Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - onebigmonkey

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Proof NASA edited their scans
« on: September 20, 2017, 12:24:36 AM »
The photo on the left is the famous Aldrin 'Visor' shot, AS11-40-5303.

http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/apollo/11#AS11-40-5903

The one on the right is of Aldrin at the foot of the ladder, 5302.

e2a: The image of Aldrin by the ladder is in the same PANA-VUE set

https://archive.org/details/PANA-VUE_Apollo_11

https://ia801503.us.archive.org/25/items/PANA-VUE_Apollo_11/PANA-VUE%20SLIDE%20U814C4-C0I0.jpg

2
Flat Earth General / Re: The Eclipse and the International Space Station
« on: August 31, 2017, 09:36:21 PM »
As seen here, you don't. There is predetermined goal for which you seek evidence and ignore every other evidence which says otherwise.
To the contrary, you only know one reality the one that was spoonfed to you from early childhood.
Mankind is extremely wicked as history has shown.
Evil empires, sadists, slavery and human live destroyed at will.
One of the last evil empires that tried to ruin everything good were the nazi's and their despicable ideologies.
The fact that not only a handfull but considerable numbers of nazi's got a safe haven in the USA is telling.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/us/14nazis.html?mcubz=0
https://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Next-Door-America-Hitlers/dp/0544577884
The CIA, the FBI, and the military all put Hitler’s minions to work as spies, intelligence assets, and leading scientists and engineers,

The Soviets were also using captured German personnel in their work. Von Braun's team were pretty good at firing rockets. Ask London.

Quote
The Russians and the USA are the next evil empires this world has seen.
Fact is that everyone acknowledges the absurd propaganda used by the Russians, East Germans (Honecker)   and Romanians (Ceausescu).
For some unknown reason the western countries don't validate the USA properly.
All the post WW2 wars that the USA was involved in, is 100% proof we are dealing with an evil empire under the name of ''freedom'' and capitalism like it's counterpart communism and ''equality''.
During one of the USA's dirty wars in Vietnam , people became aware more and more what the USA really was.
Riots on home ground and of course racial apartheid.

The motive to fake a perfect Disney moonlanding to add something all Americans could be pleased with is so huge that only brainwashed puppets refuse to see it.

As were the motives to actually go to the moon to show the Russians how it's done.

Quote
Just like Nicolae Ceausescu faked the fruits of harvest with fake vegetables on display to convince the general public how prosperous everything was in Rumania......
Quote
You forgot to add - without evidence and proof. Basically you want others to accept blindly and without questioning any speculation you or someone of your kind has.
I have presented all the proof but you dismiss it !!!!!
Edgar Mitchell claiming that Roswell technologies brought them to the moon.

Nope.

Quote
The same person who claims that the stars are ten times brighter in cislunar space, while Neil Armstrong had to use optics to see stars in the same spot !

False. Yet again I have to point out to you that Armstrong saw the same countless stars in cisunar space, and his comments on optics refer to the lunar surface. Where are Mitchell's descriptions of stars from the surface?

Quote
I have presented the real evidence not some endless and fruitless discussion about photographs that will always end in a stalemate.
I can't help that you plug your ears all the time.
Quote
If not and we ask evidence and proof and do not by it then we are NASA's lackey's. As I said, we(I guess I can speak for the most of globers) don't care about NASA and if presented with evidence and proof, not with guesswork and speculations as you provide, then well, I sign my signature with both hand and accept that there was mistake, someone lied or did something wrong. No problem. Problem is that you fail to provide anything which constitutes as evidence or proof.
 Also you are the one who is not able to acknowledge that NASA may not be bad and does not lie. So, who is the bullheade here? You, who are fixed to idea that NASA lies and not able to acknowledge anything else or we, who are ready to accpet that NASA lies if you only could provide any evidence for that. Which you haven't.
What evidence do you consider real ?
Even cartoons like the darkside of the moon passing in front of earth from a million miles away will cut it for most brainwashed lemmings.
If that footage is considered real....what could i possible bring to the table to convince you ?
You believe everything as long as it has NASA's nametag on it.

You could bring some evidence that it isn't.

Quote
Quote

No one claims that. You just fail to provide any evidence for that and are grasping straws nitpicking on everything NASA related and your frustration is quite clear.
 No, its not telling. Its result for you and your kind always claiming that there is something but never delivering any real evidence.
Its also isn't a sign of brainwashing. Its normal behaviour when someone claims something without evidence. Maybe NASA is faking and cheating but for now there is no evidence for that. Your speculations and opinions are not evidence.
All thousends of moon photographs and mars footage is real according to you insane fanboys.
Not one single photograph was doctored with to deceive or recorded in a studio just in case.......
You really don't see it don't you ?
You most certainly do not believe anything was faked by NASA ever...you believe everything that NASA has presented !!!!!
Quote
Again you assume and speculate what other believe and think. And wrong again. Also you have not shown objevtively conflicting information by astronauts. It only conflicts in your head somehow. Its like you can't see other options but have only one goal which you must reach and you see every thing pointing at that even when it doesn't. Its like you are indoctrinated with NASA being a liar and cheater and all other bad things.
Because you are brainwashed without knowing it, you can't see any conflict....it is beyond you to grasp any conflicts.

Edgar Mitchell claimed the stars were ten times as bright and ten times as numerous in cislunar space
Neil Armstorng in his two public interviews doesn't even mention stars let alone a similar experience as Edgar Mitchell he said it was awesome and religious in essence.
Neil Armstrong, had told Patrick Moore that the stars were unobservable whilst voyaging to and from the Moon on Apollo 11.

False. Yet again. Repeating a lie won't make it true. Armstrong saw bright stars in cislunar space. His comments about the lack of them refer only to the lunar surface.

Quote
Later in time Neil and/or his fanboys did claim he saw stars and he was taken out of context ..of course Neil saw stars through the optics to navigate through cislunar space.....

If you don't think this is conflicting i am truly sorry for you.

No, he saw them with his own eyes, as reported at the time in broadcasts to Earth, and yes - you are taking his statements out of context and deliberately misrepresenting them to mean something other than his words actually state.

Where are Mitchell's comments about the lunar surface stars?

e2a: Here's all he has to say about it in his autobiography:

 "During the first outing we would set up a thermonuclear station, which would
power many of the scientific instruments for years to come, as well as the
television station, which would transmit the progress of our journey to an
enormous audience of Earthlings more than a quarter of a million miles
away on the beautiful blue and white planet that loomed directly overhead
in the black sky."

The sky is black...

3
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA fake.
« on: August 31, 2017, 09:26:11 PM »
We did this already.

Here's the window they filmed the shuttle bay from



and here it is on the outside



4
Flat Earth General / Re: The Eclipse and the International Space Station
« on: August 30, 2017, 02:18:02 PM »
You globers really have outdone yourselves again.
For the record (why am i bothering anyway) ::) :

1 I do not believe there is a spacestation orbiting earth at 27.600 km per hour.

Tough, it is.

Quote
2 I therefor do not believe in authentic photographs involving the ISS 408 km up in the ''skies''.

Tough, there are plenty of authentic photos of it that are just that: authentic, regardless of your belief.

Quote
3 Therefor the OP photograph with the fakestation in front of the sun at 400+ km is fake .

Not a logical deduction. Contact the photographers, see what they have to say.

Quote

And now the complementary info
4 NASA adds ufo and extraterrestrial shit in some of their footage

No they don't.

Quote
5 NASA's official storyline is :
No unidentified objects in the popular sense have been seen from the International Space Station.

Because there haven't.

Quote
NASA statement....and....
NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe,

Because they do not and are not.

Quote
[/b][/i]
6 But here is what our good friend  ;D and astronaout Edgar Mitchell has to say about it !

"Because I grew up in the Roswell area and when I went to the moon, some of the old timers from that period, some locals, and others military and intelligence people, who were under rather severe oaths to not reveal any of this and kind of wanted to get their conscience clear and off their chests before they passed on...
"(They) selected me and said, independently—this wasn't a group effort—independently that maybe I might be a safe person to tell their story to. And all of them confirmed, and what I'm saying is they confirmed the Roswell incident was a real incident and they in some way had some part in it that they wanted to talk about.
"He said that these locals told him 'the crash of an alien spacecraft in the Roswell area was a real event and much of the lore, I can't say all of the lore, but much of the fact that dead bodies were recovered and live ones were recovered, that they were not of this world, was the story.' And of course it was reported in the Roswell Daily Record one day and promptly denied the next day and a cover story of a weather balloon, and that was pure nonsense. That was a cover-up."


In an interview with the Discovery Channel, he made the following statement regarding what he had been told about Roswell: "I did take my story to the Pentagon—not NASA, but the Pentagon—and asked for a meeting with the Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got it. I told them my story and what I know and eventually had that confirmed by the admiral that I spoke with, that indeed what I was saying was true."
Mitchell also gives us some insight into the reason the government has kept these and other UFO-related information above top-secret. He stated that the Air Force is responsible for protecting our skies, and they and various other governmental agencies did not know what to do with the crashed saucer and its superior technology.


Of course there is a large alien/UFO community when astronauts like Mitchell make these kind of public statements.

Problem is that Mitchell never once claimed to have seen a UFO, or an alien. Not once. He just believed in them. He's entitled to his opinion, but he's mistaken.

Quote
Conclusion :
NASA never went to no moon and the ISS is a fakestation, but because the sf programming a large chunk of the general puiblic wants extraterrestrial life badly to fulfill their dreams and hallucinations about the fabricated thing called ''outerspace''.
An official storyline where NASA denies everything , but the same time Edgar Mitchell and Dr. Steven Greer fuel the whole idea of UFO's and extreterrestrial life.
This way NASA is safe doing their fakery,....not only the majority who doesn't care about space will not question their little money scam, also a good chunk of conspiracy ufo'ers believe NASA is really out there, only to keep some things for themselves.

Cleverly played by NASA.....

Your conclusion is nonsense. The only ones scamming cash out of people are frauds like Greer and all the other alien peddling bullshit artists.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 22, 2017, 09:34:41 PM »
I have revealed all the conflicts about the ''star visuality in cislunar space and on the daylight side of the moon'' in the most accurate way.

 I just can't emphasize it enough - there are no conflicts. Just different views just like you going out at night and not seeing exact same view all the time. Yuo really are a dense.
simple......
 Neil Armstrong,.......not being able to see a single star without optics on the lunar surface

While walking around in bright sunlight in a white suit on a reflective lunar surface with a bright Earth in the lunar sky and looking through visors.

Quote
Neil deGrasse Tyson.......being able to see stars just like a night on earth, because no atmosphere on the daylight surface

a theoretical possibility not taking account of local circumstances such as those astronauts actually experienced.

Quote
Edgar Mitchell.........stars ten times as bright and numerous in cislunar space..religious experience
 Neil Armstrong........sky is deep black on the moon as it is in cislunar space,    ....stars not worthy of mentioning

Yet again: Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space. His answer that you keep referring to discusses the view from the surface.

Still waiting for a source for your claims about Mitchell getting angry there.

Quote
Of course in your mind controled NASA environment this is perfectly explainable, but for normal people it is not.

Try to present this info to people not clouded by NASA ....not positively or negatively and ask them how they understand this !
Do not influence them with yuor ''repair'' nonsense just show them what was said about the lunar surface and cislunar space and the stars.
Of course no one can even remotely phantom this nonsense without NASA repair trash that somehow explains this.........

Don't believe me ? Most if not all initial reactions are siding with me,....not you.....and please try it out in your own surroundings as i have.

oh rly?  ::)

Quote
Very little people know about this and only presenting the recorded words causes disbelief as if i couldn't possibly present the correct info....
You know why ? because it is so obvious that those comments are extremely conflicting...only after intense NASA ''massage'' it seems not so strange as before.

Could you ever doubt NASA ?

I for one don't care about NASA, despite you assuming that I do. I have no interest in it, I don't support it, I don't defend it. NASA is an organisation involved in space research. Others are available. What is of interest is the result of the research it does and the programmes in which it engages, and whether or not people report those results accurately or whether they deliberately misrepresent them to try and prove some bogus point.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 20, 2017, 11:03:17 PM »
Amateur astronomy, photography and HAM radio prove Apollo happened, sorry.
Ehhhh ?
Amateur astronomy: Stars and planets seen in Apollo photographs match digital planetarium software.
They roughly do, but Jarrah White ( a kryptonite name for Onebigmonkey and frenat...... just watch ) has clearly shown that venus was in the wrong place on a photograph .

It was a proper attempt by NASA but still failed the position and given timeframe.
Sorry but i do not have the video that proves that right now, only if it is real important for you i will search for it .

Oh now all of a sudden we're keen on evidence, once you think you have something that supports you you're happy to refer to it but when it doesn't you refuse to give it your attention.

Shots of Venus in lunar orbit and on the surface (including the ones that I discovered) from Apollo 14 and the ones taken by Apollo 16 show planets exactly where they should be. The photographs showing Venus, Mars and Saturn in cislunar space also show them exactly where they should be, as do the images of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus in lunar orbit.

Quote
Quote
Amateur photography: The saturn V was recorded launching, its staging could be seen by the naked eye and was recorded. The third stage was photographed venting its remaining fuel in lunar orbit.
Amateur ham radio: Signals were received from Earth orbit, en-route to moon, and from the Moon.

At the moment I am discussing with an Germany located ground station if their Apollo live video tapes can be digitized, and how. At the time of Apollo they received the S-band signal from the Moon and recorded its video and audio signal on video reels.

They had nothing to do with NASA and were completely independent.
I would gladly reply to all of your remarks, but Onebigmonkey and frenat would be extremely happy when the focus would change towards other aspects of the Apollo missions.

Couldn't care less which aspect of Apollo you care to discuss.

Quote
Now that i have them in a stranglehold i won't let go.

pmsl

Quote
The testimonies of the astronauts and experts about the visuality of stars in cislunarspace and on the daylight side of the moon are extremely conflicting and defying the laws of cosmology in outerspace one way or the other.

You are wellcome to try and allign all that was said about visuality.
Till now, nobody succeded remotely in explaining how the respective testimonies could differ so greatly.

Apart from everyone who explained it.

Quote
And we have arrived at a certain point where globers retraid from the facts and claim all observations made by astronauts and experts are in harmony without taking the quotes at face value.

And that is unacceptable for me.

What's unacceptable is when people get given perfectly reasonable arguments but choose to ignore them.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 20, 2017, 09:08:43 AM »
I won't derail my own attempts to fall in your trap of deceit.

The facts :

cislunar space
Edgar Mitchel : unaided eye ten times as bright, ten times as numerous stars....enlightening experience !!!

Neil Armstrong : the sky is deep black when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space[/i].....
The earh is the only visible object that can be seen other than the sun !(interview with Patrick Moore)

Yet again, for the hard of seeing, Armstrong's response there is specific to a question about what can be seen on the surface. If you want to know what Armstrong actually saw in cislunar space you need to refer to the mission transcript where he says this:

"Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars"


You also, yet again, repeat the mistake of assuming black sky = no stars. If I go out on a clear night I will also see a black sky, with many stars in it.

Quote
Since Neil Armstrong went to the same place in cislunar space where Edgar Mitchell saw the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars', then he would surely mention such important sighting in the interview with Patrick Moore.

and if Sir Patrick had asked him about what he could see in cislunar space he would have told him.

Quote
If Neil further in time claimed he saw stars in cislunar space then it is still incompatable with the ten times as bright and ten times as numerous religious sightings of Edgar Mitchell.

He didn't claim it 'further in time', he stated it as a fact at the time.

Quote
The daylight surface of the moon
Without an atmosphere the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars' would have been visible on the moon.
But the reflective surface obscures some of the light from the 'ten times brighter and ten times numerous stars'
The question is HOW MUCH ?

Go on then, give us the answer.

Quote
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alldrin
Neil couldn't see any star with his eyes, not once ( only through optics)
Buzz says in his book the sky on the moon was black and void of any stars.

And here's what he says in his book about the sky in cislunar space:

"The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket dotted with millions of stars."

Buzz did see stars on the surface when he was using them to fix their location.

Quote
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Neil says the stars reveal themselves just like they would during the night on earth.
That is not so bright compared to what can be seen in the vaccuum of space ( ten times brighter and numerous), but still very much visible for the unaided eye.

Stars being present in the lunar sky is not the same as being able to see them.

Quote
These are the facts, i have presented them in the most accurate way possible.

No, you haven't, you have tried to bend them to fit your view of things. It doesn't work.

Quote
You have to cancel out some of the facts to create an artificial reality where all observations are in harmony with other testimonies.
But i won't let your little lies cloud the truth.

I have told no lies. Show me where I have.

Quote
Papa Legba, althaugh i certainly do not approve of his use of language was right about you !

I wouldn't put yourself in the same camp as him, it doesn't reflect well on you.

Quote
The truth is clear cut and transparent and you will do just about everything to ignore it.

You maybe need to read that sentence back at yourself.

It's really, really simple:

In perfect conditions stars are visible. When conditions conspire against the human eye you will not see them, just like you don't see the full panoply of stars on a moonlit night here.

Tyson's observations that the stars will be there in the lunar sky does not automatically equate to them being always visible or photographable. The light from the sun, the lunar surface, the Earth, the mobility restrictions of the suit, even the reflected light of a white suit will combine with the filters of an astronaut helmet's various visors to make stars less easy to see.


8
Flat Earth General / Re: The Black Sun is the cause of Eclispes
« on: August 20, 2017, 05:18:51 AM »
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71631.msg1944019#msg1944019
Why can't I read Roman numerals ?

Please enlighten us as to how V+1+1 = 6

Quote
It is obvious to the readers from The evidence I have provided that your people use this strange numerolgy to communicate.

"Your people"? As far as I am concerned numerology is bullshit and the only people who use it are people desperate to force meanings into the meaningless. Like you just tried to.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: The Black Sun is the cause of Eclispes
« on: August 20, 2017, 04:30:48 AM »
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71631.msg1944000#msg1944000
Also the compilation designation seems suspect.

 V11633
4+1+1=6  6  3+3=6

666

Lol.

6? Yes
3+3? Yes

VII? That's either 7 or V11. Not 6. Or the whole thing is V 14

No incorrect .

You are trying to decieve people yet again.

This is because you are a liar.

This link gives a good explanation on how your Strange numerology works.

http://numerology-thenumbersandtheirmeanings.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/numerological-meaning-of-your-name.html?m=1

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Numerology is bullshit, just like your inability to read Roman numerals.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 20, 2017, 04:28:28 AM »
Why do you prefer to lie Onebigmonkey ?

Why have you decided I'm lying? I'm not.

Quote
Why do you change my words all the time ?

I didn't. You are quoted correctly.

Quote
Why do you deliberately try to derail the essence of my remarks ?

I haven't. The essence of your remarks are false. For example, when you claim Armstrong said that he saw no stars in cislunar space when he said no such thing. Like when you post pictures claiming to be of the Apollo 11 landing site when it was, in fact, of a crater that can't be photographed anywhere other than from lunar orbit.

Quote
Could you enlighten me why you refuse to honestly answer my observations and the opposite claims between Neil A. and Neil dGT , but instead do everything possible to ignore the essence of my message and talk about....... 'god knows what'.... instead addressing the only thing of importance ..... Neil vs Neil.

Already done that. Got bored of repeating myslef.

Quote
I know it is a well known tactic and the last days i have encountered this approach more and more.

Maybe because you continue to repeat the same misconceptions and falsehoods despite having your errors pointed out many times to you.

Quote
Only proof for my personal conviction that not only NASA lied, but their lies have also concored your hearts.
All your replies are meant to derail the essence of my posts ( Neil vs Neil ) and to make them say things they don't.

Nope, my replies are to point out that you are wrong, and that no matter how many times you repeat wrong things they will continue to be wrong.

Quote
But really nothing stops you from doing what you do ehh ?

And yet here you are, continuing to misrepresent reality, continuing to repeat falsehoods, continuing to ignore simple explanations. Why shouldn't people point out your mistakes?

Here's something else for you to ponder. Charles Duke said this about the view on the moon:

Though the sun was shining brightly, the lunar sky was pitch black; no stars were visible due to the bright reflection off the lunar surface.

Despite him not seeing any, it didn't stop Venus being photographed in the Apollo 16 sky.


11
Flat Earth General / Re: The Black Sun is the cause of Eclispes
« on: August 20, 2017, 04:18:22 AM »
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71631.msg1944000#msg1944000
Also the compilation designation seems suspect.

 V11633
4+1+1=6  6  3+3=6

666

Lol.

6? Yes
3+3? Yes

VII? That's either 7 or V11. Not 6. Or the whole thing is V 14

12
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Eart
« on: August 20, 2017, 02:06:41 AM »
What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.




The last photo there is of the lunar far side crater Daedalus

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_44_6609.html

You are presenting a photograph taken in lunar orbit of the lunar far side by a human being as proof that no-one went to the moon. Think about that

Quote
Problem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada

Problem is that this statement is a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space.

Quote
Look at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun,

Look at it through a telescope. See how bright you think it is. Count the stars you can see next to it.

Quote

the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !

And even if you look at an actual photograph of Tranquility Base you'll see many bright places.

There may well have been stars in the sky, but there are perfectly good reasons as to why he would not have been able to see them. He could see Earth though, with its unique meteorological fingerprint for that day, with it's terminator just where it should be, with exactly the right configuration of land masses on show.
Can you ever reflect on what i say ?
Neil Armstrong claimed he never saw a star , nada, zero ON THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON. Very childish of you to reply as if my statesments were untrue and talk about Neil's comments about visuality in cislunar space.
Again very childish of you.

Can you ever reflect on what I say? Despite very simple explanations as to why Armstrong would not necessarily see stars you ignore it. Despite repeating many times that Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space you ignore it. Despite pointing out many times that Armstrong's comments about the view on the lunar surface did not reference cislunar space you ignore it.

Quote
What you have proven is that you refuse to see your glaring problems ignoring everything because the brick wall in front of your nose must be preserved.

What you have proven is that you refuse to see the glaring problems in your argument, particularly when you use photographs taken in lunar orbit as proof that no-one took a photograph in lunar orbit. Particularly when you use astronauts saying they saw stars to claim they didn't see stars.

Quote
The Apollo 11 astronauts were on a below average reflective place on the moon

Look at the moon through a telescope. Count the stars you can see. Buy a filter to cut out the harsh glare.

Quote
They walked around and encountered even more shaded places

And plenty of bright places, with a sun in the sky, and a bright Earth.

Quote
Neil Armstrong still couldn't see any stars at all.

Because of many simple reasons you don't seem able to grasp.

Quote
According to the expert Neil deGrasse Tyson he should have seen a sky full of stars just like a night on earth.
Is this Neil deGrasse Tyson the biggest moron spokesman ever seen on television/radio ?

Did Neil deGrasse not know it is impossible to see stars, let alone a sky full of stars like on earth during the night ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that you have to wear a spacesuit on the moon always ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that spacehelmets+suits were limtited and prevented the astronauts from gazing upwards ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know how extremely reflective the lunar surface was ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that the effects of the reflective surface outperformed the benefits of an absent atmosphere for 'star gazers' ?
Did Neil deGrasse Tyson not know that contrary to earth you have to search for an ideal spot and take the time to be able to see a few stars ?

If Neil deGrasse Tyson was aware about all of the above he would never ever, in this universe or somewhere else, not in the past, present or future claim something as absurd as he did.
Unless of course he made a honest slip of the tongue, because he knows what to expect from standing on the moon.
Contrary to some fighterjet pilots who sold their soul to the devil and claimed to sky was deep black.

What colour is the sky at night? Why do you think 'black sky' means 'no stars'?

13
Flat Earth General / Re: The Black Sun is the cause of Eclispes
« on: August 20, 2017, 01:21:01 AM »
Digitally enhanced like they did in 1885?


14
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 20, 2017, 12:12:10 AM »
What are the dark spots on the moon ?
Oceans that consist of basaltic lava, called mare/sea.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module "Eagle" landed in the area called The Sea of Tranquility (Lat. Mare Tranquillitatis), calling the landing site The Tranquility Base.
Here are three photo's of that particular Apollo 11 landing spot and how craters look liked and how many shade is visible.




The last photo there is of the lunar far side crater Daedalus

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_44_6609.html

You are presenting a photograph taken in lunar orbit of the lunar far side by a human being as proof that no-one went to the moon. Think about that

Quote
Problem is that Neil Armstrong said he never once saw a star, not accidentally, nothing nada

Problem is that this statement is a lie, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Armstrong saw stars in cislunar space.

Quote
Look at those photographs, are you really going to continue that Neil Armstrong could not see stars because of all the reflections and because he could not see the skies very well ?
The moon is 400.000 times less bright than the sun,

Look at it through a telescope. See how bright you think it is. Count the stars you can see next to it.

Quote

the sea of tranquility isn't the brightest place,,,,many shaded places in the craters nearby....
But Neil Armstrong did not see a star...... not once !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while he should have seen a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night !

And even if you look at an actual photograph of Tranquility Base you'll see many bright places.

There may well have been stars in the sky, but there are perfectly good reasons as to why he would not have been able to see them. He could see Earth though, with its unique meteorological fingerprint for that day, with it's terminator just where it should be, with exactly the right configuration of land masses on show.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: The Black Sun is the cause of Eclispes
« on: August 19, 2017, 09:32:46 AM »
Moon-Saturn occultation





Go buy a telescope. See for yourself with your own eyes. It's not difficult.

17
The difference between 'pear shaped' and 'oblate spheroid' is subtle, and the concepts have been around a long time.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 19, 2017, 07:48:44 AM »
To end this stalemate, who is going contact Neil Degrasse Tyson and ask for clarification?
I think he will explain his earlier remarks more in line with Apollo. Why ?
Because he knows how to do damage control.

When a reporter asked Edgar Mitchell why he could see ten times brighter stars in cislunar space and Neil Armstrong couldn't see much in cislunar space other than the moon, earth and the sun ( he called those the only visible objects in cislunar space) .......

Absolutely untrue, as has been pointed out to you on many occasions. Armstrong said this in cislunar space:

Quote
Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth.

His comments about the Earth and Sun being the only objects visible are specific to the view from the lunar surface. Listen to what he says.

Quote
Edgar Mitchell became annoyed and replied to the reporter to ask Neil about his specific sightings, but Edgar Mitchell said he sticked with his ! ( ten times brighter stars in cislunar space without the use of optics !!)

Links? Evidence? Proof?

Quote


Further more the sun is 400.000 times brighter than the moon.

Which is why looking at stars with it in view is somewhat difficult.

Quote
On earth on a very bright and shining day we can still see the moon very clear at times.

Would you say the moon looks as bright as it does at night?

Quote
On the daylight surface of the moon without an atmosphere we cannot see the stars ?
Because all of a sudden the reflections are so bright they totally block out all starlight for the astronauts ?

Try looking at the lunar surface through a telescope, see how long it is before you wish youd bought a glare filter.

Quote
Pure nonsense, otherwise we would see the full moon not 400.000 less bright than the sun.
It means the brightness of the moonsurface can't be that influential to prevent them from seeing any star.....

Try counting the number of stars you can see at night next to the moon.

Quote
And like simba claimed ..... they could only look forward and not really gaze upwards ,..... this photograph shows they most certainly could bend towards the sky if the chest mounted camera could make this shot !!



Yes, and the TV footage shows very clearly how much he had to contort to see that bright Earth in the sunlit sky. You can also see the bright lunar surface in that shot as well, and the sun visors.

And of course the Earth there shows weather patterns that only existed on the day it was taken.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 19, 2017, 07:40:14 AM »
summary
Neil deGrasse was a huge Apollo fan as he confessed in interviews.

Confessed? Why do you make this sound like someone had to drag it out of him like a dirty secret?

Quote
He is a well known astrophysicist and promoter of NASA

He's a promoter of space research. NASA happen to some of that.

Quote
He claims when you would be on the daylight surface of the moon the stars would reveal them just like on earth during the night.

You need to wrap your head around what he's saying, because it's clearly causing you some difficulty. On Earth, in the daylight, you can't see stars (generally) because the atmosphere causes scattering of light. On the moon there is no such scattering, but that does not mean there aren't other things that will prevent the stars being visible. Those things include a bright lunar surface, a bright sun, a bright Earth, wearing visors.

Go out at night. See how many stars you can see in the vicinity of the moon.

Quote
His credentials and interrest in Apollo and NASA in general excludes the possiblity that he is unaware with the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon.

Very true, but it doesn't stop him making grandiose and over-simplistic statement that can confuse people who don't have that the same level of understanding.

Quote
Did the astronauts saw stars just like on earth during the night ?
Nothing of the sorts happened, some never saw stars, some saw few stars, some never said anything about the stars on the daylight surface of the moon.

Which is it then? Make your mind up here. Did they see them or not? Are you saying the ones that saw them are telling the truth?

Quote
All where around a considerable amount of time........ no stars or few with the use of optics,
But no one ever saw the stars just like a night on earth.
That did not happen.

And you have great difficulty understanding very simple explanations as to why this is perfectly reasonable. Astronauts walking around in bright sunshine with Earth also casting a light on the surface, the bright surface itself and several layers of visor. Take away those circumstances and you are much more able to see stars - for example through optics in the lunar module.

Quote
I can not proof it of course, but you have to be real stupid to believe Neil Armstrong could not see stars, not a single one during his stay on the moon........ not even one .....unintentionally....... nada .......

And you'd have to be real stupid not to be able to understand the circumstances that make seeing stars on the lunar surface more difficult that you think it is. You'd have to be even more stupid to completely ignore the numerous statements made by many astronauts describing the view of stars when circumstances make viewing much easier - including Neil Armstrong.

Quote
I am full of self-assurance, so if i have to explain it another hundred times, i will gladly do so !

You're full of something...

20
There are also quite a few people out there that like to use very reasonably priced equipment to download the transmissions of the satellites as they orbit and reproduce the meteorological images. I've done it myself, it's very cool, and shows quite simply that not only are they above you they are taking photographs.

I did it in the late 1980s working in an educational centre. The centre bought the a standard computer, a card to put in it, a big old satellite dish that we installed on the roof and pointed straight up. We had a list on the wall of the satellite timings for METEOSAT and NOAA. At the relevant times you set the computer listening, you capture the transmission, the computer decodes the imagery. Simple.

Anyone who really cares enough to prove to themselves that there are satellites in orbit can do this.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 17, 2017, 09:31:59 PM »
Point still stands. They sell technology owned by the people to the private sector, causing the people to have to pay twice for its development.

Not in the examples you are so fond of citing - the technology was developed by someone else, it wasn't theirs to sell. Your disapproval seems entirely based on common misconceptions that a few seconds' worth of research can resolve.

In cases where NASA does actually invent something and sells it on, the taxpayer gets to recoup their investment. Americans are employed in jobs and pay taxes. What's your problem with gainful employment?

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 17, 2017, 12:58:54 PM »
Those that are owned by contractors for one. Secondly, I'd love to sell my own memory foam and upside down pens. Likewise for the rest of the pile of proprietary technology created by NASA in the medical industry.

NASA had nothing to do with the invention of the 'Space pen', it was done independently by Fischer to try and crowbar itself into the market.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen/

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

NASA didn't invent memory foam, another company did that in order to provide more comfortable and crash proof aircraft seats for NASA, as well as cushion astronauts against G forces. The original material never went into space as it wasn't durable enough. Modern memory foam was developed later by other companies.

https://www.space.com/10783-space-spinoff-technology-memory-foam.html


23
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 15, 2017, 10:25:23 AM »
NASA is one of the most crooked organizations out there. Aside from constantly being caught using tax payer money on their cocaine habits,

Are you arguing that NASA is a drug cartel, or just that some NASA employees have been caught spending their salaries on coke? Hardly proof of a flat Earth.

Quote
and their inability to justify or even quantify their budgets and costs

In order to get funding they need to quantify what they intend to spend it on. How well has NASA's budget fared over the past few decades would you say?

Quote
they also routinely steal technology from the American people, selling it to the private sector when it rightfully belongs to the American citizen - thus putting the bill of development twice on the American; one for the R&D costs at NASA, then again for paying for the acquisition in the cost to buy the products from the commercial sector.

and by selling the technology they recoup some of the investment of those taxpayers. Why would they give it away to the USA's private health care sector so that the medical profession there can make even more money?

Quote
They are crooks and drug addicts that use their power to push their point of view - no matter how wrong it is. Take memory foam bedding.

Or they are a large research organisation, one of many, that uses the resources it is given to promote and publish that research. That's how research works.

Quote
Yes yes, its humorous when its an upside-down pen or comfy bed - but when its medical technology it becomes a crime against humanity.

Constantly they also lie about the information and theories they support; for example, just about every time they 'confirm' their theories, the MODN guys have to politely remind them that it doesn't disprove MODN at all.

Show us a lie.

Quote

Oh, and remember when they gave a foreign diplomat a rock, telling them it was from the moon?

This is a complete fabrication. No-one at NASA gave anyone a rock and told them it was from the moon. This story is the result of an art project and lazy reporting - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anyone from NASA, or even from the USA, ever gave a fossil to a former Dutch premier.

Quote
They will clearly do and say anything they can to secure more budget and power.

Up to and including sending rockets into space.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 15, 2017, 10:17:31 AM »
t was a Canadian astronaut on Canadian TV, it was a corporately sponsored event, if I recall.

...playing along to a Canadian band whilst on an orbiting craft part paid for by Canada.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 15, 2017, 08:19:35 AM »
I know for a fact that Onebigmonkey and frenat were part of the Apollohoax.net and Clavius.

Nobody here has to justify why they post, or where they post it, all they have to do is justify what they post. I see no reason why I should explain my internet activity to you or anyone, but if you have an issue with the information I post then you should do that. Ideally this should be in the form of a logical counter-argument. Crying "shill" and "you believe something I don't and have read books about it so I won't discuss it" are not logical arguments, they are running away from the discussion.

You posted a video that showed images of Earth taken from lunar orbit by unmanned probes. You seem sceptical of them but haven't said why that is - you haven't justified your opinion.

 I've posted you an image as justification for my contention that it is a genuine image. Other people have done similar things:

http://www.moonviews.com/2010/03/nimbus-ii-and-lunar-orbiter-1-imagery-a-new-look-at-earth-in-1966.html

Statements along the lines of "I don't trust the source" are not adequate.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 14, 2017, 11:21:09 PM »
Wow look at that NASA propaganda from 1966.
The earth has changed since then, way to fast for me..... ::) ::) ::)
What a crap load of brainwashing shit.

Apologist, time to defend daddy NASA, althaugh it must feel like being tormented at times. ;D
Look at that blue uhhh marble at 2.55 in the video
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

That image of Earth you dislike was taken lunar orbit, the film developed, scanned and the result transmitted back to Earth. The meteorological features on it (just like the other ones taken by Lunar Orbiter featuring Earth) show an exact match for the satellite record of the time. The image metadata can be used to show what Earth should have looked like when it was taken, and it is exactly correct.



I have original copies of the images in books published at the time.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 13, 2017, 11:50:14 AM »
And here is how they did that:

http://okgo.net/2016/02/11/upside-down-inside-out-faq/

Notice it took a lot of training by the people who train cosmonauts to go to the ISS to learn their stunts. Notice how it took 45 minutes and some video trickery to get 3 minutes of video, and how many people were involved.

Now if you want to explain how you can get hours of live broadcast from the ISS using endless parabolic flights edited together in a studio then you just go right ahead.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 13, 2017, 04:53:37 AM »

Wow that was a very weak reply by your standards.
The cracks are clearly showing, you cannot explain why they couldn't see stars contrary to Neil de Grasse Tyson' claims.
The only weak explaination is than it would have been a waste of time to look upwards.

Nobody said that.

Quote
Playing golf, taking lots of photographs from a chauvinistic flag, LM and all other time consuming stuff was more important ?
Any real person looks to the skies when he is on the moon, no matter how important the flag, golf and a jolly good rover ride seems to be by comparison.
And that is what astronauts claim......  what struck them the most was seeing earth in the sky. I bed they were drawn like a magnet to that blue marble in the sky. Of course they would have seen the stars without optics.

They did look up. If they hadn't they wouldn't have seen Earth. Or photographed it.

Quote
If only Neil , Buzz  would have thought it through better, before claiming they could never see the stars on the daylight side of the moon without looking through the optics.

I am sure Ed Mitchell has a different point of view, he saw the stars in cislunar space without optics ten times as bright !
Something Neil and the boys were never able to see. They hardly saw any stars, even with the use of optics !

From the lunar surface. I guess the ones who said they saw the stars in cislunar space were telling the truth though right? Which would be all of them. All the Apollo astronauts saw stars in cislunar space, including Apollo 11.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« on: August 12, 2017, 10:02:32 PM »
Human eyes take several hours to fully adapt to darkness and reach their optimal sensitivity to low light conditions. The quickest gains in vision sensitivity are made in the first few minutes after exposure to darkness. For this reason, many people think that after only a few minutes, their eyes have reached their peak sensitivity. But several hours into darkness exposure, the human eyes continue to adapt and make small gains in sensitivity.
Horse manure,.....i can immidiatly see the stars. i don't have to adapt for hours when going outside to see a full sky of stars. Granted after a while i see even more stars

In the space of two short sentences you contradict yourself. Read what Rabinoz actually posted.

Quote
Contrary to Neil, Buzz and Michael's claims that they could not see any stars on the daylight surface of the moon.

Collins did not go to the lunar surface. Aldrin saw stars through the optics. That means he saw stars on the lunar surface.

Quote
And the rest of your post is more of your irritating attempts to0 muddy the waters.
It doesn't matter how bright the sun is, you gullible puppet.

Yes it does.

Quote
In the vacuum of space there isn't any atmosphere or molecules to interfere with an astronaut's line of sight in the direction of the stars.

And there is also no atmosphere to interfere with light reflecting from the lunar surface, or bouncing off their suit, their helmet, their lunar module.

Quote
The sun cannot possibly scatter it's brightness in a vacuum,.........no molecules to bounce off.

Which means it's very bright light, and bright light is what makes your eyes take time to adjust to seeing stars.

Quote
The only precaution the astronaut has to make is to avoid the direct line of sight with the sun, no matter how bright that sun is.

And the indirect light from the surface. Ever looked at the moon through a telescope? It can hurt your eyes if you don't use a filter.

Quote
Ever seen a laserlight ? It becomes visible because it bounces off dust particles, without those particles it wouldn't be visible.

And it becomes visible when it hits an object, like your eye. Just like ordinary light is visible when it hits an object.

Quote
The sun cannot interfere with the starlight, because around the sun there is the largest vacuum imaginable.

It's also the brightest light source imaginable around here, which means it can interfere with your ability to see starlight. If you can't see stars in the vicinity of the moon from Earth what makes you think it would be easy to spot them when you're on it, or when there is a sun in the sky, when you have a visor on?

Get your head round it: Tyson's theoretical observation that stars would be present in the lunar sky is not the same as every person in every circumstance would be able to see them. Take the big light sources away and it is not so difficult, as recorded by many many astronauts.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« on: August 12, 2017, 09:02:31 AM »
Your fairytale is over in nine days time no one will believe in your Heliocentric model.

I'm pretty certain that in 9 days time you are going to stfu and feel pretty stupid.

Quote
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.

You are the only one claiming this.

Quote
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.

It isn't.

Quote
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.

Because the Earth rotates underneath it.

Quote

It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.

And it isn't.

Quote

So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.

It isn't.

Quote

So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon.

It isn't.

You can keep repeating that crap all you like, you're still deluded and wrong.

Your stupid preconceptions are shite.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54