Poll

Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?

In order to mask any validation God.
1 (9.1%)
In order to hide more land masses.
1 (9.1%)
In order to cover up something that may cause panic.
0 (0%)
In order to gain power to manipulate an artificial reality.
3 (27.3%)
In order to accomplish all of the above.
6 (54.5%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?

  • 460 Replies
  • 13956 Views
?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #210 on: August 14, 2017, 06:11:15 AM »
Why are ships look-outs given time to adapt? So dutchy knows better than marine authorities now.
It is even in the regulations that the relieved lookout must not leave his post until the relieving lookout's eyes have adequately adapted.

So stop denying self-evident facts with your perpetual NASAphobia.
They didn't see any star at all during their stay on the moon.
No fainted stars, not less bright stars, no nothing....no visible stars during during their 2,5 hours moonwalk.

Yes i know better than you, far better to conclude that this is impossible.
Sure they would need to adapt, i have never denied that.
But your default conclusion is that during their stay on the moon it was reasonable that they could not see stars with their eyes. Not even a few, fainted ones or less bright.
Not even after 2.5 hours ?

You see what this means don't you. It means THEY COULDN'T SEE STARS ON THE MOON
Or would they have seen stars after a week, a month ? Is 2,5 hours not enough to adapt ?
It means that Neil deGrasse Tyson is talking out of his ass or Neil Armstrong.

Neil deGRasse Tyson says you would see the stars just like during the night
Neil Armstrong says you can't see stars even after 2.5 hours no star is visible


So your whole ''time to adapt'' is futile .......no stars vs bright stars....who is right Neil or Neil  ;D

Now stop lying and take your loss as a man that has some dignity left.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #211 on: August 14, 2017, 06:17:39 AM »
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm

?

frenat

  • 3212
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #212 on: August 14, 2017, 06:21:07 AM »
When did they have 2.5 hours of time without sunlight in their view?  Or any time really?  You seem to be claiming that their eyes would adapt during the 2.5 hours but the entire time they are in bright sunlight.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #213 on: August 14, 2017, 06:33:34 AM »
When did they have 2.5 hours of time without sunlight in their view?  Or any time really?  You seem to be claiming that their eyes would adapt during the 2.5 hours but the entire time they are in bright sunlight.
I am even willing to accept your arguements, but.....in that case Neil deGrasse Tyson talks out of his ass.
One could never see the stars from the daylight surface of the moon just like during a night on earth if your explainations are true.

Your argument is that there is no ''just like a night on earth'' on the daylightside of the moon.
Your astronauts on the moon cannot see the stars because of the influence of the bright sunlight reflecting off the moon surface all the time.

NdGT says because of an absent atmosphere there is no scattered sunlight and the stars would reveal themselves just like on earth during the night.
Rabinoz and you argue that the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon are such that you can't see the stars due to bright reflections.
Astrobrant2 said Neil de Grasse Tyson was wrong on this occasion,....what do you say ?
Because one of them is talking shit, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Neil Armstrong.

But all of you seem to afraid to point a finger,......which i understand because the implications in this topic will be huge, mark my words  ;D
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 06:38:38 AM by dutchy »

?

frenat

  • 3212
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #214 on: August 14, 2017, 06:41:08 AM »
When did they have 2.5 hours of time without sunlight in their view?  Or any time really?  You seem to be claiming that their eyes would adapt during the 2.5 hours but the entire time they are in bright sunlight.
I am even willing to accept your arguements, but.....in that case Neil deGrasse Tyson talks out of his ass.
One could never see the stars from the daylight surface of the moon just like during a night on earth if your explainations are true.

Your argument is that there is no ''just like a night on earth'' on the daylightside of the moon.
Your astronauts on the moon cannot see the stars because of the influence of the bright sunlight.

NdGT says because of an absent atmosphere there is no scattered sunlight and the stars would reveal themselves just like on earth.
Rabinoz and you argue that the circomstances on the daylight side of the moon are such that you can't see the stars due to bright reflections.

Astrobrant2 said Neilde Grasse Tyson was wrond on this occasion,....what do you say ?
Because one of them is talking shit, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Neil Armstrong.

But all of you seem to afraid to point a finger,......which i understand because the implications in thios topic will be huge, mark my words  ;D
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #215 on: August 14, 2017, 06:55:17 AM »
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is not ''the stars on the daylight side of the moon reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''..when standing on the moon's daylight surface.
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''

So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 06:58:50 AM by dutchy »

?

frenat

  • 3212
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #216 on: August 14, 2017, 07:00:12 AM »
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is not ''the stars reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''

So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
AGAIN, Tyson was not considering the bright surface still being in view.  The astronaut that did take the time still had to have his eyes adjust like any real person would.  When did I say it was "the stars reveal themselves just like they do during the night on earth"?  I wasn't trying to say that nor was I trying to say his experience was exactly as Tyson described it.  Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote.

Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #217 on: August 14, 2017, 07:08:01 AM »
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Ah the inevitable reduction to insults.  I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see.  But that does seem to be the case.
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #218 on: August 14, 2017, 07:14:17 AM »
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is not ''the stars reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''

So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
AGAIN, Tyson was not considering the bright surface still being in view.  The astronaut that did take the time still had to have his eyes adjust like any real person would.  When did I say it was "the stars reveal themselves just like they do during the night on earth"?  I wasn't trying to say that nor was I trying to say his experience was exactly as Tyson described it.  Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote.
I didn't suggest that you said that ....NdGT did ! that is the whole point

Neil de GrasseTyson
SINCE THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE,...IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.

Frenat
In order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.
And you claimed NdGT was talking about a position of your body where the bright surface is no longer in view

Your opinion on the matter fully demolishes NdGT claims....you can't see a sky full of stars on the daylight side of the moon like on earth during the night if you were there.
You can see some stars on the daylight side of the moon after certain measurements are taken, as described by you.

The whole idea behind NdGT statement is that you see the stars just like during the night, not after some lenghty adjustment and carefull positioning one can detect some stars.

Doesn't this sound different to you ?
I sometimes wonder where i am in this place full of deceit.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:16:58 AM by dutchy »

?

frenat

  • 3212
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #219 on: August 14, 2017, 07:19:29 AM »
Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view.  Which it would be with the large glass faceplate and the suit that made it hard to look up.  Without either of those it would be far easier to look at the sky and let your eyes adapt.  Rabinoz and I are arging that the suit itself makes it harder to eliminate those bright reflections.

IIRC there was one astronaut on a later mission that took the time standing in the shadow of the LM to allow his eyes to adapt and did see stars.
That is not ''the stars reveil themselves just like they do during the night on earth''
That is ''in order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.''

So your post is an utter failure, do want to try again frenat ?
AGAIN, Tyson was not considering the bright surface still being in view.  The astronaut that did take the time still had to have his eyes adjust like any real person would.  When did I say it was "the stars reveal themselves just like they do during the night on earth"?  I wasn't trying to say that nor was I trying to say his experience was exactly as Tyson described it.  Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote.
I didn't suggest that you said that ....NdGT did ! that is the whole point

Neil de GrasseTyson
SINCE THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE,...IF YOU WERE THERE DURING THE DAY TIME ON THE MOON, YOU'D SEE A FULL NIGHT, NIGHT SKY OF STARS EVEN WITH THE SUN IN THE SKY AS WELL.

Frenat
In order to see any star at all on the daylight surface of the moon, make sure that you stand in the shadow of an object like the LM and allow your eyes to properly adjust, so that you will see some stars.
And NdGT was talking about a position of your body where the bright surface is no longer in view

Your opinion on the matter fully demolishes NdGT claims....you can't see a sky full of stars on the daylight side of the moon like on earth during the night if you were there.
You can see some stars on the daylight side of the moon after certain measurements are taken, as described by you.

The whole idea behind NdGT statement is that you see the stars just like during the night, not after some lenghty adjustment and carefull positioning one can detect some stars.

Doesn't this sound different to you ?
I sometimes wonder where i am in this place full of deceit.
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:23:48 AM by frenat »

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #220 on: August 14, 2017, 07:23:23 AM »
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Ah the inevitable reduction to insults.  I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see.  But that does seem to be the case.
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
So you fully disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson then ?
If you would stand on the daylight side of the moon you would see a nightsky full of stars according to NdGT !
According to you this isn't the case,.......the surface is way to reflective.

I can get my head around a bright moon surface,......i cannot get my head around the fact that you cannot explain why NdGT doesn't see this as any sort of problem on the moon when viewing sky full of stars just like on earth during the night.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:24:56 AM by dutchy »

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #221 on: August 14, 2017, 07:29:20 AM »
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
This is what happens all the time.
Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question is

What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?

Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?

?

frenat

  • 3212
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #222 on: August 14, 2017, 07:31:13 AM »
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Ah the inevitable reduction to insults.  I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see.  But that does seem to be the case.
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
So you fully disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson then ?
If you would stand on the daylight side of the moon you would see a nightsky full of stars according to NdGT !
According to you this isn't the case,.......the surface is way to reflective.

I can get my head around a bright surface,......i cannot get my head around the fact that you cannpot explain why NdGT doesn't see this as any sort of problem to simply see a sky full of stars just like on earth during the night.
What part of "Tyson is not considering the bright surface still being in view" do you not understand?

Have you asked Tyson to clarify his statements?  Why not?  Why do you think it is sufficient to ask other people what he meant?  Why would you expect anyone else to be able to comment on what Tyson thinks?

?

frenat

  • 3212
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #223 on: August 14, 2017, 07:38:06 AM »
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
This is what happens all the time.
You trying to change what other people say?  If you say so.   ;D

Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question is

What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?

Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
Since this is the first time I have been asked the question, this is the first time I can give an answer.  Since I have never been there, I don't know.  What I do know is I was only trying to relay another person's experience and YOU are trying to make it about me.  I can imagine that if I were looking at the sky with no sun in view and no part of the surface or anything else reflective in view then I would probably see stars.  I can imagine that the suit would make it difficult to do that.  But I can't say for sure what I would see either way as I haven't been there so the entire line of questioning is simply you trying to win a pissing match.

*

Denspressure

  • 1561
  • Yolch
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #224 on: August 14, 2017, 07:47:09 AM »
Also the golden visor did dim the light, so the astronauts could see even if the sun was reflecting into their helmet.

Like here:


Even if an astronaut was to look up, the sun could still hit their visor.
Standing in the shadow of the LM would be the best way to give your eyes time to adapt.
.

*

Denspressure

  • 1561
  • Yolch
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #225 on: August 14, 2017, 07:51:08 AM »
Btw, here is the Apollo 16 helmet with its multiple visors:


So we all know that the helmet was not just one piece of glass, but made out of multiple parts.

In this series of photos you can see how far they could manipulate the front flaps to suit lightning:



Down almost all the way:
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:54:38 AM by Denspressure »
.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #226 on: August 14, 2017, 08:03:55 AM »
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
This is what happens all the time.
You trying to change what other people say?  If you say so.   ;D

Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question is

What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?

Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
Since this is the first time I have been asked the question, this is the first time I can give an answer.  Since I have never been there, I don't know.  What I do know is I was only trying to relay another person's experience and YOU are trying to make it about me.  I can imagine that if I were looking at the sky with no sun in view and no part of the surface or anything else reflective in view then I would probably see stars.  I can imagine that the suit would make it difficult to do that.  But I can't say for sure what I would see either way as I haven't been there so the entire line of questioning is simply you trying to win a pissing match.
Always the first to come out and talk about what went on during Apollo.
And now frenat is modest....for the very first time, ''because he wasn't on the moon himself''.
All of your 10.000+ posts and comments around the www did not contain that modesty sir.You should have mentioned that you weren't on the moon yourself when adressing all aspect of Apollo. But you always commented in absolutes concerning Apollo !!!

Only this time you show modesty, because like Astrobrant2 one of your little payed online Apollo buddies, you have found out that NdGT statements are extremely conflicting.
Astrobrant2 has acknowledeg that NdGT was talking shit, because Neil was to busy doing other space related things and was therefor wrong about this casual slip of thought.
But that doesn't look good, now does it ?

So you tried the approach just displayed the very last posts.....you all of a sudden don't really know what to expect when looking upwards on the moon.
Kris deValle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah, frenat........are on the www for years and years commenting on each and every youtube video and forums about Apollo, claiming you know everything...absolutely everything about Apollo.

This time there is a huge discrepancy between NdGT and Neil Armstrong like Astrobrant2 acknowledged at the time !!!!
The answer for you payed shill is to suddenly take the road of modesty as if you cannot make a clear cut statement about what they could see on the daylight surface of the moon.
About everything else it always sounds as if you were on the moon as part of the Apollo crew, why change your tactics all of a sudden ?
Because NdGT statements are THE hot potato for you payed Apollo apologists.
Gladly i know the names involved in the Apollo apologist team working around the clock the last decade and understand what is going on here........

And for readers who don't believe me ? Frenat, Kris de Valle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah are covering the www for the last decade, they comment on everything related to Apollo.
They aren't payed or hired by NASA, so  they claim and have changed their avatar names occasionally and admit to use many sock puppets also.
They say (when confronted) they are simply amature astronomers acting out of admiration and love for the USA and NASA and their achievements.

How stupid would one be to believe that, knowing they've spend thousends of hours online to defend NASA whenever possible.
Only a payed shills would do that.........not some amature enthousiast.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #227 on: August 14, 2017, 08:08:38 AM »
Btw, here is the Apollo 16 helmet with its multiple visors:


So we all know that the helmet was not just one piece of glass, but made out of multiple parts.

In this series of photos you can see how far they could manipulate the front flaps to suit lightning:



Down almost all the way:

Doesn't seem extremely bright does it ? And very, very earthlike.
Seems like they should see a sky full of stars like Neil deGrasse Tyson claimed, instead of their inability to descern any star at all.

Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #228 on: August 14, 2017, 08:14:05 AM »
There is no all of a sudden, Tyson was never there and never worked for NASA.  You interpret something one way and consider it proof.  It isn't.  You have still not proven a single lie no matter how often you choose to beat this particular dead horse.
I can hardly take your tactics serious...you know repeatedly claiming ''duhhh that's no proof''

Tyson understands that you can see a ''nightsky'' full of stars on the moon, Armstrong can't see any star ,not even after 2.5 hours.
This is proof, because the decorated major in astro physics wouldn't make a claim about the visible stars on the daylight surface of the moon, when they aren't visible, not even after 2.5 hours.

I don't think you are particular smart or deliberate in denial.....mmmmm
Ah the inevitable reduction to insults.  I'm sorry you can't get your head around how bright the surface would be or how their optics might affect what they see.  But that does seem to be the case.
Maybe we simply agree to disagree on this one and you continue with your futile search for proof of NASA lies.
So you fully disagree with Neil deGrasse Tyson then ?
If you would stand on the daylight side of the moon you would see a nightsky full of stars according to NdGT !
According to you this isn't the case,.......the surface is way to reflective.

I can get my head around a bright moon surface,......i cannot get my head around the fact that you cannot explain why NdGT doesn't see this as any sort of problem on the moon when viewing sky full of stars just like on earth during the night.
I think it depends on the circumstances and the optics/visor.  I feel no obligation to explain why Tyson didn't take this into account.
Now then, do you have any actual evidence of NASA lies?  You've presented none so far only your interpretation of what someone who does not work for NASA said.

*

Denspressure

  • 1561
  • Yolch
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #229 on: August 14, 2017, 08:17:04 AM »
Btw, here is the Apollo 16 helmet with its multiple visors:


So we all know that the helmet was not just one piece of glass, but made out of multiple parts.

In this series of photos you can see how far they could manipulate the front flaps to suit lightning:



Down almost all the way:

Doesn't seem extremely bright does it ? And very, very earthlike.
Seems like they should see a sky full of stars like Neil deGrasse Tyson claimed, instead of their inability to descern any star at all.
How bright a photo looks depends on the exposure settings.
For example, you can make daylight look like night, or make night look like daylight.
When you look at the shutterspeeds used, they are for very bright surfaces indeed.

What do you mean with Earthlike? I thought everything was suppose to have been faked in a studio, not outside.

And before the Apollo missions, fine surface details at landing locations were not know, and could not have been faked. The Lunar Orbiter space craft's pictures do not have enough spatial resolution.

For example, rocks on a rim where not known until Apollo 17 went there and took photos of the lunar surface up close.
.

?

frenat

  • 3212
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #230 on: August 14, 2017, 08:20:29 AM »
And I never said my statement was supposed to support or defend his.  YOU seemed to indicate I was.  In fact I said he wasn't considering the effect of the bright surface being in view.  So no failure.  And no deceit on my part. 

And you are changing what I said.  I did NOT say "make sure to stand in the shadow of an object"  I made no recommendation at all.  I simply reported someone else's experience.
Please point out where I said it should sound the same.
This is what happens all the time.
You trying to change what other people say?  If you say so.   ;D

Never a straight answer....it isn't about those details frenat and you perfectly know that....the question is

What would a person see on the daylight side of the moon when looking to the sky ?

Maybe you want to answer that, so that i can point out the inconsistancies ?
Since this is the first time I have been asked the question, this is the first time I can give an answer.  Since I have never been there, I don't know.  What I do know is I was only trying to relay another person's experience and YOU are trying to make it about me.  I can imagine that if I were looking at the sky with no sun in view and no part of the surface or anything else reflective in view then I would probably see stars.  I can imagine that the suit would make it difficult to do that.  But I can't say for sure what I would see either way as I haven't been there so the entire line of questioning is simply you trying to win a pissing match.
Always the first to come out and talk about what went on during Apollo.
Really? ALWAYS the first?  Bet you can't prove that.

And now frenat is modest....for the very first time, ''because he wasn't on the moon himself''.
As if I ever claimed otherwise.

All of your 10.000+ posts and comments around the www did not contain that modesty sir.You should have mentioned that you weren't on the moon yourself when adressing all aspect of Apollo. But you always commented in absolutes concerning Apollo !!!
Please find any of those 10,000+ posts where I commented on something that is not documented that I would only know if I was there.  Bet you can't

Only this time you show modesty, because like Astrobrant2 one of your little payed online Apollo buddies, you have found out that NdGT statements are extremely conflicting.
Astrobrant2 has acknowledeg that NdGT was talking shit, because Neil was to busy doing other space related things and was therefor wrong about this casual slip of thought.
But that doesn't look good, now does it ?
I don't care what Tyson said or did not say nor how it looks.  That is an invention of yours.  I HAVE specifically said he was not considering everything.  And I bet you can't prove I or anyone else is paid to post.  I know for a fact that I am not.

So you tried the approach just displayed the very last posts.....you all of a sudden don't really know what to expect when looking upwards on the moon.
Kris deValle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah, frenat........are on the www for years and years commenting on each and every youtube video and forums about Apollo, claiming you know everything...absolutely everything about Apollo.
Please show where I have EVER claimed to know "everything ... absolutely everything about Apollo".  I'll bet you can't as I have never said that.  That seems like another invention of yours.  And I rarely comment on youtube videos.  In fact, if you really analysed my posts, you would find that I not only comment far less than others, but that I also have slowed down and have never displayed the arrogance you are associating with me.

This time there is a huge discrepancy between NdGT and Neil Armstrong like Astrobrant2 acknowledged at the time !!!!
The answer for you payed shill is to suddenly take the road of modesty as if you cannot make a clear cut statement about what they could see on the daylight surface of the moon.
About everything else it always sounds as if you were on the moon as part of the Apollo crew, why change your tactics all of a sudden ?
Because NdGT statements are THE hot potato for you payed Apollo apologists.
Gladly i know the names involved in the Apollo apologist team working around the clock the last decade and understand what is going on here........
Please prove I or anyone else is paid to post here or anywhere else.  Please prove my "tactics" have be changed "all of a sudden".


And for readers who don't believe me ? Frenat, Kris de Valle, Astrobrant2, JayUtah are covering the www for the last decade, they comment on everything related to Apollo.
They aren't payed or hired by NASA, so  they claim and have changed their avatar names occasionally and admit to use many sock puppets also.
They say (when confronted) they are simply amature astronomers acting out of admiration and love for the USA and NASA and their achievements.

How stupid would one be to believe that, knowing they've spend thousends of hours online to defend NASA whenever possible.
Only a payed shills would do that.........not some amature enthousiast.
Because it is impossible for someone to read and comment on a subject that is interesting to them, right?  ::) Please prove I've spent thousands of hours specifically to defend NASA or that it is significant when most of my time is simply reading for entertainment.  Thanks for providing that by the way.  I honestly can't think of a time I've spent JUST looking at forums to comment on them.  Usually I'm working on something else and this is in the background or I'm watching TV and this is in the background.  Please show where I've changed my avatar name or admitted to using sockpuppets.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 08:51:32 AM by frenat »

Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #231 on: August 14, 2017, 08:44:46 AM »
If you wouldn't be such an indoctrinated sheep you would try to listen.

Ah yes! Insults! Keep'm comming!

I will brake it down real simple.

1 I have researched the moonlandings for i think about 5 years
2 I couldn't believe there were real people dumb enough to doubt the greatest achievement of mankind
3 I read chapters in the books of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Renee that started a process.
4 I watched all Jarrah White's video's about the moonlandings and read the counter arguments at the Clavius forum (pro NASA)
5 I started to look for every interview in papers and online footage made by astronauts and NASA insiders.
6 It became clear there were huge discrepancies in the official storyline
7 I read about how scientists and rocket engeneres envisioned spacetravel in the fifties and how extremely different it was when Apollo became reality.
8 I started to read about an ongoing rehabilitation program for Nazi's in the USA that lasted until the nineties and the heavy involvement from NASA.
9 I learned between the connection of Walt Disney and NASA (Werner Von Braun)

10 I started to examine the photographs and original video from the moon
11 I learned about that episode in American history...the Kennedy legacy, the cold war, and riots on home soil.
12 during the nineties NASA has repaired a lot of mistakes of the past concerning the Apollo missions.

Cool story bro!

You know, i have plenty of knowledge on greek mythology and others, i could talk to you hours and hours about it, but in the end, all that knowledge isn't proof of the existence of Zeus.

All you say is that "i've read this, i've read that, 've learnt about this, i discovered that wich this guy said" but in the end all that isn't a proof of fakery, just you have to demonstrate with proof and logical arguments, not with just "i read this wich implies...".

My argument: "Don't make an argument that you can't prove" comes from the fact that everytime you have been asked to prove something, you fail to, you just say "but this video says..." and that's all. Heck! You have a complete post made specially for you to post all of your proof that demonstrates that NASA lies, and you have yet to do so, i mean, if it is true that you have 5 years into this conspiracy debunkery, where are all these photos that you have examined? I believe you would've found somenthing that prove them fake with a solid explanation as to why by now.

You could say "i belive this is fake, but still don't have a complete explanation for it" and that would be ok (for me at least). But instead, you write in such way ("this is like that, sorry can't prove it. have to go to a party!") that damages your image (that is, if you still want people to take you serious and believe you when you find and explain your defintive proof) (not asking you to be a saint neither, you can have your funny conversations if you still want them)

After a few years in a fascinating personal journey it became so obvious that it was all a hoax during the Vietnam war and president Nixon in charge.
An heroic story to boast the USA in rough times and fullfill the ''prophecy'' of Kennedy just before the decade was over.
Then the house of cards was coming down real fast.
Each and every evidence of the moonlandings proved the opposite to me.....

I have been very, very cautious for years to dismiss the moonlandings and did take the subject way more serious than many believers and even astronauts who make a mockery of themselves and the tax payer, or are extremely lazy when it comes to the details.

What was it you wanted to discuss about the moonlandings and/or NASA ? Please specify !

Oh honey! This is where things get interesting you see, my belief that the Earth is more likely to be round than flat doesn't comes from NASA, but apparently your belief on the FET comes from your distrust on NASA and a very unlikely conspiracy.

I have never asked you about the moonlanding, not once i believe. All i have asked in this site is for people (not just you) to back their claims (at least with a logical argument), not to keep saying the same thing over and over like a broken record, this leads to nowhere.

So dutchy, do you have a moonlanding picture with a logical explanation that demonstrates that NASA faked the moonlanding? If so, post it here (or in the post i mentioned bfore), just one and explain why it demonstrates your point by making a constrast on NASA's data specs and why said specs are wrong and are not represented in the end result (photo)

You have about 5 years into this and have read plenty on this stuff, it should be easy for you to do so by now.

If not, then i believe you already know my answer. Until that, I will be waiting for your proof when you already find it.

And by the way, Simba is Swahili for Leon (Lion in spanish), put it backwars and you got my name  ;)
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 08:50:51 AM by simba »

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 37860
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #232 on: August 14, 2017, 08:59:56 AM »
You guys would make PL's poop so much easier to clean up if you didn't reply to it EVERY TIME  >:(

Anyway, I think I've got the worst of his diarrhea cleaned up. If you see something that needs to be removed (such as if it has actual personal information, etc) let me know. You can always send me a message with a link to the problem post, that makes it easier to find since people report lots of posts and many of them aren't even breaking the rules. 
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Here to laugh at you

  • 1727
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #233 on: August 14, 2017, 09:32:01 AM »
You guys would make PL's poop so much easier to clean up if you didn't reply to it EVERY TIME  >:(

Anyway, I think I've got the worst of his diarrhea cleaned up. If you see something that needs to be removed (such as if it has actual personal information, etc) let me know. You can always send me a message with a link to the problem post, that makes it easier to find since people report lots of posts and many of them aren't even breaking the rules.

Thank you... This was getting out of hand...

...and that's coming from ME, an admitted troll!
Yes, you

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #234 on: August 14, 2017, 10:09:37 AM »
Really? ALWAYS the first?  Bet you can't prove that.
I confronted you with it on numerous occasions. the moment I posted something about the moonlandings,....it took a brief moment for frenat to reply......althaugh i live in the Netherlands and post at very different times. I thought it was a remarkable feat to reply that fast on so many different occasions

Here is a list where your avatar name showed up....there were much more....I knew you were all over the internet defending Apollo, but it is much worse, much worse.
It contains forums, articles etc.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?members/frenat.55123/recent-content

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/84783-moon-landing-was-fake/

https://ronabbass.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/moon-landing-hoax-nasa-unwittingly-reveals-van-allen-radiation-belts-prohibit-human-spaceflight-2min-vid-incl/

https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/40921-apollohoax-net/1147-van-allen-on-space-radiation

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4560&st=60

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/881/moon-landings-fact-fiction?page=37

http://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/randi-JREF-revisionism-pseudo-skeptic-3.html

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1146343

It took me 20 minutes. Then i started to read and fuck me....it is you frenat,....each and every time

I sadly realise i have to do with a person extremely obsessed with DEFENDING Apollo.
My God you have posted 934 specific posts over at the David Icke forums
You know, the guy who believes the queen of England is a shapeshifting lizard from Niburu.What were you doing there frenat and what are you doing here and at every thinkable forum that contains a specific Apollo/moonlanding topic ?

You are either mentally ill and obsessed with Apollo or a thick payed shill.

My god you do scare me and you make me angree also,....you are  far worse than your space amature avatar outlook.
This place becomes stranger by the minute........
I really have to reconsider my position the coming days and fear for some sort of retaliation coming my way.

You are really sick frenat,.....or a payed shill, i don't know what i fear more.....i believe it is the latter.
I won't go over any details with you about Apollo after you make clear what and who you really are and what your purpose is over here.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 10:19:57 AM by dutchy »

*

sokarul

  • 15301
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #235 on: August 14, 2017, 10:16:06 AM »
When your ideas are so shit you have to claim everyone is a paid shill.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #236 on: August 14, 2017, 10:21:36 AM »
When your ideas are so shit you have to claim everyone is a paid shill.
Do you think frenat's behaviour as clearly shown is behaviour for a normal functioning human being ?
Have you clicked on the links,....frenat is a madman obsessed about defending Apollo all over the www.
You think that is normal behaviour or simply a hobby ?

*

Jugemu no Chosuke

  • 17
  • Churrasqueira de controle remoto.
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #237 on: August 14, 2017, 10:23:11 AM »
Half of us work for NASA, so he's right.
Now you're breathing manually

*

Denspressure

  • 1561
  • Yolch
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #238 on: August 14, 2017, 10:23:38 AM »
Its a hobby of mine to post Apollo data online, I have been doing so for a while and I am currently working on two projects that are recovering Apollo live footage.

I am quite active online about Apollo too.

Am I getting paid for all my work? nope! I do it for fun.
.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why Would NASA Lie About The Shape Of Earth?
« Reply #239 on: August 14, 2017, 10:27:41 AM »
I received an official warning for my post that showed what frenat is doing all over the www.
It is against the rules.....wazzzzzzz

Who is in charge of this place........it is sinister as hell,....that's for sure.