The question for all flatinos, particulary Dutchy, is why have NASA never gone for the really spectacular manned Mars landing fakery? And why do they always mess up when they are faking? Dutchy knows all there is to know about NASA.....so what makes them so crap at fakery?
Thank you for your compliments
What i know is that we can only see in hindsight what NASA did on certain occasions like the Apollo moon film and photographs.
Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...a masterpiece of Paramount pictures.
''Star Wars'' was also as real as it gets...particularly ''return of the Jedi'' ...and of course ''raiders of the lost ark'' untill ''Jurassic Park took it to a whole new level because of advanced CGI''.
But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.
My eldest sons (23 and 25 years of age) always complain about subpar special effects in older movies and obvious CGI, whereas i used to be way less critical...
No one can predict how a future generation looks at illusions and fakery of any kind.
Back to Apollo and NASA.
ApolloDuring those days it was the very best , beyond what anyone had seen in the movie industry.
But looking at the ''rendezvouz'' in space between the CM and LM , it is lacking compared to modern cgi in a Hollywood SF movie.
Top photograhers see what's terribly wrong with the Apollo pictures,....the total amount was only presented to the general public in the nineties, so NASA could have used much better techniques to update some of the ''originals'' and create ''new'' ''moon'' photographs.
The unparallel shadows, vague shadow edges, wrong shadow length, obvious backdrop lines, the same back drop, backdrops that look exactly like mountains on Hawai and much more......
Also very typical is that the movement of humans in 1/6 gravity looks like film slow motion instead of an unknown way of moving around in 1/6 gravity.
Why do we assume that's the way humans move around in 1/6 gravity ? Strange indeed.
Circular reasoning.....''moving around on the moon looks like film slow motion, because when you move around on the moon it looks like film slow motion''
NASA fakes the Apollo film, we assume it's real, therefor people move around like a film that is slowed down considerably and speed up a tiny bit to add to the confusion.
The debunkers always claim it is those magic ''moon conditions'' why things look like a studio set up, slow motion film and more....
Having read most of the so called ''debunkers'' material out there it becomes obvious.
Hand over any goofy placebo moon picture and the debunkers can magically put some ''moon condition powder'' on top...and voila it is a real genuine moon photograph that everyone can ''see'' was taken on the moon.
Mars roverHaving read all sorts of material about future mars missions in the seventies/eightties when I was still a believer of the round earth and space missions it was claimed that any device that would have any chance of safely landing on mars should have up to a kilometer wide parachute to make it happen without crashing.
When i saw the ''dinky toy'' that Adam Stelzner & co presented to solve this problem it couldn't be more obvious.
F...K are people really that gullible ?
It seems they are, because this Adam Stelzner didn't know in what format the mars rover sends the imagery back to earth.
As a team leader he is unaware of the very fundamentals what makes us ''see' the mars surface in the first place.
I have never heard of a similar lack of understanding ever about the most important detail of the rover's mission....send pictures back to earth so we can ''see'' what's out there.
Furthermore a closer look at Devon Island (more places on earth) reveal that it only takes a red filter and some ''theatre props'' to create a very convincing mars landscape.....
Funny isn't it that everyone believes mars is very earth like but a bit reddish ? Who would have thought ?
Let them go to a place that looks very different from earth, but we only receive CGI from a distant fly by and real alien places....never some real HD camera work.....
And mars like i said...it's just like earth only with a red filter....how convinient
And since everyone agrees about the way mars looks..it's extremely easy to fake and could easily been done in Green Land, Devon Island and some studio editing / CGI
But NASA believers suffer from a severe form of circular reasoning.
''NASA claims that mars looks very earth like, therefor mars looks very earth like''
But again,.... what if mars looks really nothing like earth at all, beyond any imagination of whatever SF writer...then things become really interresting.
But the circular reasoning in this one is strong...so untill people want to ciritsize this my comments are futile.
But i think NASA perfectly understands how much more critical the general public has become and we won't see any manned mission to whatever celestial body, because NASA is under a magnifying glass like never before in it's entire history.
One mistake and they will be ''massacred'' in no time.
So they keep it simple....show the general public CGI only, claim that distances are to far to discern for a conventional camera that mimicks the eye and let the mars rover do it's usuall stuff, because people have allready accepted the way mars looks.
Throw in some fancy remarks about ''water on mars'' and even better ''indications for life....whoehoe
'' and you can strech the expeditions for a couple of years.
I really wonder when Orion tells the general public that they have solved the hazards of the Van Allan radiation Belts for modern equipment that is way more delicate than those spartan relays of the sixties
Shouldn't it be about time they anounce that they solved this minor problem ??
I will pause here ....maybe i will comment on the ISS later