Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?

  • 115 Replies
  • 1727 Views
?

Lonegranger

  • 3642
  • Chair of the stop John Davis telling lies alliance
Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« on: January 13, 2019, 03:34:30 AM »
All FE believers to a man/woman will claim the moon landings were a big hoax, pretty spectacular but a hoax none the less.


While NASA have done some stuff like Hubble, though why they chose to include in this piece of fakery a big mess up with the main mirror is a bit of a mystery!  I would have thought that the whole point in faking stuff is that you have complete control!  Just last week, according to FE believe NASA decided to fake problems with the main gyros and a system that controls the main camera?....why they decided to fake all these things is a mystery.......


......However, assuming for a moment NASA is big into faking, why have they never done something really big? Why did they let the Chinese fake the dark side moon landing first.


Why havenít NASA at least faked landing on Mars? The technology we have, all that cool CGI, why donít they do it? All they do is release mundane films of female astronauts with their hair floating around in zero g on the ISS, now thatís just plain boring....and why do they constantly make basic errors in filming their fake videos that flatinos pour over, examining every frame in detail, using their zero g expertise to point out all the mistakes.  Even fairly dim flatinos with limited intellectual ability appears to be able to find all the errors. Though how flatinos know about zero g is a bit of a mystery given they have zero experience of it and donít actually believe in it in the first place!


The ISS is a bit of a funny one. The thing is people can see it. Iíve seen it. I was on an Astro photography trip last year with my cool new A7R3 with 24mm f1.4, ok Sony did mess up with earlier firmware in the A7R2 making Astro shots not good, but they have now fixed it.......the guy who was running the course chose this location in Wales on that precise day as the ISS was to do a zoom by over our location.


He got some really cool time lapse images of the zoom by, but the thing is I seen it with my own eyes, itís there, itís not a fake. I would have thought if they were going to fake it, they would have made it a bit more spectacular, possibly bigger with  fins or a bit sexy looking like the Nostromo, now that would be cool. Instead they make the ISS look like itís made from left over bits from a childís construction kit! Not good.


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?
Our aim is to rid the world of those who find turd polishing fun.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 14339
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2019, 03:57:13 AM »

Why did they let the Chinese fake the dark side moon landing first.

All that you touch
And all that you see
All that you taste
All you feel

And all that you love
And all that you hate
All you distrust
All you save

And all that you give
And all that you deal
And all that you buy,
Beg, borrow or steal

And all you create
And all you destroy
And all that you do
And all that you say

And all that you eat
And everyone you meet
And all that you slight
And everyone you fight

And all that is now
And all that is gone
And all that's to come
And everything under the sun is in tune
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon.

There is no dark side of the moon, really.
Matter of fact, it's all dark.

?

Lonegranger

  • 3642
  • Chair of the stop John Davis telling lies alliance
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2019, 04:04:06 AM »

Why did they let the Chinese fake the dark side moon landing first.

All that you touch
And all that you see
All that you taste
All you feel

And all that you love
And all that you hate
All you distrust
All you save

And all that you give
And all that you deal
And all that you buy,
Beg, borrow or steal

And all you create
And all you destroy
And all that you do
And all that you say

And all that you eat
And everyone you meet
And all that you slight
And everyone you fight

And all that is now
And all that is gone
And all that's to come
And everything under the sun is in tune
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon.

There is no dark side of the moon, really.
Matter of fact, it's all dark.


While itís a great album, I have always preferred Ď wish you were hereí. Though on this instance itís more like;


I wish you werenít here.


Deflections aside......Back to the Original question..........
Our aim is to rid the world of those who find turd polishing fun.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 14339
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2019, 05:22:39 AM »

dark side of the moon

While itís a great album, I have always preferred Ď wish you were hereí.

Wish You Were Here is an awesome album.
Not actually relevant to the conversation though.



I wish you werenít here.

Oh, longranger, you try so hard.   ;D




*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 10214
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2019, 05:32:27 AM »
China didn't land anything on the dark side of the Moon. If you'd like to say they did, then so did the US. The whole thing is dark just as often as it is light.

NASA does claim to have landed things on Mars. More than once, in fact.

Conflict and drama drive stories, meaning more interest from more viewers. And having to fix a very expensive problem is a great way to justify asking for money.
Your future will be filled with multi-legged scavengers, no bigger than a clenched fist.

?

Lonegranger

  • 3642
  • Chair of the stop John Davis telling lies alliance
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2019, 06:08:48 AM »

dark side of the moon

While itís a great album, I have always preferred Ď wish you were hereí.

Wish You Were Here is an awesome album.
Not actually relevant to the conversation though.



I wish you werenít here.

Oh, longranger, you try so hard.   ;D


No need to try when your around as you make it so easy.......So Ďtake it easyí



Our aim is to rid the world of those who find turd polishing fun.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2019, 08:16:43 AM »
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.

Apollo
During 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 rover
Having 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  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
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
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 08:34:39 AM by dutchy »

*

Here to laugh at you

  • 1724
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2019, 08:31:48 AM »
....maybe i will comment on the ISS later

The entire globe awaits your paranoid comments!

Have you downloaded a tracking app yet?
Yes, you

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2019, 08:35:11 AM »
....maybe i will comment on the ISS later

The entire globe awaits your paranoid comments!

Have you downloaded a tracking app yet?
I am simply the best !! ;D

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2019, 08:55:31 AM »
Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Of course it did..



Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2019, 10:06:05 AM »

China didn't land anything on the dark side of the Moon. If you'd like to say they did, then so did the US. The whole thing is dark just as often as it is light.


A thing called metaphor exists. In the 19th century, Africa was commonly referred to as "the dark continent" by Europeans because of it was mysterious to and unexplored by them. The dark side of the moon is the same ... unseen by any human in history until the first lunar orbital photographs. The phrase has nothing to do with actual lighting conditions. And, as "the dark continent" became an archaic and quaint phrase when it no longer had the same context, so may "the dark side of the moon." Doesn't mean that it is an incorrect phrase. Correcting it is just attempting superiority by pedantry.

*

Here to laugh at you

  • 1724
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2019, 12:12:54 PM »
Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Of course it did..




No, it certainly did NOT look real!

Yes, you

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2019, 12:29:21 PM »
Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Of course it did..



No, it certainly did NOT look real!

Well dutchy thinks it was real.

It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2019, 12:34:05 PM »
Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Of course it did..



No, it certainly did NOT look real!

Well dutchy thinks it was real.

It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.
No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !
I said it looked ''real'' for the people in 1956, just as the moonlandings looked real in 1969, but in hindsight we know better now.

In 1957, the film was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, winning the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects

So please re-read my post if you dare to comment again with your faulty way of interpreting my post.
I am answering the OP the best way possible and your replies give me a mild form of obstipation...  :P

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2019, 12:47:00 PM »
It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.

No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !

Well, let's see:

... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 10214
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2019, 02:31:00 PM »

China didn't land anything on the dark side of the Moon. If you'd like to say they did, then so did the US. The whole thing is dark just as often as it is light.


A thing called metaphor exists. In the 19th century, Africa was commonly referred to as "the dark continent" by Europeans because of it was mysterious to and unexplored by them. The dark side of the moon is the same ... unseen by any human in history until the first lunar orbital photographs. The phrase has nothing to do with actual lighting conditions. And, as "the dark continent" became an archaic and quaint phrase when it no longer had the same context, so may "the dark side of the moon." Doesn't mean that it is an incorrect phrase. Correcting it is just attempting superiority by pedantry.

Your post assumes the OP knows the moon is actually lit on both sides. Had I directed my reply to you, I would have afforded you that assumption. But I'm not at all confident the OP understands the concept, so it seemed worth noting, especially given the other factual errors in the initial post.
Your future will be filled with multi-legged scavengers, no bigger than a clenched fist.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2019, 02:37:26 PM »
It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.

No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !

Well, let's see:

... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.
....the little section ended with...But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.
What year are we in ? Exactly in 2019 and all things i mentioned look fake now. Furthermore being born in 1967 i did not even saw most of the things i mentioned in their perspetive era's.
Do i really have to explain this to you ?

?

Lonegranger

  • 3642
  • Chair of the stop John Davis telling lies alliance
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2019, 02:54:04 PM »
It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.

No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !

Well, let's see:

... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.
....the little section ended with...But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.
What year are we in ? Exactly in 2019 and all things i mentioned look fake now. Furthermore being born in 1967 i did not even saw most of the things i mentioned in their perspetive era's.
Do i really have to explain this to you ?


Dutchy ...for all your words, youíve missed the point. What Iím saying is why have NASA never gone the big time and spectacular? If indeed itís all a fake. Given you say itís all a fake why have they included so many errors? Why do they employ so many people? If everything is CGI why the big workforce?
Our aim is to rid the world of those who find turd polishing fun.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2019, 03:30:59 PM »
Dutchy ...for all your words, youíve missed the point. What Iím saying is why have NASA never gone the big time and spectacular? If indeed itís all a fake. Given you say itís all a fake why have they included so many errors? Why do they employ so many people? If everything is CGI why the big workforce?
Isn't that obvious when you took the time to read my posts ? Probably not ,so let me elaborate some more.

When WW 2 ended the coldwar started immidiatly when the super powers tried to come on top.
The denazification of war criminals with deeply running disturbed convictions and ideologies didn't seem to bother anyone because there was a new agenda.
To spend as much money and manpower to be on top of the pack... or was there something even more sinister involved ?
Here a few quotes that underline this sinester agenda.

"It [the rocket] will free man from his remaining chains, the chains of gravity which still tie him to this planet. It will open to him the gates of heaven." Wernher von Braun
(it surely sounds like a new occult religion from a man in charge of killing thousends upon thousends... in fact it simply continues upon the very foundations of Nazism and their occult worldview)

"We believe that when men reach beyond this planet, they should leave their national differences behind them." President John F. Kennedy, 1962.
"We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.President John F. Kennedy
(this also sounds like new age propaganda, religion of some sorts and it fully by-passes any form of rationality that would immidiatly destroy such musings about ''world peace'' and space travel could be the beginning of something mankind never learned to do here on earth.....So yes take all the money you need, because spacetravel will do so much more than simply discovering space...it will open the gates of worldpeace and paradise)

"If I could get one message to you it would be this: the future of this country and the welfare of the free world depends upon our success in space. There is no room in this country for any but a fully cooperative, urgently motivated all-out effort toward space leadership. No one person, no one company, no one government agency, has a monopoly on the competence, the missions, or the requirements for the space program." President Lyndon B. Johnson
(again shut up, give all the needed money to the repsective space industry, because the welfare of the western world depends on it)

Like the atomic bomb, which was presented in an extremely positive way (miss mushroom election with girls dressed up in mushroom outfits as an alltime low...as i have seen in the original news papers and footage of those days)..spacetravel was presented as a cure for humanity and therefor any critical mind should strongly object towards this propaganda.

Before i continue i want you to think about this....madman have had some really disturbing views and it has nothing to do with dicovering space...it's so much more.
And therefor one understands why the fakery was important when things turned out to be very different.....they started something that looks like a new religion instead of unbiased neutral science.
O wait i am right.....
"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." Carl Sagan

Modern men refuse to see the dark powers involved in this new reality that started with the ''space race''...
« Last Edit: January 13, 2019, 03:47:27 PM by dutchy »

*

rabinoz

  • 18753
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2019, 06:40:55 PM »
Dutchy ...for all your words, youíve missed the point. What Iím saying is why have NASA never gone the big time and spectacular? If indeed itís all a fake. Given you say itís all a fake why have they included so many errors? Why do they employ so many people? If everything is CGI why the big workforce?
Isn't that obvious when you took the time to read my posts ? Probably not ,so let me elaborate some more.
Let's not! You've presented that story so often we almost know it by heart.

These "so many errors" that Lonegranger are the little things caused by video compression and signal fades, colours that you don't accept or lack of stars that ignorant people still raise.

Then we have the totally inane complaints about the different sizes of continents and "the clouds aren't moving".
And people still claim the the earth or moon look "the wrong size" in photos like those in: Flat Earth General / Re: NASA FAKE.
Most examples of NASA "fakery" are simply examples of flat-earthers' appalling ignorance about perspective and photography. 

BUT if NASA wanted or needed to "fake" anything they would hardly have built things the look "fake".

An obvious example is the lunar module, the LM.
Were that intended to fool people surely they would have put some simple fairing over it to make it look "streamlined" or like a "Real Spaceship ;D".

But no, NASA (or Grumman) were designing a functional vehicle to be as light as possible.

And if the photographs from space were fake don't you think that NASA or whoever is providing them (such as JMA for the one in my earlier post) have the ability to make them look right to earth bound people.

But what I find impossible to believe is that NASA (or some unnamed producer) could produce continuous videos in 1969-1972 of the lunar missions.
Apart from other points there were three slightly different versions of the Apollo 11 "first step":
        one broadcast in Eastern Australia direct from Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek via Sydney,
        one broadcast in WA direct from the Intelsat linking Sydney to the USA and
        the one broadcast to the rest of the world.
Did these film producers have the foresight to predict this and make three versions - codswallop!

Then lunar hoaxers some out with this total fakery to prop up their conspiracy!

Claimed Stanley Kubrick Confession To Faking The Moon Landings The Bases Project

Dutchy, I have to ask who the deceivers are here? Obviously they include the makers of thst total fabrication.

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2019, 06:03:11 AM »
It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.

No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !

Well, let's see:

... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.
....the little section ended with...But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.
What year are we in ? Exactly in 2019 and all things i mentioned look fake now. Furthermore being born in 1967 i did not even saw most of the things i mentioned in their perspetive era's.
Do i really have to explain this to you ?

It's okay, I think I get it.

What you're saying is that had you been around in 1956 then you would have believed that Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea. And had you been old enough in 1969 you would have believed the moon landings.

Is that correct?

*

Here to laugh at you

  • 1724
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2019, 07:12:47 AM »
And he's still looking for a car that changes into a robot...
Yes, you

Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2019, 08:02:19 AM »

''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''.

The Rancor in Jabbaís palace was obviously blue screen.  I always thought it was dodgy, even seeing it the first time as a child.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2019, 08:22:27 AM »
It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.

No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !

Well, let's see:

... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.
....the little section ended with...But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.
What year are we in ? Exactly in 2019 and all things i mentioned look fake now. Furthermore being born in 1967 i did not even saw most of the things i mentioned in their perspetive era's.
Do i really have to explain this to you ?

It's okay, I think I get it.

What you're saying is that had you been around in 1956 then you would have believed that Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea. And had you been old enough in 1969 you would have believed the moon landings.

Is that correct?
Yes that is correct !

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2019, 08:25:11 AM »
And he's still looking for a car that changes into a robot...
Transformers look more real than a car in earthís orbit heading for mars.
I dismiss both as clear fakery / illusions, but you strongly believe the latter.

So whoís the dummy here ? ;D
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 08:35:58 AM by dutchy »

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2019, 08:33:43 AM »
Dutchy ...for all your words, youíve missed the point. What Iím saying is why have NASA never gone the big time and spectacular? If indeed itís all a fake. Given you say itís all a fake why have they included so many errors? Why do they employ so many people? If everything is CGI why the big workforce?
Isn't that obvious when you took the time to read my posts ? Probably not ,so let me elaborate some more.
Let's not! You've presented that story so often we almost know it by heart.

These "so many errors" that Lonegranger are the little things caused by video compression and signal fades, colours that you don't accept or lack of stars that ignorant people still raise.

Then we have the totally inane complaints about the different sizes of continents and "the clouds aren't moving".
And people still claim the the earth or moon look "the wrong size" in photos like those in: Flat Earth General / Re: NASA FAKE.
Most examples of NASA "fakery" are simply examples of flat-earthers' appalling ignorance about perspective and photography. 

BUT if NASA wanted or needed to "fake" anything they would hardly have built things the look "fake".

An obvious example is the lunar module, the LM.
Were that intended to fool people surely they would have put some simple fairing over it to make it look "streamlined" or like a "Real Spaceship ;D".

But no, NASA (or Grumman) were designing a functional vehicle to be as light as possible.

And if the photographs from space were fake don't you think that NASA or whoever is providing them (such as JMA for the one in my earlier post) have the ability to make them look right to earth bound people.

But what I find impossible to believe is that NASA (or some unnamed producer) could produce continuous videos in 1969-1972 of the lunar missions.
Apart from other points there were three slightly different versions of the Apollo 11 "first step":
        one broadcast in Eastern Australia direct from Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek via Sydney,
        one broadcast in WA direct from the Intelsat linking Sydney to the USA and
        the one broadcast to the rest of the world.
Did these film producers have the foresight to predict this and make three versions - codswallop!

Then lunar hoaxers some out with this total fakery to prop up their conspiracy!

Claimed Stanley Kubrick Confession To Faking The Moon Landings The Bases Project

Dutchy, I have to ask who the deceivers are here? Obviously they include the makers of thst total fabrication.
What are you smoking ?
Could you for once please post anything that has some sort of relation to what i have written.

The so called moon hoax proofs you presented are not mine nor did i present any of them..
I have made some very good anti Apollo arguments that you cannot refute and therefor make things up as you go.
Itís quite bizare when reading your reply....

Maybe it relates to what dutchy wrote in a parallel universe and it got mixed up in a wormhole, because your reply is not related to anything i wrote in this reality. ;D


*

Denspressure

  • 1548
  • Dream
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2019, 08:45:32 AM »
Dutchy, where is the source for your claim that all Apollo photos were only supplied to the public in the nineties?
I don't understand what a sun set is.

*

Here to laugh at you

  • 1724
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2019, 09:08:21 AM »
And he's still looking for a car that changes into a robot...
Transformers look more real than a car in earthís orbit heading for mars.
I dismiss both as clear fakery / illusions, but you strongly believe the latter.

So whoís the dummy here ? ;D

Pretty much you!
Yes, you

?

Lonegranger

  • 3642
  • Chair of the stop John Davis telling lies alliance
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2019, 01:49:33 PM »
Dutchy ...for all your words, youíve missed the point. What Iím saying is why have NASA never gone the big time and spectacular? If indeed itís all a fake. Given you say itís all a fake why have they included so many errors? Why do they employ so many people? If everything is CGI why the big workforce?
Isn't that obvious when you took the time to read my posts ? Probably not ,so let me elaborate some more.

When WW 2 ended the coldwar started immidiatly when the super powers tried to come on top.
The denazification of war criminals with deeply running disturbed convictions and ideologies didn't seem to bother anyone because there was a new agenda.
To spend as much money and manpower to be on top of the pack... or was there something even more sinister involved ?
Here a few quotes that underline this sinester agenda.

"It [the rocket] will free man from his remaining chains, the chains of gravity which still tie him to this planet. It will open to him the gates of heaven." Wernher von Braun
(it surely sounds like a new occult religion from a man in charge of killing thousends upon thousends... in fact it simply continues upon the very foundations of Nazism and their occult worldview)

"We believe that when men reach beyond this planet, they should leave their national differences behind them." President John F. Kennedy, 1962.
"We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.President John F. Kennedy
(this also sounds like new age propaganda, religion of some sorts and it fully by-passes any form of rationality that would immidiatly destroy such musings about ''world peace'' and space travel could be the beginning of something mankind never learned to do here on earth.....So yes take all the money you need, because spacetravel will do so much more than simply discovering space...it will open the gates of worldpeace and paradise)

"If I could get one message to you it would be this: the future of this country and the welfare of the free world depends upon our success in space. There is no room in this country for any but a fully cooperative, urgently motivated all-out effort toward space leadership. No one person, no one company, no one government agency, has a monopoly on the competence, the missions, or the requirements for the space program." President Lyndon B. Johnson
(again shut up, give all the needed money to the repsective space industry, because the welfare of the western world depends on it)

Like the atomic bomb, which was presented in an extremely positive way (miss mushroom election with girls dressed up in mushroom outfits as an alltime low...as i have seen in the original news papers and footage of those days)..spacetravel was presented as a cure for humanity and therefor any critical mind should strongly object towards this propaganda.

Before i continue i want you to think about this....madman have had some really disturbing views and it has nothing to do with dicovering space...it's so much more.
And therefor one understands why the fakery was important when things turned out to be very different.....they started something that looks like a new religion instead of unbiased neutral science.
O wait i am right.....
"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." Carl Sagan

Modern men refuse to see the dark powers involved in this new reality that started with the ''space race''...


Ive read all you have written, but you still have not answered the nub of the question. Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery that even mindless idiots on YouTube can find all the things you claim to be mistakes? If they were the kind of organisation you keep on claiming it to be, would they not be doing a better job?


If they were faking it would they not be faking some really good stuff rather than the pretty mundane stuff they are doing? As it requires no real working technology why haven't they faked a whole series of moon landings? Why did they let the Chinese steal their thunder recently?


Why have they not faked some really good stuff like a NASA city on the moon? If you say they are out for money would a big fakery project like that not get the cash really rolling in?


If Hollywood can create all that really great Fakery why is NASA not doing it now?


You claim to have all the real lowdown on the inner workings of NASA so you should have all the answers.....so what are they?


As we are on the subject, how did you come by your inside information about NASA, do you have a spy on the inside working covertly? I hope your not going to say you got all your good stuff off the internet as that would be so disappointing.

Our aim is to rid the world of those who find turd polishing fun.

?

dutchy

  • 2117
Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2019, 02:57:35 PM »
Ive read all you have written, but you still have not answered the nub of the question. Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery that even mindless idiots on YouTube can find all the things you claim to be mistakes? If they were the kind of organisation you keep on claiming it to be, would they not be doing a better job?
I have answered but somehow it escaped you completely.
The moonlandings were state of the art film and photographic fakery ahead of anything present at those days.
Capricorn one barely reaches the level of Apollo.
But when you compare Apollo 11 with the footage of Apollo 8 and 10, the latter looks like a total joke by comparison.
Only in the last two decades our collective awareness about visual effects have gained an enormous boost simply because we are exposed to advanced trickery on a daily basis and we can discern much better.
So to answer your question again,..... NASA did beyond anything present in 1969 and only the last two decades photographers and a critical eye sees the fakery in the Apollo footage.
Quote
If they were faking it would they not be faking some really good stuff rather than the pretty mundane stuff they are doing? As it requires no real working technology why haven't they faked a whole series of moon landings? Why did they let the Chinese steal their thunder recently ?
They have faked some really good stuff in 1969 in relation to the film industryís special effects of those days.
And i also explained that because they always claim mars looks very earth like, a red filter is basically all you need to present an extremely realistic earth like reddish alien planet.
The fakery is not about the impeccable footage of mars, the fakery is that our collective minds have all agreed that mars looks identical to Devon Island/Greenland apart from some little visual tweaks.
While not a single human being has ever been to mars in the first place, we seem to agree what it looks like because of NASA footage.
This is like i allready explained circular reasoning.
ĎMars looks earh like, because that is what mars looks likeĒ ....and without a blink of an eye that seems a very logical and reasonable statement for most.

And the Chinese are into CGI most of the time and arenít really good at it, so i really donít want to discuss their claims.
Quote
Why have they not faked some really good stuff like a NASA city on the moon? If you say they are out for money would a big fakery project like that not get the cash really rolling in?
Huh ? Why go into an extremely more difficult direction of fakery ?
A city on the moon ? I really donít get what you are trying to say here.
Quote
If Hollywood can create all that really great Fakery why is NASA not doing it now?
You claim to have all the real lowdown on the inner workings of NASA so you should have all the answers.....so what are they?
NASA is doing it with all CGI from fly by satelites in outerspace and an a supposed real camera pixel/dot that they claim is pluto.
Furthermore we live in an era where everything is under a magnifying glass,... why try your luck again ?
They surely know how large the group is worldwide who dismiss the moonlandings and mars claims.
Should they add another far more outlandish scenery somewhere in space to shut everyone up ?
I donít think so, the fact that ĎOrioní still not has solved the hazards of the Van Allen belts in the past years is telling.
Only because we have more delicate machinery ?
Hogwash, they are simply delaying the inevitable.... no manned mission will leave earth ever again to deep space in front of a worldwide audience that is so much more critical than the sheep of 1969.
Quote
As we are on the subject, how did you come by your inside information about NASA, do you have a spy on the inside working covertly? I hope your not going to say you got all your good stuff off the internet as that would be so disappointing.
Simply looking at all the footage and the docu ĎAmerican mooní and many more that confirms the Apollo footage looks fake and no amount of magic Ďmoon circomstancesí explain away the obvious.
Occamís razor !
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 03:06:01 PM by dutchy »