about ''months in space compared to Apollo''
He says they still not know how to simply cross the Van Allen Radiation Belts TWICE with human tissue inside the Orion capsule....

Of course after this video came out everyone objected because crossing the Belts should be quite easy since the successfull Apollo missions.
The ''repair'' team introduced an argument not presented in the video....that we should understand that NASA was talking about ''months in space'' instead of ''simply crossing the VAB's''
But the spokesman clearly talks about the latter not your hysterical excuses added in the after math in this damaging NASA video about the VAB's and the difficulties to put men through them twice.



How do you know about Van Allen radiation? Have you been there? Have you seen it or felt it? How do you know it’s not some kind of fakery?


When it takes your fancy you spout science, science that you have no clue about. You only  quote science when you feel it proves a lame point you want to prove.


You const  state that you only believe things you have experienced first hand..... so mr Dutchy, when did you last experience some Van Allen radiation?

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2019, 03:18:40 PM »
What tools do they need? For CGI all they need is some computers and some software. As for money how much is actually required for a fake film?.....sub contractors! Why would they need sub contractors when every thing according to you is CGI?
Please stick to the facts for once....
NASA puts out CGI here and now, because after Apollo they will not do a ''manned'' program in space anytime soon....
Quote
I think you need to get your story right. If it’s all fakery then there’s nothing to stop them from faking anything they like!  and still my question is why haven’t they done some fakery on a grand scale rather than the pretty pathetic blurry pics of big space rocks fakery? Why bother to fake blurry space rocks pics?
They do big CGI fakery,....moon crossing earth from a million miles, satelites hoovering in saturn's rings etc.
You simply can't put CGI out about a city on the moon, because the general public would demand real humans and real camera's recording such an event while strolling around in ''moon city centre''.
CGI can only create illusions that people will accept.
With your outlandish ideas about an event this proposterous (moon city ?) people will not except CGI as the sole conformation of such an event.
Therefor they can only do CGI in a limited framework that people will accept for now.
Quote
Your back peddling is rather unconvincing a bit like your pretty lame argument.
You underestimate the public opinion in 2019.
Quote
When all’s said and done you haven’t a clue to explain why NASA is so rubbish at its fakery, a bit like why you are unable to explain why the ISS is clearly visible to anyone who cares to look up!
NASA is very good at fakery when it comes to selling certain space CGI to the public.
The moment they introduce the ''big one'' (moon city ? ) and it is not recorded with real camera's and real humans their CGI claims will implode completely.

Do you really think anyone will accept cartoons in moon city ? ::)
And ''moon city'' is still to far fetched to pul off even with the very best CGI currently available.
So stick to territory that people will accept for now.....
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 03:26:36 PM by dutchy »

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2019, 03:25:07 PM »
More annoying copy paste gibberish from you as usuall.
Look at the vid below and this is what the NASA engeneer claims :
''Naturally we have to pass through this dangerous zone twice...one's up and once back....''
''we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space''

He is solely addressing the Van Allen Radiation Belts you deliberate fool....not your lame excuses about ''months in space compared to Apollo''
He says they still not know how to simply cross the Van Allen Radiation Belts TWICE with human tissue inside the Orion capsule....

Of course after this video came out everyone objected because crossing the Belts should be quite easy since the successfull Apollo missions.
The ''repair'' team introduced an argument not presented in the video....that we should understand that NASA was talking about ''months in space'' instead of ''simply crossing the VAB's''
But the spokesman clearly talks about the latter not your hysterical excuses added in the after math in this damaging NASA video about the VAB's and the difficulties to put men through them twice.



How do you know about Van Allen radiation? Have you been there? Have you seen it or felt it? How do you know it’s not some kind of fakery?


When it takes your fancy you spout science, science that you have no clue about. You only  quote science when you feel it proves a lame point you want to prove.


You const  state that you only believe things you have experienced first hand..... so mr Dutchy, when did you last experience some Van Allen radiation?
I have not been near the VAB's, but i am very good in pointing out inconsistancies in NASA's marketing.

1969-1972 easy to go through the VAB's twice on multiple occasions
2019 still not known how to put men through the VAB's safely twice

And that is concluded by simply quoting what NASA themselves claim, not me or anyone else.
You are cornered completely, but of course you will derail these facts as much as you can.....

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2019, 03:28:41 PM »
What tools do they need? For CGI all they need is some computers and some software. As for money how much is actually required for a fake film?.....sub contractors! Why would they need sub contractors when every thing according to you is CGI?
Please stick to the facts for once....
NASA puts out CGI here and now, because after Apollo they will not do a ''manned'' program in space anytime soon....
Quote
I think you need to get your story right. If it’s all fakery then there’s nothing to stop them from faking anything they like!  and still my question is why haven’t they done some fakery on a grand scale rather than the pretty pathetic blurry pics of big space rocks fakery? Why bother to fake blurry space rocks pics?
They do big CGI fakery,....moon crossing earth from a million miles, satelites hoovering in saturn's rings etc.
You simply can't put CGI out about a city on the moon, because the general public would demand real humans and real camera's recording such an event while strolling around in ''moon city centre''.
CGI can only create illusions that people will except.
With your outlandish ideas about an event this proposterous (moon city ?) people will not except CGI as the sole conformation of such an event.
Therefor they can only do CGI in a limited framework that people will accept for now.
Quote
Your back peddling is rather unconvincing a bit like your pretty lame argument.
You underestimate the public opinion in 2019.
Quote
When all’s said and done you haven’t a clue to explain why NASA is so rubbish at its fakery, a bit like why you are unable to explain why the ISS is clearly visible to anyone who cares to look up!
NASA is very good at fakery when it comes to selling certain space CGI to the public.
The moment they introduce the ''big one'' (moon city ? ) and it is not recorded with real camera's and real humans their CGI claims will implode completely.

Do you really think anyone will accept cartoons in moon city ? ::)
And ''moon city'' is still to far fetched to pul off even with the very best CGI currently available.
So stick to territory that people will accept for now.....


So if I understand you correctly people will only accept boring fakery like blurry space rock pics.


Have you not watched some recent sci-fi films? modern CGI can fake anything you care to mention, including space bases on the moon.


I still don’t see how you can say NASA is good at fakery especially when any random idiot flatino can spot all the production errors. If NASA were so good at faking as you claim we wouldn’t be having this fake correspondence!

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2019, 03:31:04 PM »
More annoying copy paste gibberish from you as usuall.
Look at the vid below and this is what the NASA engeneer claims :
''Naturally we have to pass through this dangerous zone twice...one's up and once back....''
''we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space''

He is solely addressing the Van Allen Radiation Belts you deliberate fool....not your lame excuses about ''months in space compared to Apollo''
He says they still not know how to simply cross the Van Allen Radiation Belts TWICE with human tissue inside the Orion capsule....

Of course after this video came out everyone objected because crossing the Belts should be quite easy since the successfull Apollo missions.
The ''repair'' team introduced an argument not presented in the video....that we should understand that NASA was talking about ''months in space'' instead of ''simply crossing the VAB's''
But the spokesman clearly talks about the latter not your hysterical excuses added in the after math in this damaging NASA video about the VAB's and the difficulties to put men through them twice.



How do you know about Van Allen radiation? Have you been there? Have you seen it or felt it? How do you know it’s not some kind of fakery?


When it takes your fancy you spout science, science that you have no clue about. You only  quote science when you feel it proves a lame point you want to prove.


You const  state that you only believe things you have experienced first hand..... so mr Dutchy, when did you last experience some Van Allen radiation?
I have not been near the VAB's, but i am very good in pointing out inconsistancies in NASA's marketing.

1969-1972 easy to go through the VAB's twice on multiple occasions
2019 still not known how to put men through the VAB's safely twice

And that is concluded by simply quoting what NASA themselves claim, not me or anyone else.
You are cornered completely, but of course you will derail these facts as much as you can.....


How do you know about the existance of VAB radiation?

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2019, 03:42:41 PM »
So if I understand you correctly people will only accept boring fakery like blurry space rock pics.


Have you not watched some recent sci-fi films? modern CGI can fake anything you care to mention, including space bases on the moon.


I still don’t see how you can say NASA is good at fakery especially when any random idiot flatino can spot all the production errors. If NASA were so good at faking as you claim we wouldn’t be having this fake correspondence!
You are confused.....

CGI is strong in convincing people about a certain reality in space despite that it looks extremely fake.....why ?
Because we deal with wavelenghts in space that cannot be recorded by a conventional camera....
Those wavelengths are brought back into the visual spectrum so we get an idea how it looks like through CGI
That is impossible, but since we cannot really see those wavelengths propagating in deep space ''infrared'' is colored red in our known red territory and ultra violet into purple we are so familiar with.
This alone is full blown fakery, because what the eye cannot detect cannot be made visible other than the use of trickery... it's an illusion.

But people accept it when Hubble looks out to far distand galaxies, because we want to ''see''' how far away stars were born.
All you see on the pictures is an artist impression, they claim is based on a reality we humans cannot see.

But when they want to fake humans in space with CGI a computer image will not be sufficiant...people will demand real camera's recording real humans on celestial bodies out there in deep space.
I am sure they know how to pull that off within a decade or two when CGI will be indistinguishable from reality....not now....to difficult to make a movie about ''man on mars'' hoping no one complains about certain errors in the available CGI.
We are extremely advanced compared to the general public in 1969 and what you could spoonfed them.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 03:46:20 PM by dutchy »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2019, 04:06:22 PM »
So if I understand you correctly people will only accept boring fakery like blurry space rock pics.


Have you not watched some recent sci-fi films? modern CGI can fake anything you care to mention, including space bases on the moon.


I still don’t see how you can say NASA is good at fakery especially when any random idiot flatino can spot all the production errors. If NASA were so good at faking as you claim we wouldn’t be having this fake correspondence!
You are confused.....

CGI is strong in convincing people about a certain reality in space despite that it looks extremely fake.....why ?
Because we deal with wavelenghts in space that cannot be recorded by a conventional camera....
Those wavelengths are brought back into the visual spectrum so we get an idea how it looks like through CGI
That is impossible, but since we cannot really see those wavelengths propagating in deep space ''infrared'' is colored red in our known red territory and ultra violet into purple we are so familiar with.
This alone is full blown fakery, because what the eye cannot detect cannot be made visible other than the use of trickery... it's an illusion.

But people accept it when Hubble looks out to far distand galaxies, because we want to ''see''' how far away stars were born.
All you see on the pictures is an artist impression, they claim is based on a reality we humans cannot see.

But when they want to fake humans in space with CGI a computer image will not be sufficiant...people will demand real camera's recording real humans on celestial bodies out there in deep space.
I am sure they know how to pull that off within a decade or two when CGI will be indistinguishable from reality....not now....to difficult to make a movie about ''man on mars'' hoping no one complains about certain errors in the available CGI.
We are extremely advanced compared to the general public in 1969 and what you could spoonfed them.

If NASA could fake this 3 years ago, they could certainly fake real camera's recording real humans on celestial bodies out there in deep space:


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2019, 05:40:37 PM »
More annoying copy paste gibberish from you as usuall.
You call it "copy paste gibberish" because you simply do not understand it. So what do YOU do?

Yes, YOU copy-n-paste from you font-of-all knowledge - Lunar Mission Denier Videos ;D ;D!
Quote from: dutchy
Look at the vid below and this is what the NASA engeneer claims :
''Naturally we have to pass through this dangerous zone twice...one's up and once back....''
''we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space''
Isn't that copy-n-paste?
Quote from: dutchy
He is solely addressing the Van Allen Radiation Belts you deliberate fool....not your lame excuses about ''months in space compared to Apollo''
He says they still not know how to simply cross the Van Allen Radiation Belts TWICE with human tissue inside the Orion capsule....

Of course after this video came out everyone objected because crossing the Belts should be quite easy since the successfull Apollo missions.
The ''repair'' team introduced an argument not presented in the video....that we should understand that NASA was talking about ''months in space'' instead of ''simply crossing the VAB's''.
There was no "repair team"! The Apollo space vehicles were designed to handle the VAB radiation and were tested!
Read: APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT - PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION by Robert A. English, Richard E. Benson, Vernon Bailey, and Charles M. Barnes and
         SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo, CHAPTER 3 RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION by J. Vernon Bailey
which you dismissed before.

Those experts know thousands of times more than you and your cronies yet you totally ignore them.

Quote from: dutchy
But the spokesman clearly talks about the latter not your hysterical excuses added in the after math in this damaging NASA video about the VAB's and the difficulties to put men through them twice.
That video, with its out-of-context quotes, is damaging only in the eyes of ignorant lunar hoaxers like yourself.
Warning ;), Warning ;), Warning ;), copy-n-paste ahead:
Even so:
Quote from: K.N. Smith
Cosmic rays may have left Apollo astronauts with weaker hearts
A new study suggests that exposure to deep space made its mark on those that went to the Moon.
Astronauts who explore deep space may be more likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease later in their lives.

That’s the implication of a new study, which found that Apollo astronauts, who had flown to the moon in their 30s, were more likely to die of cardiovascular problems in their 50s and 60s than astronauts who flew missions in low Earth orbit.

In low Earth orbit—the domain of ISS and the former Space Shuttle flights—Earth’s magnetic field blocks radiation from further out in space, like galactic cosmic rays or charged particles from solar flares. Physicists call this ionizing radiation, because the particles have so much energy that they strip electrons away from atoms as they pass by.

That radiation, especially in the form of heavy, high-energy ions like 56-Fe, seems to damage the cells that line the walls of blood vessels, called endothelial cells.

“Healthy endothelial cells help prevent atherosclerotic plaque from forming inside the walls of blood vessels; this is commonly referred to as hardening of the arteries,” says Michael Delp of Florida State University, who led the study. Plaque buildup can eventually lead to blood clots, coronary heart disease, heart attacks, or strokes.
Might that be evidenct that those astronauts were really exposed to cosmic radiation

You lunar mission deniers are so wonderful at quote mining - in other words quoting out-of-context.
Watch!

Trial By Fire: Moon Landing Deniers Fail Test of Reason, GreaterSapien
The Apollo space vehicles were designed to handle the VAB radiation and were tested but
the Orion is a different craft with different electronics and so they must also test the Orion craft to see it also meets the requitements.

You are so completely inconsistent with your claims.
You used to marvel that they landed on the moon first time with no "practice" landings, when in reality they did all the test and practice runs possible.

No you claim that because the Apollo craft crossed that VABs that the Orion, a different design with different electronics, should be flown without testing.

Similar to what GreaterSapien says, just because a Boeing 707 flew should Boeing have released the Boeing 747 without flight tests?
Only an idiot would claim that, yet you and your cronies do claim that - go figure who's the idiot here!

We went to the moon. get used to it!

A Brief History of Moon Hoaxes - Why do people still believe in them? Curious Droid.

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2019, 06:17:46 PM »

I did answer it despite your personal attacks.

NASA is limited because many congressmen, the general public have come to understand something in NASA's history of superb claims simply don't add up.
Because you belong to a catagory that sees no NASA evil, hears no NASA evil, doesn't mean others validate NASA's achievements in the same applauding fashion.

I told you that NASA fundings were severely cut over the decades....why ?
Because congressmen are to stupid to understand the benefits of space travel ?
Or as i proved ,many congressmen have serious doubts about what NASA is going to do with all the money ?
Why would they ever doubt that if everything NASA has achieved was well worth the price ?

In order for NASA to achieve the next fantastic space exploration without budget limitations they need 100% back up from those who finance NASA and hundreds of sub contractors willing to develop the required tools for such a new space adventure.
But those who finance NASA aren't willing to give them what they want to go ''all out'' for another millennium break through in space travel...simple as that.

Please talk to me personally instead of ''Dutchy can produce a lot of words that don't actually say anything''..it sounds extremely weak and it seems you are hoping for someone to give you back up in your weak position.

Hang on.

You've been telling us in almost every thread on the topic how suspicious you think it is that they never went back to the moon since you say it should be relatively easy with today's level of technology (if space travel were real).

People have tried to point out that manned space flight is incredibly expensive and requires a huge development effort, compared to unmanned probes which can go far further much more cost effectively, and you've been having none of it.

Now NASA's funding is suddenly a big issue, even if it's all fake?

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2019, 12:20:43 AM »
Incredible.

I've seen a few clips from Hollywood movies and home movies try to get passed off as NASA space videos. I've seen NASA training videos try to get passed off as NASA space videos.

I've never seen a single faked NASA photo of the moon or space. They don't exist.

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2019, 12:54:27 AM »
So if I understand you correctly people will only accept boring fakery like blurry space rock pics.


Have you not watched some recent sci-fi films? modern CGI can fake anything you care to mention, including space bases on the moon.


I still don’t see how you can say NASA is good at fakery especially when any random idiot flatino can spot all the production errors. If NASA were so good at faking as you claim we wouldn’t be having this fake correspondence!
You are confused.....

CGI is strong in convincing people about a certain reality in space despite that it looks extremely fake.....why ?
Because we deal with wavelenghts in space that cannot be recorded by a conventional camera....
Those wavelengths are brought back into the visual spectrum so we get an idea how it looks like through CGI
That is impossible, but since we cannot really see those wavelengths propagating in deep space ''infrared'' is colored red in our known red territory and ultra violet into purple we are so familiar with.
This alone is full blown fakery, because what the eye cannot detect cannot be made visible other than the use of trickery... it's an illusion.

But people accept it when Hubble looks out to far distand galaxies, because we want to ''see''' how far away stars were born.
All you see on the pictures is an artist impression, they claim is based on a reality we humans cannot see.

But when they want to fake humans in space with CGI a computer image will not be sufficiant...people will demand real camera's recording real humans on celestial bodies out there in deep space.
I am sure they know how to pull that off within a decade or two when CGI will be indistinguishable from reality....not now....to difficult to make a movie about ''man on mars'' hoping no one complains about certain errors in the available CGI.
We are extremely advanced compared to the general public in 1969 and what you could spoonfed them.


How do you know what can or can’t be done in space? Have you ever been there? You come over as though you are some space expert


You keep on quoting science based space ‘facts’!  How on earth did you come by this knowledge? Especially when you maintain space travel is all fake, if that’s the case you must also believe that all knowledge gained from fake space travel must be fake, you can’t have it both ways. Your inconsistency speaks volumes about your total confusion about this subject.


What is it you actually believe?

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #59 on: January 20, 2019, 01:01:23 AM »
So if I understand you correctly people will only accept boring fakery like blurry space rock pics.


Have you not watched some recent sci-fi films? modern CGI can fake anything you care to mention, including space bases on the moon.


I still don’t see how you can say NASA is good at fakery especially when any random idiot flatino can spot all the production errors. If NASA were so good at faking as you claim we wouldn’t be having this fake correspondence!
You are confused.....

CGI is strong in convincing people about a certain reality in space despite that it looks extremely fake.....why ?
Because we deal with wavelenghts in space that cannot be recorded by a conventional camera....
Those wavelengths are brought back into the visual spectrum so we get an idea how it looks like through CGI
That is impossible, but since we cannot really see those wavelengths propagating in deep space ''infrared'' is colored red in our known red territory and ultra violet into purple we are so familiar with.
This alone is full blown fakery, because what the eye cannot detect cannot be made visible other than the use of trickery... it's an illusion.

But people accept it when Hubble looks out to far distand galaxies, because we want to ''see''' how far away stars were born.
All you see on the pictures is an artist impression, they claim is based on a reality we humans cannot see.

But when they want to fake humans in space with CGI a computer image will not be sufficiant...people will demand real camera's recording real humans on celestial bodies out there in deep space.
I am sure they know how to pull that off within a decade or two when CGI will be indistinguishable from reality....not now....to difficult to make a movie about ''man on mars'' hoping no one complains about certain errors in the available CGI.
We are extremely advanced compared to the general public in 1969 and what you could spoonfed them.


How do you know what people will demand?
How do you know about how cameras work in space?
How do you know about space radiation?
How do you know about anything that is not in your direct line of vision?
How do you, apparently, know so much about NASA?
How can you tell the difference between a real digital image and a digital image? Sounds to me like your really confused over what an image is still or moving!


Looks to me like you just make stuff up when it takes you fancy.