Why did they let the Chinese fake the dark side moon landing first.
Why did they let the Chinese fake the dark side moon landing first.
All that you touch
And all that you see
All that you taste
All you feel
And all that you love
And all that you hate
All you distrust
All you save
And all that you give
And all that you deal
And all that you buy,
Beg, borrow or steal
And all you create
And all you destroy
And all that you do
And all that you say
And all that you eat
And everyone you meet
And all that you slight
And everyone you fight
And all that is now
And all that is gone
And all that's to come
And everything under the sun is in tune
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon.
There is no dark side of the moon, really.
Matter of fact, it's all dark.
dark side of the moon
While it’s a great album, I have always preferred ‘ wish you were here’.
I wish you weren’t here.
dark side of the moon
While it’s a great album, I have always preferred ‘ wish you were here’.
Wish You Were Here is an awesome album.
Not actually relevant to the conversation though.
I wish you weren’t here.
Oh, longranger, you try so hard. ;D
The question for all flatinos, particulary Dutchy, is why have NASA never gone for the really spectacular manned Mars landing fakery? And why do they always mess up when they are faking? Dutchy knows all there is to know about NASA.....so what makes them so crap at fakery?Thank you for your compliments ::)
....maybe i will comment on the ISS later
I am simply the best !! ;D....maybe i will comment on the ISS later
The entire globe awaits your paranoid comments!
Have you downloaded a tracking app yet?
Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...
China didn't land anything on the dark side of the Moon. If you'd like to say they did, then so did the US. The whole thing is dark just as often as it is light.
Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...
Of course it did..
Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...
Of course it did..
No, it certainly did NOT look real!
No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...
Of course it did..
No, it certainly did NOT look real!
Well dutchy thinks it was real.
It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.
It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.
No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !
... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...
China didn't land anything on the dark side of the Moon. If you'd like to say they did, then so did the US. The whole thing is dark just as often as it is light.
A thing called metaphor exists. In the 19th century, Africa was commonly referred to as "the dark continent" by Europeans because of it was mysterious to and unexplored by them. The dark side of the moon is the same ... unseen by any human in history until the first lunar orbital photographs. The phrase has nothing to do with actual lighting conditions. And, as "the dark continent" became an archaic and quaint phrase when it no longer had the same context, so may "the dark side of the moon." Doesn't mean that it is an incorrect phrase. Correcting it is just attempting superiority by pedantry.
....the little section ended with...But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.
No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !
Well, let's see:... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...
Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.
....the little section ended with...But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.
No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !
Well, let's see:... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...
Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.
What year are we in ? Exactly in 2019 and all things i mentioned look fake now. Furthermore being born in 1967 i did not even saw most of the things i mentioned in their perspetive era's.
Do i really have to explain this to you ?
Dutchy ...for all your words, you’ve missed the point. What I’m saying is why have NASA never gone the big time and spectacular? If indeed it’s all a fake. Given you say it’s all a fake why have they included so many errors? Why do they employ so many people? If everything is CGI why the big workforce?Isn't that obvious when you took the time to read my posts ? Probably not ,so let me elaborate some more.
Let's not! You've presented that story so often we almost know it by heart.Dutchy ...for all your words, you’ve missed the point. What I’m saying is why have NASA never gone the big time and spectacular? If indeed it’s all a fake. Given you say it’s all a fake why have they included so many errors? Why do they employ so many people? If everything is CGI why the big workforce?Isn't that obvious when you took the time to read my posts ? Probably not ,so let me elaborate some more.
....the little section ended with...But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.
No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !
Well, let's see:... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...
Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.
What year are we in ? Exactly in 2019 and all things i mentioned look fake now. Furthermore being born in 1967 i did not even saw most of the things i mentioned in their perspetive era's.
Do i really have to explain this to you ?
''Star Wars'' was also as real as it gets...particularly ''return of the Jedi'' ...and of course ''raiders of the lost ark'' untill ''Jurassic Park took it to a whole new level because of advanced CGI''.
Yes that is correct !....the little section ended with...But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.
No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !
Well, let's see:... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...
Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.
What year are we in ? Exactly in 2019 and all things i mentioned look fake now. Furthermore being born in 1967 i did not even saw most of the things i mentioned in their perspetive era's.
Do i really have to explain this to you ?
It's okay, I think I get it.
What you're saying is that had you been around in 1956 then you would have believed that Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea. And had you been old enough in 1969 you would have believed the moon landings.
Is that correct?
And he's still looking for a car that changes into a robot...Transformers look more real than a car in earth’s orbit heading for mars.
What are you smoking ?Let's not! You've presented that story so often we almost know it by heart.Dutchy ...for all your words, you’ve missed the point. What I’m saying is why have NASA never gone the big time and spectacular? If indeed it’s all a fake. Given you say it’s all a fake why have they included so many errors? Why do they employ so many people? If everything is CGI why the big workforce?Isn't that obvious when you took the time to read my posts ? Probably not ,so let me elaborate some more.
These "so many errors" that Lonegranger are the little things caused by video compression and signal fades, colours that you don't accept or lack of stars that ignorant people still raise.
Then we have the totally inane complaints about the different sizes of continents and "the clouds aren't moving".
And people still claim the the earth or moon look "the wrong size" in photos like those in: Flat Earth General / Re: NASA FAKE. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67483.msg1802715;topicseen#msg1802715)
Most examples of NASA "fakery" are simply examples of flat-earthers' appalling ignorance about perspective and photography.
BUT if NASA wanted or needed to "fake" anything they would hardly have built things the look "fake".
An obvious example is the lunar module, the LM.
Were that intended to fool people surely they would have put some simple fairing over it to make it look "streamlined" or like a "Real Spaceship ;D".
But no, NASA (or Grumman) were designing a functional vehicle to be as light as possible.
And if the photographs from space were fake don't you think that NASA or whoever is providing them (such as JMA for the one in my earlier post) have the ability to make them look right to earth bound people.
But what I find impossible to believe is that NASA (or some unnamed producer) could produce continuous videos in 1969-1972 of the lunar missions.
Apart from other points there were three slightly different versions of the Apollo 11 "first step":
one broadcast in Eastern Australia direct from Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek via Sydney,
one broadcast in WA direct from the Intelsat linking Sydney to the USA and
the one broadcast to the rest of the world.
Did these film producers have the foresight to predict this and make three versions - codswallop!
Then lunar hoaxers some out with this total fakery to prop up their conspiracy!
Claimed Stanley Kubrick Confession To Faking The Moon Landings The Bases Project
Dutchy, I have to ask who the deceivers are here? Obviously they include the makers of thst total fabrication.
And he's still looking for a car that changes into a robot...Transformers look more real than a car in earth’s orbit heading for mars.
I dismiss both as clear fakery / illusions, but you strongly believe the latter.
So who’s the dummy here ? ;D
Dutchy ...for all your words, you’ve missed the point. What I’m saying is why have NASA never gone the big time and spectacular? If indeed it’s all a fake. Given you say it’s all a fake why have they included so many errors? Why do they employ so many people? If everything is CGI why the big workforce?Isn't that obvious when you took the time to read my posts ? Probably not ,so let me elaborate some more.
When WW 2 ended the coldwar started immidiatly when the super powers tried to come on top.
The denazification of war criminals with deeply running disturbed convictions and ideologies didn't seem to bother anyone because there was a new agenda.
To spend as much money and manpower to be on top of the pack... or was there something even more sinister involved ?
Here a few quotes that underline this sinester agenda.
"It [the rocket] will free man from his remaining chains, the chains of gravity which still tie him to this planet. It will open to him the gates of heaven." Wernher von Braun
(it surely sounds like a new occult religion from a man in charge of killing thousends upon thousends... in fact it simply continues upon the very foundations of Nazism and their occult worldview)
"We believe that when men reach beyond this planet, they should leave their national differences behind them." President John F. Kennedy, 1962.
"We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.President John F. Kennedy
(this also sounds like new age propaganda, religion of some sorts and it fully by-passes any form of rationality that would immidiatly destroy such musings about ''world peace'' and space travel could be the beginning of something mankind never learned to do here on earth.....So yes take all the money you need, because spacetravel will do so much more than simply discovering space...it will open the gates of worldpeace and paradise)
"If I could get one message to you it would be this: the future of this country and the welfare of the free world depends upon our success in space. There is no room in this country for any but a fully cooperative, urgently motivated all-out effort toward space leadership. No one person, no one company, no one government agency, has a monopoly on the competence, the missions, or the requirements for the space program." President Lyndon B. Johnson
(again shut up, give all the needed money to the repsective space industry, because the welfare of the western world depends on it)
Like the atomic bomb, which was presented in an extremely positive way (miss mushroom election with girls dressed up in mushroom outfits as an alltime low...as i have seen in the original news papers and footage of those days)..spacetravel was presented as a cure for humanity and therefor any critical mind should strongly object towards this propaganda.
Before i continue i want you to think about this....madman have had some really disturbing views and it has nothing to do with dicovering space...it's so much more.
And therefor one understands why the fakery was important when things turned out to be very different.....they started something that looks like a new religion instead of unbiased neutral science.
O wait i am right.....
"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." Carl Sagan
Modern men refuse to see the dark powers involved in this new reality that started with the ''space race''...
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.
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.
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 ?
If Hollywood can create all that really great Fakery why is NASA not doing it now?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.
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?
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.Simply looking at all the footage and the docu ‘American moon’ and many more that confirms the Apollo footage looks fake and no amount of magic ‘moon circomstances’ explain away the obvious.
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.QuoteIf 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.QuoteWhy 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.QuoteIf Hollywood can create all that really great Fakery why is NASA not doing it now?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.
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?
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.QuoteAs 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 did read your great ramble but found that: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.
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!
I have made some very good anti Apollo arguments that you cannot refute and therefor make things up as you go.You have never given any "good anti Apollo arguments".
It’s quite bizare when reading your reply....
I did read your great ramble but found that:I have answered that.
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
Why should I care what you say or think when come out with rubbish like this.I did read your great ramble but found that:I have answered that.
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
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.
This is the final time i answer you with some etiquette.I do not willfully misinterpret your post. I ignore the parts that I deem to be worthless.
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.....
Incorrect! Again you have no idea what you are talking about!
America used 2 GHz thatamaturesamateurs and the Russians could not track all the way to the moon , on the moon and back.
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 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/19650010806_1965010806.pdf)
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] (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720023255.pdf)
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.”
(http://www.arrl.org/images/view/AWE/Graney/LB001.jpg)
Figure 2, The Antenna(http://www.arrl.org/images/view/AWE/Graney/LB002_SSA1.jpg)
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 (http://observatory.jctcfaculty.org/).
Read a lot more in: ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio, (http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11)
And from a more "professional" source!QuoteThe Bochum Radio Observatory, GermanyIn 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.(https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/other_stations/bochum/Bochum_1972_sm.jpg)An independent recording of the Lunar Landing.
The 20 metre Bochum antenna inside its radome, in 1972.
Photo: Bochum Observatory. With thanks to Thilo Elsner.
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.)
audio 430kb mp3 file. (https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/audio/A11_Landing_Bochum_Net1.mp3)
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.
(https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/other_stations/bochum/Bochum_fr_Moon_sm.jpg)
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 (https://www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/main.html)
Dutchy, you make up so many fabricated stories to support your silly claims!
I did read your great ramble but found that:I have answered that.
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
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.....
Are you seriously that simplistic ?I did read your great ramble but found that:I have answered that.
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
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?
(https://img.timesnownews.com/story/1547470431-china_fake_2.JPG?d=600x450)
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.
Are you seriously that simplistic ?I did read your great ramble but found that:I have answered that.
1) None of it was an answer to, "Why is NASA so rubbish at faker?"
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?
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?Because they have to be very carefull nowadays.
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!You underestimate how many people off the record dismiss many of NASA claims.
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?
So to Answer my question.......then no answer?I did answer it despite your personal attacks.
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!
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.
You might read, CLAVIUS ENVIRONMENT, radiation and the http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)The READ:
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 (http://RADIATION PLAN FOR THE APOLLO LUNAR MISSION)
By the way, the answer to my question is in CLAVIUS ENVIRONMENT, here comes the sun (http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html).
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.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.
So CGI and a few pixels of pluto is their current playing field.
| (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/apollo08_earthrise.jpg) 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. | (https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftimedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F07%2Fapollo-10.jpg&w=800&c=sc&poi=face&q=85) 'Countdown': Apollo 10, a Mission That Almost Ended in Catastrophe |
So to Answer my question.......then no answer?I did answer it despite your personal attacks.
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!
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.
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.
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....
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.
Your back peddling is rather unconvincing a bit like your pretty lame argument.You underestimate the public opinion in 2019.
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.
I have not been near the VAB's, but i am very good in pointing out inconsistancies in NASA's marketing.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?
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....QuoteI 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.QuoteYour back peddling is rather unconvincing a bit like your pretty lame argument.You underestimate the public opinion in 2019.QuoteWhen 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.....
I have not been near the VAB's, but i am very good in pointing out inconsistancies in NASA's marketing.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?
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.....
So if I understand you correctly people will only accept boring fakery like blurry space rock pics.You are confused.....
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!
So if I understand you correctly people will only accept boring fakery like blurry space rock pics.You are confused.....
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!
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.
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?
Look at the vid below and this is what the NASA engeneer claims :Isn't that copy-n-paste?
''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''There was no "repair team"! The Apollo space vehicles were designed to handle the VAB radiation and were tested!
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.That video, with its out-of-context quotes, is damaging only in the eyes of ignorant lunar hoaxers like yourself.
Cosmic rays may have left Apollo astronauts with weaker hearts (http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/07/cosmic-rays-may-have-left-apollo-astronauts-with-weaker-hearts)Might that be evidenct that those astronauts were really exposed to cosmic radiation
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.
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.
So if I understand you correctly people will only accept boring fakery like blurry space rock pics.You are confused.....
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!
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.
So if I understand you correctly people will only accept boring fakery like blurry space rock pics.You are confused.....
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!
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.
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.
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.
Ah-ha ha ha!
I nearly missed this. Classic.
Tell me genius, how the flying fuck do you expect IR or UV images to be displayed to either the public or the scientists analysing them without shifting colours into something humans can actual see.
Calling false colour images "full blown fakery" is utterly ridiculous, especially since it is always disclosed what wavelengths are imaged.
If you have an IR security camera on a building that captures a man breaking into a building in the dead of night, showing the image on a monitor is not an illusion, because there really is a man breaking into the building!
You should watch the video Rab posted.
You have posted more hoaxie video’s than i have....
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!
You have posted more hoaxie video’s than i have....
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!
The point i make is not that you search for info and present it here, it’s the destractive avelange the moment you cannot really answer why things are fishy....
Then you go all out to burry any valid point raised with as much copy paste info ( preferable with as much pictures as possible) so that i won’t notice your little trick....
The NASA engineer solely speaks about the difficulties of figuering out how to put humans through the VAB’s twice.
Never the engineer connects his remarks with the avelange of excuses you presented that i have read also.....about how to deal with months out in space instead of a week or so.
No he simply and extremely clearly says they have not figuered out how to put humans through the VAB’s twice.
So i won’t answer your further out pour of manure you hope will go unnoticed.
But you are wrong .
1969 Easy to cross the VAB’s on multiple occasions
2019 Not figuered out how to safely put humans (once up and once down) through the VAB’s.
Please start to explain why humans appearently cannot go into a rocket and fly through the belts safely in 2019 while it was relative easy in 19&69 ?
So no copy paste info about what it takes to be months into deep space, simply stick to the facts why the Orion engeneer says they have not figuered out how to cross the belts twice with humans onboard.
Please leave your glass sphere out of it that reveals you details never claimed by the NASA engineer.
Not that i have faith in you for more than a second...... ;D
You are a bit annoying aren’t you ?
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.
Ah-ha ha ha!
I nearly missed this. Classic.
Tell me genius, how the flying fuck do you expect IR or UV images to be displayed to either the public or the scientists analysing them without shifting colours into something humans can actual see.
Calling false colour images "full blown fakery" is utterly ridiculous, especially since it is always disclosed what wavelengths are imaged.
If you have an IR security camera on a building that captures a man breaking into a building in the dead of night, showing the image on a monitor is not an illusion, because there really is a man breaking into the building!
You should watch the video Rab posted.
His answer is due to him having little or no understanding about how 'photographs' or images can be made of other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum other than light. I suppose if he had an X-ray of his skull he would claim it was fakery!
You are a bit annoying aren’t you ?
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.
Ah-ha ha ha!
I nearly missed this. Classic.
Tell me genius, how the flying fuck do you expect IR or UV images to be displayed to either the public or the scientists analysing them without shifting colours into something humans can actual see.
Calling false colour images "full blown fakery" is utterly ridiculous, especially since it is always disclosed what wavelengths are imaged.
If you have an IR security camera on a building that captures a man breaking into a building in the dead of night, showing the image on a monitor is not an illusion, because there really is a man breaking into the building!
You should watch the video Rab posted.
His answer is due to him having little or no understanding about how 'photographs' or images can be made of other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum other than light. I suppose if he had an X-ray of his skull he would claim it was fakery!
Of course i understand the bandwith of the visual spectrum, it’s extremely small.
To cram wavelenghts that are far outside the visual spectrum back into this extremely narrow bandwith is fakery !!!
I agree that it can be usefull to give us insight in certain things.
Have you any idea how small the visual spectrum is ?
A scientist who was involved in the Hubble project’s imagery told on Dutch tv how little the public Hubble imagery had in common with the raw data.
He also made it very clear how much of an artist rendering the Hubble glossy’s really are.
You are a bit annoying aren’t you ?
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.
Ah-ha ha ha!
I nearly missed this. Classic.
Tell me genius, how the flying fuck do you expect IR or UV images to be displayed to either the public or the scientists analysing them without shifting colours into something humans can actual see.
Calling false colour images "full blown fakery" is utterly ridiculous, especially since it is always disclosed what wavelengths are imaged.
If you have an IR security camera on a building that captures a man breaking into a building in the dead of night, showing the image on a monitor is not an illusion, because there really is a man breaking into the building!
You should watch the video Rab posted.
His answer is due to him having little or no understanding about how 'photographs' or images can be made of other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum other than light. I suppose if he had an X-ray of his skull he would claim it was fakery!
Of course i understand the bandwith of the visual spectrum, it’s extremely small.
To cram wavelenghts that are far outside the visual spectrum back into this extremely narrow bandwith is fakery !!!
I agree that it can be usefull to give us insight in certain things.
Have you any idea how small the visual spectrum is ?
A scientist who was involved in the Hubble project’s imagery told on Dutch tv how little the public Hubble imagery had in common with the raw data.
He also made it very clear how much of an artist rendering the Hubble glossy’s really are.
oh joy.......you think I'm annoying! that means Im asking you questions that are outside your comfort zone.......You are annoying because i have answered everything you asked for the best way i can ....
oh joy.......you think I'm annoying! that means Im asking you questions that are outside your comfort zone.......You are annoying because i have answered everything you asked for the best way i can ....
But because you don't have a real answer on many of my correct observations about NASA's serious inconsistancies, you are widening the subject with each post you make.
That's annoying instead of letting it sink in for a moment and try to understand if i have made some valid points.
You start a topic not to find answers from people like me, but to find conformation of your own superiourity.......now that you aren't getting that you are acting childish.
You failed to answer the questions I leveled at you regarding your knowledge of space cameras and space radiation, given you don't believe in space travel, is that not a bit of an inconsistency?I simply point out the groce inconsistancies in NASA claims and that all the really interresting stuff is a mere reflection of an artist trying to cram something back into an extremely narrow bandwith of the visible spectrum and then claim it is what is going on some quadrillions of miles and more near the boundaries of the cosmos.
You failed to explain why NASA stopped its fakery of moon landings back in the 70s, when there was nothing stopping them from doing it to the present day.Are you feeling allright ?
Your knowledge of space image using non visible light is severely wanting verging on pure ignorance. Much of the non visible light imaging is now done by ground based systems such as the VLT array run by a European agency and not your nemesis NASA. Imaging using wavelengths other than visible light has many advantages for space based research. I suppose you think medical scans, IR cameras and night scopes are all fakery! or do you think the interior of someones body can viewed if you just stare at it long enough! Your views on such things really show up just how far out of touch with reality you really are.Fool, i perfectly understand what's going on.....and i said that in certain fields it is extremely needed, but when it comes to the boundaries of the solar system and the universe we are talking about a whole different dimension.
False colour images are widely used in many areas where the original data is not recorded using visible light. There is nothing strange or underhand its just part of the process. If your original data is digital you can change it to what ever colour you wish depending on your end use. Do you think B&W images are fakery? there is no difference as here colours are just mapped as shades of grey....but I imagine you and your youtube cronies will dream up some conspiracy nonsense saying that NASA is out to steal peoples colour and sell it on eBay!
What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?
That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant. The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes. You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.
What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?
That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant. The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes. You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.
On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.
As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.
It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....
Regarding Mitchell.....the man was clearly unhinged, given his strange range of pseudo beliefs, though I can find no record of him claiming any Apollo photographs were forged. So if you could post a reliable link or Im calling you a big fibber on that one. If you remember he was the one who stole a camera from NASA and tried to auction it. You are like a dog with a bone regarding NASA and the Apollo missions.What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?
That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant. The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes. You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.
On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.
As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.
It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....
I said a friend of Edgar Michell....... wow you are willfully misinterpreting my posts aren't you ?What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?
That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant. The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes. You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.
On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.
As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.
It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....Regarding Mitchell.....the man was clearly unhinged, given his strange range of pseudo beliefs, though I can find no record of him claiming any Apollo photographs were forged. So if you could post a reliable link or Im calling you a big fibber on that one. If you remember he was the one who stole a camera from NASA and tried to auction it. You are like a dog with a bone regarding NASA and the Apollo missions.What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?
That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant. The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes. You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.
On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.
As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.
It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....
If you care to read any thing that Mitchell published it is clear he was an advocate for space travel, he did believe in UFOs after all.
Its strange that people like yourself have to resort to making things up and distorting history to try and prove you point.
every single word dutchy posts must be disregarded.You little back stabber,.... i hoped you were my friend...
He spelled "gross" as "groce"!
end of discussion
every single word dutchy posts must be disregarded.You little back stabber,.... i hoped you were my friend...
He spelled "gross" as "groce"!
end of discussion
Music, burgers, guitars and all...... and provider of your daily laughter.
Now what has become of us :'(
I said a friend of Edgar Michell....... wow you are willfully misinterpreting my posts aren't you ?What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?
That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant. The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes. You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.
On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.
As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.
It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....Regarding Mitchell.....the man was clearly unhinged, given his strange range of pseudo beliefs, though I can find no record of him claiming any Apollo photographs were forged. So if you could post a reliable link or Im calling you a big fibber on that one. If you remember he was the one who stole a camera from NASA and tried to auction it. You are like a dog with a bone regarding NASA and the Apollo missions.What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?
That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant. The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes. You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.
On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.
As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.
It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....
If you care to read any thing that Mitchell published it is clear he was an advocate for space travel, he did believe in UFOs after all.
Its strange that people like yourself have to resort to making things up and distorting history to try and prove you point.
I understand.... you are forgiven ;)every single word dutchy posts must be disregarded.You little back stabber,.... i hoped you were my friend...
He spelled "gross" as "groce"!
end of discussion
Music, burgers, guitars and all...... and provider of your daily laughter.
Now what has become of us :'(
Sorry bro...
I'm a bit fuzzy from the gig last night.
Jagerbombs were dropping on me all night. But I still nailed my leads on Gimme Three Steps!
As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...Why do you go on-and-on-and-on ad nauseum about the Apollo 11? Where is there evidence that all of Apollo 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 were faked?
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.
It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....
More annoying copy paste gibberish from you as usuall.
You aren't that smart are you rab ?As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...Why do you go on-and-on-and-on ad nauseum about the Apollo 11? Where is there evidence that all of Apollo 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 were faked?
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.
It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....
And what is there evidence that the Russian Luna and Zond missions were faked?
Then there are numerous earlier and later photos of earth from space and all show it to be a Globe and many come from sources other than NASA.
I posted evidence of this only to have the resident NASAphobe ignore it and reply with:More annoying copy paste gibberish from you as usuall.But you still will not face the plain simple irrefutable FACT that NASA had nothing to to with claiming the earth to be a Globe.I guess that's the expected behaviour of aconspiracy theoristconspititard - ignore all contrary evidence.
But you won't even debate the shape of the earth - you seem to have the idiotic idea that if you can destroy your nemesis, NASA, all will be well with the world.
You aren't that smart are you rab ?It's you who aren't that smart! One genuine photo of earth from space is enough to prove that the earth is not flat!
What happens if it will be proven that some photographs were indeed faked, contrary to all the strong arguments from NASA who have claimed the opposite for 50+ years ?
Then we can determine a few things.
If it turns out a few photographs were indeed faked ( doesn't matter what mission really....)
1 Space footage believers were duped and aren't able to discern the real photographs from the fake ones for 50 years.Incorrect! Please show photos genuinely from NASA that have been proven fake. Not claimed to be fake.
2 We have to begin from scratch and have to come up with a new criteria when observing space footageRubbish! You've only proven all this in your mind and that means nothing.
3 We can no longer trust NASA about any footage when they willfully lied about some of it for over 50 years.You have not proven that by any means "that NASA . . . willfully lied about some of it for over 50 years!
I hope in your case they never confirm certain evidence of fakery, because you are the last person left that can claim any certainty about any space footage,.... because everything NASA has put out looks extremely real to you for over 50 years.Notwithstanding all that rubbish you claim, there are now photos from numerous sources that tell exactly the same story.
If any fakery is proven, you will need some really strong glasses....
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.
Incorrect.
Images from Hubble don't come from NASA itself, but from the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) based in John Hopkins University. Permanent staff conduct their own research, but they also schedule use of Hubble for other scientists. I believe any suitably qualified astronomer or astrophysicist can submit research proposals to use it.
All data is publicly available. For instance, the raw images and calibration data used to create the Ultra Deep Field Image you posted can be found here:
http://www.stsci.edu/hst/udf
Wow your ignorance is priceless.Stop joking! I'm fully aware of that silly student and that video!
As if one click on google does not reveal some guy photo shopping the universe with some raw data.
But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ?
Or elswhere ?
Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.
Wow your ignorance is priceless.
As if one click on google does not reveal some guy photo shopping the universe with some raw data.
But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ?
Or elswhere ?
Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.
Cheers Rab.I knew of it because it was dutchy, himself that tried to get away with in once before and I remembered the case but not who or when.
See what always happens when talking to rabinoz?
I did not comment on anything specific about a student and his understanding of cosmic camera’s or whatever you fantasised...in YOUR video example....
I was talking about the fact that no one really knows about the hardware device ‘running’ circles around earth called the Hubble telescope and in a very long phonecall that became quite obvious in the video i saw ( don’t know your example because i never look into any video you present) the man in charge of Hubble does not know many things about the device itself..... the hardware in orbit you know...
Not the spreadsheet telling him what the Hubble is capable of in lalalaland that i can read too.
You, me no one knows if another ‘earthly’ telescope is responsable for ‘Hubble’ data instead of the spinning tincan.
So you evil man, i was not implying anything about different camera’s that you feel as a sort of victory.
I was implying that the specs of Hubble are easy to understand, but is Hubble a real device orbiting earth and does the data come from somewhere else instead of this tincan orbiting earth ?
Unbelievable how you rabinoz despite my warnings keep taking my posts out of context instead of asking me what i meant with a certain quote.
And those claims that ‘i don’t understand how it works’..... laughable because the online explainations are very easy to understand even for an uneducated person.
How different wavelenghts recorded in infrared or ultraviolet can be made ‘visible’ through photoshop.
But you are so blind that you think i do not understand such a page clearly explaning how it is done....
Everything you know about Hubble is what i know too..... you rwad it on the internet.
And you dare to claim your understanding of Hubble is vastly superiour than mine.
You are a retired electrician.... we are on level grounds here....
When i was talking about bringing back wavelengths far outside the visual spectrum into a computer image we can see and marvel about, i called it fakery.See what always happens when talking to rabinoz?
I did not comment on anything specific about a student and his understanding of cosmic camera’s or whatever you fantasised...in YOUR video example....
I was talking about the fact that no one really knows about the hardware device ‘running’ circles around earth called the Hubble telescope and in a very long phonecall that became quite obvious in the video i saw ( don’t know your example because i never look into any video you present) the man in charge of Hubble does not know many things about the device itself..... the hardware in orbit you know...
Not the spreadsheet telling him what the Hubble is capable of in lalalaland that i can read too.
You, me no one knows if another ‘earthly’ telescope is responsable for ‘Hubble’ data instead of the spinning tincan.
So you evil man, i was not implying anything about different camera’s that you feel as a sort of victory.
I was implying that the specs of Hubble are easy to understand, but is Hubble a real device orbiting earth and does the data come from somewhere else instead of this tincan orbiting earth ?
Unbelievable how you rabinoz despite my warnings keep taking my posts out of context instead of asking me what i meant with a certain quote.
And those claims that ‘i don’t understand how it works’..... laughable because the online explainations are very easy to understand even for an uneducated person.
How different wavelenghts recorded in infrared or ultraviolet can be made ‘visible’ through photoshop.
But you are so blind that you think i do not understand such a page clearly explaning how it is done....
Everything you know about Hubble is what i know too..... you rwad it on the internet.
And you dare to claim your understanding of Hubble is vastly superiour than mine.
You are a retired electrician.... we are on level grounds here....
If not the phone conversation Rab linked, then which one?
This is the problem with vaguely talking about something you allege is “proven”, without referencing it. We are left to guess where the hell your claims are coming from. In this case I assumed Rab knew from another conversation.
Feel free to provide a link for your actual evidence.
I never claimed my knowledge of Hubble is vastly superior. I only respond to what you write. If I think it’s incorrect, I will disagree.
First you say that displaying images of UV or IR wavelengths is “fakery”, so I point out that is nonsense because people need to need to actually be able to see the results or there’s no point.
Then you say the problem is that we can’t see the raw data used to create composite or false color images, so I link to the site where you can download the raw data for the image you posted.
Then you question whether that really came from Hubble or SOFIA, and the aforementioned phone call.
It’s not my fault if the basis of your argument keeps changing with every post.
Although, since you bring it up, I am not a retired electrician. I’m a mechanical design engineer. Incidentally I’ve spent the last 6 years working on optical spectrometers, so I do know a bit about the principles.
When i was talking about bringing back wavelengths far outside the visual spectrum into a computer image we can see and marvel about, i called it fakery.
And i meant it in the sense of ‘manipulating data in favour of a preferred outcome’
What you and rabinoz wrongly concluded is that those dealing with raw data from wavelenghts outside the visible spectrum make things up as they go....
I never assumed anything of the sorts !
I said that you simply cannot make wavelengths visual that are outside our visible spectrum in the first place. In order to do that you need to fake/manipulate the real lenght of certain waves so we can see them.
If i would make a sound over 20.000 Hz audible so the general public gets an idea about this sound.
Then i have to pitch it back into our audible spectrum, otherwise we cannot hear it.
But then the true pitch of the intial sound over 20.000 Hz is replaced with a placebo sound we can hear.
We sometimes hear the low frequency rumble of planets in such hypothetical examples.
In reality the frequencies we picked up are below 20Hz so we cannot hear them .
But in certain docu’s animations they make the sound audible.. so we get this idea what a ultra low rumbling sounds like.
But in the end it is fakery,.... not to mislead on purpose, but to replace wavelengths wiith substitutes that have nothing in common with the initial wavelength.
What is so fucking hard to understand about this simple observation ?
Wow your ignorance is priceless.
As if one click on google does not reveal some guy photo shopping the universe with some raw data.
But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ?
Or elswhere ?
Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.
What are you smoking ?Wow your ignorance is priceless.
As if one click on google does not reveal some guy photo shopping the universe with some raw data.
But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ?
Or elswhere ?
Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.
Taking a stance on pure ignorance, as in your case, is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la la ......I keep saying to you that there are plenty of ground based telescopes that do exactly what Hubble does only better, as tech has moved a long way since Hubble was designed. Are you gong to say all the professional ground based images plus the thousands taken by keen amateurs are also fakery.
Your a lost cause.
I think you are right the use of ‘fakery’ could lead to misinterpretations.
When i was talking about bringing back wavelengths far outside the visual spectrum into a computer image we can see and marvel about, i called it fakery.
And i meant it in the sense of ‘manipulating data in favour of a preferred outcome’
What you and rabinoz wrongly concluded is that those dealing with raw data from wavelenghts outside the visible spectrum make things up as they go....
I never assumed anything of the sorts !
I said that you simply cannot make wavelengths visual that are outside our visible spectrum in the first place. In order to do that you need to fake/manipulate the real lenght of certain waves so we can see them.
If i would make a sound over 20.000 Hz audible so the general public gets an idea about this sound.
Then i have to pitch it back into our audible spectrum, otherwise we cannot hear it.
But then the true pitch of the intial sound over 20.000 Hz is replaced with a placebo sound we can hear.
We sometimes hear the low frequency rumble of planets in such hypothetical examples.
In reality the frequencies we picked up are below 20Hz so we cannot hear them .
But in certain docu’s animations they make the sound audible.. so we get this idea what a ultra low rumbling sounds like.
But in the end it is fakery,.... not to mislead on purpose, but to replace wavelengths wiith substitutes that have nothing in common with the initial wavelength.
What is so fucking hard to understand about this simple observation ?
Because a “fake” is a counterfeit or forgery. It’s intended to deceive people.
Where’s representing different wavelengths with visible colours is way to impart information.
I might think that it was just semantics or a language barrier, except that “NASA fakes space shit” is pretty much your whole deal here.
See what always happens when talking to rabinoz?This was YOU post:
I did not comment on anything specific about a student and his understanding of cosmic camera’s or whatever you fantasised...in YOUR video example....
Wow your ignorance is priceless.You claim that "ignorance is priceless.".
As if one click on google does not reveal some guy photo shopping the universe with some raw data.
But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ?
Or elswhere ?
Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.
I was talking about the fact that no one really knows about the hardware device ‘running’ circles around earth called the Hubble telescope and in a very long phonecall that became quite obvious in the video i saw ( don’t know your example because i never look into any video you present) the man in charge of Hubble does not know many things about the device itself..... the hardware in orbit you know...What on earth do you mean?
Not the spreadsheet telling him what the Hubble is capable of in lalalaland that i can read too.As alwasy your only real argument tactic is ignorant ridicule!
You, me no one knows if another ‘earthly’ telescope is responsable for ‘Hubble’ data instead of the spinning tincan.
So you evil man, i was not implying anything about different camera’s that you feel as a sort of victory.Thanks! You call me an "evil man" just because I won't swallow your garbage.
I was implying that the specs of Hubble are easy to understand, but is Hubble a real device orbiting earth and does the data come from somewhere else instead of this tincan orbiting earth ?
Unbelievable how you rabinoz despite my warnings keep taking my posts out of context instead of asking me what i meant with a certain quote.How am I suppose to know exactly what is in your head when you write this sort of thing:
But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ? Or elswhere ?
Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.
And those claims that ‘i don’t understand how it works’..... laughable because the online explainations are very easy to understand even for an uneducated person.You claim "the online explainations are very easy to understand even for an uneducated person" then make a ridiculous statement like:
How different wavelenghts recorded in infrared or ultraviolet can be made ‘visible’ through photoshop.
But you are so blind that you think i do not understand such a page clearly explaning how it is done....If what you've said above is any indication it's obvious that you don't know much so all you can do is ridicule others.
Everything you know about Hubble is what i know too..... you rwad it on the internet.
And you dare to claim your understanding of Hubble is vastly superiour than mine.
You are a retired electrician.... we are on level grounds here....Sorry, but I am not by any means a "retired electrician". I have said enough in other posts for anyone to know what I really was.
Please answer me two simple questions....nothing more nothing less.You should be contacting the people that launched Hubble and ask them, not random people here.
1 How do you know the raw data from ''Hubble'' was gathered from a device flying in orbit ?
2 Could there be a possibilty that the raw data was gathered in another way than from a device outside earth's atmosphere ?
That's all i ask, instead you are continiously ridiculing me of ignorance about wavelengths..i only ridicule you because of your unwillingness to answer this very clear question that has nothing to do with how much i know about wavelengths or not.....
I will be very thankfull if you make an exception and simply answer the questions, instead of yet another outrage about my ignorance....
So 1 and 2...can't be that hard can it ?
Why can't you answer the questions ? Are you implying you believe in the capacity of Hubble, because those who launched Hubble claim so ?Please answer me two simple questions....nothing more nothing less.You should be contacting the people that launched Hubble and ask them, not random people here.
1 How do you know the raw data from ''Hubble'' was gathered from a device flying in orbit ?
2 Could there be a possibilty that the raw data was gathered in another way than from a device outside earth's atmosphere ?
That's all i ask, instead you are continiously ridiculing me of ignorance about wavelengths..i only ridicule you because of your unwillingness to answer this very clear question that has nothing to do with how much i know about wavelengths or not.....
I will be very thankfull if you make an exception and simply answer the questions, instead of yet another outrage about my ignorance....
So 1 and 2...can't be that hard can it ?
Instead of trying to generate a discussion with unknown people you should be discussing with directly with the Hubble people.Why can't you answer the questions ? Are you implying you believe in the capacity of Hubble, because those who launched Hubble claim so ?Please answer me two simple questions....nothing more nothing less.You should be contacting the people that launched Hubble and ask them, not random people here.
1 How do you know the raw data from ''Hubble'' was gathered from a device flying in orbit ?
2 Could there be a possibilty that the raw data was gathered in another way than from a device outside earth's atmosphere ?
That's all i ask, instead you are continiously ridiculing me of ignorance about wavelengths..i only ridicule you because of your unwillingness to answer this very clear question that has nothing to do with how much i know about wavelengths or not.....
I will be very thankfull if you make an exception and simply answer the questions, instead of yet another outrage about my ignorance....
So 1 and 2...can't be that hard can it ?
http://archive.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/05/hubbles_final_servicing_missio.html
NASA PROJECT MANAGER ADMITS THAT HE HAS NEVER SEEN THE HUBBLE IN REAL TIME IN 25 YEARS AND THIS IS THE DEPUTY MANAGER.....
So rabinoz, this is the video i was talking about !
...Your post is a textbook example of "I don't understand so it's fake". I'm not into the hobby of photography. But even I know roughly how a camera sensor works. The photon of energy hits the detector and an electrical signal is created. You don't fake the wavelength, you change it to electrical signals that can be used in many ways. This is is used all over, not just in photography. At least try and put some effort in.
When i was talking about bringing back wavelengths far outside the visual spectrum into a computer image we can see and marvel about, i called it fakery.
And i meant it in the sense of ‘manipulating data in favour of a preferred outcome’
What you and rabinoz wrongly concluded is that those dealing with raw data from wavelenghts outside the visible spectrum make things up as they go....
I never assumed anything of the sorts !
I said that you simply cannot make wavelengths visual that are outside our visible spectrum in the first place. In order to do that you need to fake/manipulate the real lenght of certain waves so we can see them.
I think you are right the use of ‘fakery’ could lead to misinterpretations.
When i was talking about bringing back wavelengths far outside the visual spectrum into a computer image we can see and marvel about, i called it fakery.
And i meant it in the sense of ‘manipulating data in favour of a preferred outcome’
What you and rabinoz wrongly concluded is that those dealing with raw data from wavelenghts outside the visible spectrum make things up as they go....
I never assumed anything of the sorts !
I said that you simply cannot make wavelengths visual that are outside our visible spectrum in the first place. In order to do that you need to fake/manipulate the real lenght of certain waves so we can see them.
If i would make a sound over 20.000 Hz audible so the general public gets an idea about this sound.
Then i have to pitch it back into our audible spectrum, otherwise we cannot hear it.
But then the true pitch of the intial sound over 20.000 Hz is replaced with a placebo sound we can hear.
We sometimes hear the low frequency rumble of planets in such hypothetical examples.
In reality the frequencies we picked up are below 20Hz so we cannot hear them .
But in certain docu’s animations they make the sound audible.. so we get this idea what a ultra low rumbling sounds like.
But in the end it is fakery,.... not to mislead on purpose, but to replace wavelengths wiith substitutes that have nothing in common with the initial wavelength.
What is so fucking hard to understand about this simple observation ?
Because a “fake” is a counterfeit or forgery. It’s intended to deceive people.
Where’s representing different wavelengths with visible colours is way to impart information.
I might think that it was just semantics or a language barrier, except that “NASA fakes space shit” is pretty much your whole deal here.
But i made it absolute clear what i meant by it.....
And looking at most of Hubble’s glossies from far away galaxies, nebula’s , early universe is to far away from the raw data, that i call it fakery.
NASA PROJECT MANAGER ADMITS THAT HE HAS NEVER SEEN THE HUBBLE IN REAL TIME IN 25 YEARS AND THIS IS THE DEPUTY MANAGER.....
NASA PROJECT MANAGER ADMITS THAT HE HAS NEVER SEEN THE HUBBLE IN REAL TIME IN 25 YEARS AND THIS IS THE DEPUTY MANAGER.....
SorabinozRABinOZ, this is the video i was talking about !
Here's some enough ammunition to keep our misinformation lover busy for weeks: Aplanetruth.info, The Hubble Telescope Hoax. (https://aplanetruth.info/2015/05/04/the-hubble-telescope-hoax/)
Well i did present a video from a person who did CONTACT HUBBLE and ask about the Hubble telescope.Instead of trying to generate a discussion with unknown people you should be discussing with directly with the Hubble people.Why can't you answer the questions ? Are you implying you believe in the capacity of Hubble, because those who launched Hubble claim so ?Please answer me two simple questions....nothing more nothing less.You should be contacting the people that launched Hubble and ask them, not random people here.
1 How do you know the raw data from ''Hubble'' was gathered from a device flying in orbit ?
2 Could there be a possibilty that the raw data was gathered in another way than from a device outside earth's atmosphere ?
That's all i ask, instead you are continiously ridiculing me of ignorance about wavelengths..i only ridicule you because of your unwillingness to answer this very clear question that has nothing to do with how much i know about wavelengths or not.....
I will be very thankfull if you make an exception and simply answer the questions, instead of yet another outrage about my ignorance....
So 1 and 2...can't be that hard can it ?
If you seek the truth there is a contact us at http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hubble_essentials/
Please let us know what they say.
Well i did present a video from a person who did CONTACT HUBBLE and ask about the Hubble telescope.
My only remarks about that video was that those currently at work involved with the Hubble have not seen it and like you and me presume it’s out there because of certain data they believe comes from the Hubble telescope.
Nothing more nothing less....
But here is your comment :
Hell no! This is a fucking lie. Why are you posting videos from liars, dutchy?
Did the personell SEE the Hubble themselves once ?
Answer.... no
Nobody really knows if there is a tincan out there..... like the rest they all assume because somebody claims certain data comes from that tincan in space.
You picked up the tactics from rabinoz and lonegranger pretty fast....
Do not read a reply properly and jump to the wrong conclusions !
Do you mean his bald-faced lie,Here's some enough ammunition to keep our misinformation lover busy for weeks: Aplanetruth.info, The Hubble Telescope Hoax. (https://aplanetruth.info/2015/05/04/the-hubble-telescope-hoax/)
Did you notice the first comment?
Yikes!
BackstoryHas he, like all NASAphobes forgotten that the USSR were the first to achieve almost all space milestones except the Lunar Landings.
Every single story and picture from space has always come from one source since space flight was began: NASA.
Do you mean his bald-faced lie,Here's some enough ammunition to keep our misinformation lover busy for weeks: Aplanetruth.info, The Hubble Telescope Hoax. (https://aplanetruth.info/2015/05/04/the-hubble-telescope-hoax/)
Did you notice the first comment?
Yikes!Quote from: Eric DubayBackstory
Every single story and picture from space has always come from one source since space flight was began: NASA.