Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?

Cheers Rab.

the internet

See what always happens when talking to rabinoz?
I did not comment on anything specific about a student and his understanding of cosmic camera’s or whatever you fantasised...in YOUR video example....

I was talking about the fact that no one really knows about the hardware device ‘running’ circles around earth called the Hubble telescope and in a very long phonecall that became quite obvious in the video i saw ( don’t know your example because i never look into any video you present) the man in charge of Hubble does not know many things about the device itself..... the hardware in orbit you know...
Not the spreadsheet telling him what the Hubble is capable of in lalalaland that i can read too.
You, me no one knows if another ‘earthly’ telescope is responsable for ‘Hubble’ data instead of the spinning tincan.
So you evil man, i was not implying anything about different camera’s that you feel as a sort of victory.
I was implying that the specs of Hubble are easy to understand, but is Hubble a real device orbiting earth and does the data come from somewhere else instead of this tincan orbiting earth ?

Unbelievable how you rabinoz despite my warnings keep taking my posts out of context instead of asking me what i meant with a certain quote.

And those claims that ‘i don’t understand how it works’..... laughable because the online explainations are very easy to understand even for an uneducated person.
How different wavelenghts recorded in infrared or ultraviolet can be made ‘visible’ through photoshop.
But you are so blind that you think i do not understand such a page clearly explaning how it is done....
Everything you know about Hubble is what i know too..... you rwad it on the internet.
And you dare to claim your understanding of Hubble is vastly superiour than mine.

You are a retired electrician.... we are on level grounds here....

Quote from: dutchy on January 21, 2019, 05:07:34 AM

See what always happens when talking to rabinoz?
I did not comment on anything specific about a student and his understanding of cosmic camera’s or whatever you fantasised...in YOUR video example....

I was talking about the fact that no one really knows about the hardware device ‘running’ circles around earth called the Hubble telescope and in a very long phonecall that became quite obvious in the video i saw ( don’t know your example because i never look into any video you present) the man in charge of Hubble does not know many things about the device itself..... the hardware in orbit you know...
Not the spreadsheet telling him what the Hubble is capable of in lalalaland that i can read too.
You, me no one knows if another ‘earthly’ telescope is responsable for ‘Hubble’ data instead of the spinning tincan.
So you evil man, i was not implying anything about different camera’s that you feel as a sort of victory.
I was implying that the specs of Hubble are easy to understand, but is Hubble a real device orbiting earth and does the data come from somewhere else instead of this tincan orbiting earth ?

Unbelievable how you rabinoz despite my warnings keep taking my posts out of context instead of asking me what i meant with a certain quote.

And those claims that ‘i don’t understand how it works’..... laughable because the online explainations are very easy to understand even for an uneducated person.
How different wavelenghts recorded in infrared or ultraviolet can be made ‘visible’ through photoshop.
But you are so blind that you think i do not understand such a page clearly explaning how it is done....
Everything you know about Hubble is what i know too..... you rwad it on the internet.
And you dare to claim your understanding of Hubble is vastly superiour than mine.

You are a retired electrician.... we are on level grounds here....

If not the phone conversation Rab linked, then which one?

This is the problem with vaguely talking about something you allege is “proven”, without referencing it.  We are left to guess where the hell your claims are coming from.  In this case I assumed Rab knew from another conversation.

Feel free to provide a link for your actual evidence.

I never claimed my knowledge of Hubble is vastly superior.  I only respond to what you write.  If I think it’s incorrect, I will disagree.

First you say that displaying images of UV or IR wavelengths is “fakery”, so I point out that is nonsense because people need to need to actually be able to see the results or there’s no point.

Then you say the problem is that we can’t see the raw data used to create composite or false color images, so I link to the site where you can download the raw data for the image you posted.

Then you question whether that really came from Hubble or SOFIA, and the aforementioned phone call.

It’s not my fault if the basis of your argument keeps changing with every post.

Although, since you bring it up, I am not a retired electrician.  I’m a mechanical design engineer.  Incidentally I’ve spent the last 6 years working on optical spectrometers, so I do know a bit about the principles.

When i was talking about bringing back wavelengths far outside the visual spectrum into a computer image we can see and marvel about, i called it fakery.
And i meant it in the sense of ‘manipulating data in favour of a preferred outcome’
What you and rabinoz wrongly concluded is that those dealing with raw data from wavelenghts outside the visible spectrum make things up as they go....
I never assumed anything of the sorts !
I said that you simply cannot make wavelengths visual that are outside our visible spectrum in the first place. In order to do that you need to fake/manipulate the real lenght of certain waves so we can see them.

If i would make a sound over 20.000 Hz audible so the general public gets an idea about this sound.
Then i have to pitch it back into our audible spectrum, otherwise we cannot hear it.
But then the true pitch of the intial sound over 20.000 Hz is replaced with a placebo sound we can hear.
We sometimes hear the low frequency rumble of planets in such hypothetical examples.
In reality the frequencies we picked up are below 20Hz so we cannot hear them .
But in certain docu’s animations they make the sound audible.. so we get this idea what a ultra low rumbling sounds like.

But in the end it is fakery,.... not to mislead on purpose, but to replace wavelengths wiith substitutes that have nothing in common with the initial wavelength.

What is so fucking hard to understand about this simple observation ?

Wow your ignorance is priceless.
As if one click on google does not reveal some guy photo shopping the universe with some raw data.

But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ?
Or elswhere ?

Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.

Quote from: dutchy on January 20, 2019, 11:27:30 PM

Wow your ignorance is priceless.
As if one click on google does not reveal some guy photo shopping the universe with some raw data.

But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ?
Or elswhere ?

Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.

Taking a stance on pure ignorance, as in your case, is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la la ......I keep saying to you that there are plenty of ground based telescopes that do exactly what Hubble does only better, as tech has moved a long way since Hubble was designed.  Are you gong to say all the professional ground based images plus the   thousands  taken by keen amateurs are also fakery.

Your a lost cause.

Quote from: dutchy on January 21, 2019, 07:31:43 AM

When i was talking about bringing back wavelengths far outside the visual spectrum into a computer image we can see and marvel about, i called it fakery.
And i meant it in the sense of ‘manipulating data in favour of a preferred outcome’
What you and rabinoz wrongly concluded is that those dealing with raw data from wavelenghts outside the visible spectrum make things up as they go....
I never assumed anything of the sorts !
I said that you simply cannot make wavelengths visual that are outside our visible spectrum in the first place. In order to do that you need to fake/manipulate the real lenght of certain waves so we can see them.

If i would make a sound over 20.000 Hz audible so the general public gets an idea about this sound.
Then i have to pitch it back into our audible spectrum, otherwise we cannot hear it.
But then the true pitch of the intial sound over 20.000 Hz is replaced with a placebo sound we can hear.
We sometimes hear the low frequency rumble of planets in such hypothetical examples.
In reality the frequencies we picked up are below 20Hz so we cannot hear them .
But in certain docu’s animations they make the sound audible.. so we get this idea what a ultra low rumbling sounds like.

But in the end it is fakery,.... not to mislead on purpose, but to replace wavelengths wiith substitutes that have nothing in common with the initial wavelength.

What is so fucking hard to understand about this simple observation ?

Because a “fake” is a counterfeit or forgery.  It’s intended to deceive people.

Where’s representing different wavelengths with visible colours is way to impart information.

I might think that it was just semantics or a language barrier, except that “NASA fakes space shit” is pretty much your whole deal here.

See what always happens when talking to rabinoz?
I did not comment on anything specific about a student and his understanding of cosmic camera’s or whatever you fantasised...in YOUR video example....

Wow your ignorance is priceless.
As if one click on google does not reveal some guy photo shopping the universe with some raw data.

But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ?
Or elswhere ?

Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.

I was talking about the fact that no one really knows about the hardware device ‘running’ circles around earth called the Hubble telescope and in a very long phonecall that became quite obvious in the video i saw ( don’t know your example because i never look into any video you present) the man in charge of Hubble does not know many things about the device itself..... the hardware in orbit you know...

Not the spreadsheet telling him what the Hubble is capable of in lalalaland that i can read too.
You, me no one knows if another ‘earthly’ telescope is responsable for ‘Hubble’ data instead of the spinning tincan.

So you evil man, i was not implying anything about different camera’s that you feel as a sort of victory.
I was implying that the specs of Hubble are easy to understand, but is Hubble a real device orbiting earth and does the data come from somewhere else instead of this tincan orbiting earth ?

Unbelievable how you rabinoz despite my warnings keep taking my posts out of context instead of asking me what i meant with a certain quote.

But where did this data come from Hubble or Sofia science centre on a boeing 747 ? Or elswhere ?

Ahhh google says it is Hubble data, must be from that tincan in outerspace then....
You know absolutely nothing about Hubble.... no one really does as proven by a university student in an in dept phone call with those currently involved with Hubble.

And those claims that ‘i don’t understand how it works’..... laughable because the online explainations are very easy to understand even for an uneducated person.
How different wavelenghts recorded in infrared or ultraviolet can be made ‘visible’ through photoshop.

But you are so blind that you think i do not understand such a page clearly explaning how it is done....
Everything you know about Hubble is what i know too..... you rwad it on the internet.
And you dare to claim your understanding of Hubble is vastly superiour than mine.

You are a retired electrician.... we are on level grounds here....

Please answer me two simple questions....nothing more nothing less.

1 How do you know the raw data from ''Hubble'' was gathered from a device flying in orbit ?
2 Could there be a possibilty that the raw data was gathered in another way than from a device outside earth's atmosphere ?

That's all i ask, instead you are continiously ridiculing me of ignorance about wavelengths..i only ridicule you because of your unwillingness to answer this very clear question that has nothing to do with how much i know about wavelengths or not.....

I will be very thankfull if you make an exception and simply answer the questions, instead of yet another outrage about my ignorance....
So 1 and 2...can't be that hard can it ?

Quote from: dutchy on January 21, 2019, 01:37:29 PM

Please answer me two simple questions....nothing more nothing less.

1 How do you know the raw data from ''Hubble'' was gathered from a device flying in orbit ?
2 Could there be a possibilty that the raw data was gathered in another way than from a device outside earth's atmosphere ?

That's all i ask, instead you are continiously ridiculing me of ignorance about wavelengths..i only ridicule you because of your unwillingness to answer this very clear question that has nothing to do with how much i know about wavelengths or not.....

I will be very thankfull if you make an exception and simply answer the questions, instead of yet another outrage about my ignorance....
So 1 and 2...can't be that hard can it ?

You should be contacting the people that launched Hubble and ask them, not random people here.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 21, 2019, 01:39:48 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 21, 2019, 01:37:29 PM

Please answer me two simple questions....nothing more nothing less.

1 How do you know the raw data from ''Hubble'' was gathered from a device flying in orbit ?
2 Could there be a possibilty that the raw data was gathered in another way than from a device outside earth's atmosphere ?

That's all i ask, instead you are continiously ridiculing me of ignorance about wavelengths..i only ridicule you because of your unwillingness to answer this very clear question that has nothing to do with how much i know about wavelengths or not.....

I will be very thankfull if you make an exception and simply answer the questions, instead of yet another outrage about my ignorance....
So 1 and 2...can't be that hard can it ?

You should be contacting the people that launched Hubble and ask them, not random people here.

Why can't you answer the questions ? Are you implying you believe in the capacity of Hubble, because those who launched Hubble claim so ?

NASA PROJECT MANAGER ADMITS THAT HE HAS NEVER SEEN THE HUBBLE IN REAL TIME IN 25 YEARS AND THIS IS THE DEPUTY MANAGER.....

So rabinoz, this is the video i was talking about !

...
When i was talking about bringing back wavelengths far outside the visual spectrum into a computer image we can see and marvel about, i called it fakery.
And i meant it in the sense of ‘manipulating data in favour of a preferred outcome’
What you and rabinoz wrongly concluded is that those dealing with raw data from wavelenghts outside the visible spectrum make things up as they go....
I never assumed anything of the sorts !
I said that you simply cannot make wavelengths visual that are outside our visible spectrum in the first place. In order to do that you need to fake/manipulate the real lenght of certain waves so we can see them.

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 21, 2019, 08:23:21 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 21, 2019, 07:31:43 AM

When i was talking about bringing back wavelengths far outside the visual spectrum into a computer image we can see and marvel about, i called it fakery.
And i meant it in the sense of ‘manipulating data in favour of a preferred outcome’
What you and rabinoz wrongly concluded is that those dealing with raw data from wavelenghts outside the visible spectrum make things up as they go....
I never assumed anything of the sorts !
I said that you simply cannot make wavelengths visual that are outside our visible spectrum in the first place. In order to do that you need to fake/manipulate the real lenght of certain waves so we can see them.

If i would make a sound over 20.000 Hz audible so the general public gets an idea about this sound.
Then i have to pitch it back into our audible spectrum, otherwise we cannot hear it.
But then the true pitch of the intial sound over 20.000 Hz is replaced with a placebo sound we can hear.
We sometimes hear the low frequency rumble of planets in such hypothetical examples.
In reality the frequencies we picked up are below 20Hz so we cannot hear them .
But in certain docu’s animations they make the sound audible.. so we get this idea what a ultra low rumbling sounds like.

But in the end it is fakery,.... not to mislead on purpose, but to replace wavelengths wiith substitutes that have nothing in common with the initial wavelength.

What is so fucking hard to understand about this simple observation ?

Because a “fake” is a counterfeit or forgery.  It’s intended to deceive people.

Where’s representing different wavelengths with visible colours is way to impart information.

I might think that it was just semantics or a language barrier, except that “NASA fakes space shit” is pretty much your whole deal here.

I think you are right the use of ‘fakery’ could lead to misinterpretations.
But i made it absolute clear what i meant by it.....

And looking at most of Hubble’s glossies from far away galaxies, nebula’s , early universe is to far away from the raw data, that i call it fakery.

NASA PROJECT MANAGER ADMITS THAT HE HAS NEVER SEEN THE HUBBLE IN REAL TIME IN 25 YEARS AND THIS IS THE DEPUTY MANAGER.....

NASA PROJECT MANAGER ADMITS THAT HE HAS NEVER SEEN THE HUBBLE IN REAL TIME IN 25 YEARS AND THIS IS THE DEPUTY MANAGER.....

So rabinoz RABinOZ, this is the video i was talking about !

• Why didn't you show that before?
• I'm not going to wade through 55 minutes to hunt for more out-of-context quotes.
  So exactly where and in exactly what words did "NASA ADMITS NO HUBBLE ITS FAKE"?
  

Here's some enough ammunition to keep our misinformation lover busy for weeks: Aplanetruth.info, The Hubble Telescope Hoax.

Quote from: dutchy on January 21, 2019, 01:43:09 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 21, 2019, 01:39:48 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 21, 2019, 01:37:29 PM

Please answer me two simple questions....nothing more nothing less.

1 How do you know the raw data from ''Hubble'' was gathered from a device flying in orbit ?
2 Could there be a possibilty that the raw data was gathered in another way than from a device outside earth's atmosphere ?

That's all i ask, instead you are continiously ridiculing me of ignorance about wavelengths..i only ridicule you because of your unwillingness to answer this very clear question that has nothing to do with how much i know about wavelengths or not.....

I will be very thankfull if you make an exception and simply answer the questions, instead of yet another outrage about my ignorance....
So 1 and 2...can't be that hard can it ?

You should be contacting the people that launched Hubble and ask them, not random people here.

Why can't you answer the questions ? Are you implying you believe in the capacity of Hubble, because those who launched Hubble claim so ?

Instead of trying to generate a discussion with unknown people you should be discussing with directly with the Hubble people.

If you seek the truth there is a contact us at http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hubble_essentials/

Please let us know what they say.

Well i did present a video from a person who did  CONTACT HUBBLE and ask about the Hubble telescope.

My only remarks about that video was that those currently at work involved with the Hubble have not seen it and like you and me presume it’s out there because of certain data they believe comes from the Hubble telescope.
Nothing more nothing less....

But here is your comment :
Hell no!  This is a fucking lie.  Why are you posting videos from liars, dutchy?

Did the personell SEE the Hubble themselves once ?
Answer.... no

Nobody really knows if there is a tincan out there..... like the rest they all assume because somebody claims certain data comes from that tincan in space.

You picked up the tactics from rabinoz and lonegranger pretty fast....
Do not read a reply properly and jump to the wrong conclusions !

Quote from: rabinoz on January 21, 2019, 09:34:11 PM

Here's some enough ammunition to keep our misinformation lover busy for weeks: Aplanetruth.info, The Hubble Telescope Hoax.

Did you notice the first comment?

Yikes!

Backstory
Every single story and picture from space has always come from one source since space flight was began: NASA.

• why no stars in the photos?,
• the high thermosphere temperatures even though there's virtually no air to heat anything,
• atmospheric refraction even though there's virtually no air to cause refraction and
• questions the pointing accuracy because he's too dumb to understand it.

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 21, 2019, 10:20:23 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 21, 2019, 09:34:11 PM

Here's some enough ammunition to keep our misinformation lover busy for weeks: Aplanetruth.info, The Hubble Telescope Hoax.

Did you notice the first comment?

Yikes!

Do you mean his bald-faced lie,

Quote from: Eric Dubay

Backstory
Every single story and picture from space has always come from one source since space flight was began: NASA.