Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?

You are confused.....

CGI is strong in convincing people about a certain reality in space despite that it looks extremely fake.....why ?
Because we deal with wavelenghts in space that cannot be recorded by a conventional camera....
Those wavelengths are brought back into the visual spectrum so we get an idea how it looks like through CGI
That is impossible, but since we cannot really see those wavelengths propagating in deep space ''infrared'' is colored red in our known red territory and ultra violet into purple we are so familiar with.
This alone is full blown fakery, because what the eye cannot detect cannot be made visible other than the use of trickery... it's an illusion.

But people accept it when Hubble looks out to far distand galaxies, because we want to ''see''' how far away stars were born.
All you see on the pictures is an artist impression, they claim is based on a reality we humans cannot see.

Ah-ha ha ha!

I nearly missed this.  Classic.

Tell me genius, how the flying fuck do you expect IR or UV images to be displayed to either the public or the scientists analysing them without shifting colours into something humans can actual see. 

Calling false colour images "full blown fakery" is utterly ridiculous, especially since it is always disclosed what wavelengths are imaged.

If you have an IR security camera on a building that captures a man breaking into a building in the dead of night, showing the image on a monitor is not an illusion, because there really is a man breaking into the building!

You should watch the video Rab posted.

Quote from: dutchy on January 19, 2019, 03:42:41 PM

You are confused.....

CGI is strong in convincing people about a certain reality in space despite that it looks extremely fake.....why ?
Because we deal with wavelenghts in space that cannot be recorded by a conventional camera....
Those wavelengths are brought back into the visual spectrum so we get an idea how it looks like through CGI
That is impossible, but since we cannot really see those wavelengths propagating in deep space ''infrared'' is colored red in our known red territory and ultra violet into purple we are so familiar with.
This alone is full blown fakery, because what the eye cannot detect cannot be made visible other than the use of trickery... it's an illusion.

But people accept it when Hubble looks out to far distand galaxies, because we want to ''see''' how far away stars were born.
All you see on the pictures is an artist impression, they claim is based on a reality we humans cannot see.

Ah-ha ha ha!

I nearly missed this.  Classic.

Tell me genius, how the flying fuck do you expect IR or UV images to be displayed to either the public or the scientists analysing them without shifting colours into something humans can actual see. 

Calling false colour images "full blown fakery" is utterly ridiculous, especially since it is always disclosed what wavelengths are imaged.

If you have an IR security camera on a building that captures a man breaking into a building in the dead of night, showing the image on a monitor is not an illusion, because there really is a man breaking into the building!

You should watch the video Rab posted.

His answer is due to him having little or no understanding about how 'photographs' or images can be made of other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum other than visible light. I suppose if he had an X-ray of his skull he would claim it was fakery!

You call it "copy paste gibberish" because you simply do not understand it. So what do YOU do?
Yes, YOU copy-n-paste from you font-of-all knowledge - Lunar Mission Denier Videos !

You have posted more hoaxie video’s than i have....
The point i make is not that you search for info and present it here, it’s the destractive avelange the moment you cannot really answer why things are fishy....
Then you go all out to burry any valid point raised with as much copy paste info ( preferable with as much pictures as possible) so that i won’t notice your little trick....

The NASA engineer solely speaks about the difficulties of figuering out how to put humans through the VAB’s  twice.
Never the engineer connects his remarks with the avelange of excuses you presented that i have read also.....about how to deal with months out in space instead of a week or so.

No he simply and extremely clearly says they have not figuered out how to put humans through the VAB’s twice.
So i won’t answer your further out pour of manure you hope will go unnoticed.
But you are wrong .

1969 Easy to cross the VAB’s on multiple occasions
2019 Not figuered out how to safely put humans (once up and once down) through the VAB’s.
Please start to explain why humans appearently cannot go into a rocket and fly through the belts safely in 2019 while it was relative easy in 1969 ?

So no copy paste info about what it takes to be months into deep space, simply stick to the facts why the Orion engineer says they have not figuered out how to cross the belts twice with humans onboard.
Please leave your glass sphere out of it that reveals you details never claimed by the NASA engineer.
Not that i have faith in you for more than a second......

Quote from: rabinoz on January 19, 2019, 05:40:37 PM

You call it "copy paste gibberish" because you simply do not understand it. So what do YOU do?
Yes, YOU copy-n-paste from you font-of-all knowledge - Lunar Mission Denier Videos !

You have posted more hoaxie video’s than i have....
The point i make is not that you search for info and present it here, it’s the destractive avelange the moment you cannot really answer why things are fishy....
Then you go all out to burry any valid point raised with as much copy paste info ( preferable with as much pictures as possible) so that i won’t notice your little trick....

The NASA engineer solely speaks about the difficulties of figuering out how to put humans through the VAB’s  twice.
Never the engineer connects his remarks with the avelange of excuses you presented that i have read also.....about how to deal with months out in space instead of a week or so.

No he simply and extremely clearly says they have not figuered out how to put humans through the VAB’s twice.
So i won’t answer your further out pour of manure you hope will go unnoticed.
But you are wrong .

1969 Easy to cross the VAB’s on multiple occasions
2019 Not figuered out how to safely put humans (once up and once down) through the VAB’s.
Please start to explain why humans appearently cannot go into a rocket and fly through the belts safely in 2019 while it was relative easy in 19&69 ?

So no copy paste info about what it takes to be months into deep space, simply stick to the facts why the Orion engeneer says they have not figuered out how to cross the belts twice with humans onboard.
Please leave your glass sphere out of it that reveals you details never claimed by the NASA engineer.
Not that i have faith in you for more than a second......

......but you claim all NASA's output is fakery! so your now saying some of what NASA claims is true? how do you tell the difference? is it flatino esp?

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 20, 2019, 02:20:25 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 19, 2019, 03:42:41 PM

You are confused.....

CGI is strong in convincing people about a certain reality in space despite that it looks extremely fake.....why ?
Because we deal with wavelenghts in space that cannot be recorded by a conventional camera....
Those wavelengths are brought back into the visual spectrum so we get an idea how it looks like through CGI
That is impossible, but since we cannot really see those wavelengths propagating in deep space ''infrared'' is colored red in our known red territory and ultra violet into purple we are so familiar with.
This alone is full blown fakery, because what the eye cannot detect cannot be made visible other than the use of trickery... it's an illusion.

But people accept it when Hubble looks out to far distand galaxies, because we want to ''see''' how far away stars were born.
All you see on the pictures is an artist impression, they claim is based on a reality we humans cannot see.

Ah-ha ha ha!

I nearly missed this.  Classic.

Tell me genius, how the flying fuck do you expect IR or UV images to be displayed to either the public or the scientists analysing them without shifting colours into something humans can actual see. 

Calling false colour images "full blown fakery" is utterly ridiculous, especially since it is always disclosed what wavelengths are imaged.

If you have an IR security camera on a building that captures a man breaking into a building in the dead of night, showing the image on a monitor is not an illusion, because there really is a man breaking into the building!

You should watch the video Rab posted.

His answer is due to him having little or no understanding about how 'photographs' or images can be made of other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum other than light. I suppose if he had an X-ray of his skull he would claim it was fakery!

You are a bit annoying aren’t you ?
Of course i understand the bandwith of the visual spectrum, it’s extremely small.
To cram wavelenghts that are far outside the visual spectrum back into this extremely narrow bandwith is fakery !!!
I agree that it can be usefull to give us insight in certain things.
Have you any idea how small the visual spectrum is ?

A scientist who was involved in the Hubble project’s imagery told on Dutch tv how little the public Hubble imagery had in common with the raw data.
He also made it very clear how much of an artist rendering the Hubble glossy’s really are.

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 20, 2019, 06:35:04 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 20, 2019, 02:20:25 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 19, 2019, 03:42:41 PM

You are confused.....

CGI is strong in convincing people about a certain reality in space despite that it looks extremely fake.....why ?
Because we deal with wavelenghts in space that cannot be recorded by a conventional camera....
Those wavelengths are brought back into the visual spectrum so we get an idea how it looks like through CGI
That is impossible, but since we cannot really see those wavelengths propagating in deep space ''infrared'' is colored red in our known red territory and ultra violet into purple we are so familiar with.
This alone is full blown fakery, because what the eye cannot detect cannot be made visible other than the use of trickery... it's an illusion.

But people accept it when Hubble looks out to far distand galaxies, because we want to ''see''' how far away stars were born.
All you see on the pictures is an artist impression, they claim is based on a reality we humans cannot see.

Ah-ha ha ha!

I nearly missed this.  Classic.

Tell me genius, how the flying fuck do you expect IR or UV images to be displayed to either the public or the scientists analysing them without shifting colours into something humans can actual see. 

Calling false colour images "full blown fakery" is utterly ridiculous, especially since it is always disclosed what wavelengths are imaged.

If you have an IR security camera on a building that captures a man breaking into a building in the dead of night, showing the image on a monitor is not an illusion, because there really is a man breaking into the building!

You should watch the video Rab posted.

His answer is due to him having little or no understanding about how 'photographs' or images can be made of other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum other than light. I suppose if he had an X-ray of his skull he would claim it was fakery!

You are a bit annoying aren’t you ?
Of course i understand the bandwith of the visual spectrum, it’s extremely small.
To cram wavelenghts that are far outside the visual spectrum back into this extremely narrow bandwith is fakery !!!
I agree that it can be usefull to give us insight in certain things.
Have you any idea how small the visual spectrum is ?

A scientist who was involved in the Hubble project’s imagery told on Dutch tv how little the public Hubble imagery had in common with the raw data.
He also made it very clear how much of an artist rendering the Hubble glossy’s really are.

so do you claim all medical x rays are fake? how about ultra sound is that fake to?

....youve still nor responded to how you know about space cameras and space radiation..... are you a closet spaceman?

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 20, 2019, 06:35:04 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 20, 2019, 02:20:25 AM

Quote from: dutchy on January 19, 2019, 03:42:41 PM

You are confused.....

CGI is strong in convincing people about a certain reality in space despite that it looks extremely fake.....why ?
Because we deal with wavelenghts in space that cannot be recorded by a conventional camera....
Those wavelengths are brought back into the visual spectrum so we get an idea how it looks like through CGI
That is impossible, but since we cannot really see those wavelengths propagating in deep space ''infrared'' is colored red in our known red territory and ultra violet into purple we are so familiar with.
This alone is full blown fakery, because what the eye cannot detect cannot be made visible other than the use of trickery... it's an illusion.

But people accept it when Hubble looks out to far distand galaxies, because we want to ''see''' how far away stars were born.
All you see on the pictures is an artist impression, they claim is based on a reality we humans cannot see.

Ah-ha ha ha!

I nearly missed this.  Classic.

Tell me genius, how the flying fuck do you expect IR or UV images to be displayed to either the public or the scientists analysing them without shifting colours into something humans can actual see. 

Calling false colour images "full blown fakery" is utterly ridiculous, especially since it is always disclosed what wavelengths are imaged.

If you have an IR security camera on a building that captures a man breaking into a building in the dead of night, showing the image on a monitor is not an illusion, because there really is a man breaking into the building!

You should watch the video Rab posted.

His answer is due to him having little or no understanding about how 'photographs' or images can be made of other areas of the electromagnetic spectrum other than light. I suppose if he had an X-ray of his skull he would claim it was fakery!

You are a bit annoying aren’t you ?
Of course i understand the bandwith of the visual spectrum, it’s extremely small.
To cram wavelenghts that are far outside the visual spectrum back into this extremely narrow bandwith is fakery !!!
I agree that it can be usefull to give us insight in certain things.
Have you any idea how small the visual spectrum is ?

A scientist who was involved in the Hubble project’s imagery told on Dutch tv how little the public Hubble imagery had in common with the raw data.
He also made it very clear how much of an artist rendering the Hubble glossy’s really are.

oh joy.......you think I'm annoying! that means Im asking you questions that are outside your comfort zone.......so how do you know about space cameras....etc.... you know the drill.
Have you learned the 'fatino knee-jerk' yet? its a new dance thats taking the flat earth by storm. Learn it now Dutchy or be for ever square....or is it flat!

oh joy.......you think I'm annoying! that means Im asking you questions that are outside your comfort zone.......

You are annoying because i have answered everything you asked for the best way  i can ....
But because you don't have a real answer on many of my correct observations about NASA's serious inconsistancies, you are widening the subject with each post you make.
That's annoying instead of letting it sink in for a moment and try to understand if i have made some valid points.


You start a topic not to find answers from people like me, but to find conformation of your own superiourity.......now that you aren't getting that you are acting childish.

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 20, 2019, 07:14:13 AM

oh joy.......you think I'm annoying! that means Im asking you questions that are outside your comfort zone.......

You are annoying because i have answered everything you asked for the best way  i can ....
But because you don't have a real answer on many of my correct observations about NASA's serious inconsistancies, you are widening the subject with each post you make.
That's annoying instead of letting it sink in for a moment and try to understand if i have made some valid points.


You start a topic not to find answers from people like me, but to find conformation of your own superiourity.......now that you aren't getting that you are acting childish.

That just your interpretation.

You failed to answer the questions I leveled at you regarding your knowledge of space cameras and space radiation, given you don't believe in space travel, is that not a bit of an inconsistency?

You failed to explain why NASA stopped its fakery of moon landings back in the 70s, when there was nothing stopping them from doing it to the present day.

All of your knowledge about NASAs alleged skulduggery is eighth or ninth hand pure speculation, guesswork and made up nonsense, all faked and with as much legitimacy as 1+1=5. You imagining that the truth can be found on YouTube rather than legitimate scientific sources says much about how your mind works.

Your knowledge of  space image using non visible light is severely wanting verging on pure ignorance. Much of the non visible light imaging is now done by ground based systems such as the VLT array run by a European agency and not your nemesis NASA. Imaging using wavelengths other than visible light has many advantages for space based research. I suppose you think medical scans, IR cameras and night scopes are all fakery! or do you think the interior of someones body can viewed if you just stare at it long enough! Your views on such things really show up just how far out of touch with reality you really are.

False colour images are widely used in many areas where the original data is not recorded using visible light. There is nothing strange or underhand its just part of the process. If your original data is digital you can change it to what ever colour you wish depending on your end use. Do you think B&W images are fakery? there is no difference as here colours are just mapped as shades of grey....but I imagine you and your youtube cronies will dream up some conspiracy nonsense  saying that NASA is out to steal peoples colour and sell it on eBay!

You failed to answer the questions I leveled at you regarding your knowledge of space cameras and space radiation, given you don't believe in space travel, is that not a bit of an inconsistency?

I simply point out the groce inconsistancies in NASA claims and that all the really interresting stuff is a mere reflection of an artist trying to cram something back into an extremely narrow bandwith of the visible spectrum and then claim it is what is going on some quadrillions of miles and more near the boundaries of the cosmos.
I don't care less what can be seen in space, i only care about the fact that i cannot trust organisations that have made so many erronious claims and present computer generated imagery as a substitute for reality no one will be able to check forever.

You failed to explain why NASA stopped its fakery of moon landings back in the 70s, when there was nothing stopping them from doing it to the present day.

Are you feeling allright ?
I told you that congress wasn't all that forthcoming in 1974, because somehow they thought it wasn't a good idea to continue on the foundations of the biggest milestone in space ever.
I even told you about a confrontation between NASA and congress in recent times that makes it absolutely clear some congressmen understand the bamboozle NASA is trying to pull off at times.
If the Americans all deeply believed in the success of Apollo and reading all the quotes about what it means to the world from former presidents and scientists were simply ignored by congress when they suddenly pulled the plug on manned missions in deep space ?
Finally on top and possibly give away your leading position ?

Your knowledge of  space image using non visible light is severely wanting verging on pure ignorance. Much of the non visible light imaging is now done by ground based systems such as the VLT array run by a European agency and not your nemesis NASA. Imaging using wavelengths other than visible light has many advantages for space based research. I suppose you think medical scans, IR cameras and night scopes are all fakery! or do you think the interior of someones body can viewed if you just stare at it long enough! Your views on such things really show up just how far out of touch with reality you really are.

False colour images are widely used in many areas where the original data is not recorded using visible light. There is nothing strange or underhand its just part of the process. If your original data is digital you can change it to what ever colour you wish depending on your end use. Do you think B&W images are fakery? there is no difference as here colours are just mapped as shades of grey....but I imagine you and your youtube cronies will dream up some conspiracy nonsense  saying that NASA is out to steal peoples colour and sell it on eBay!

Fool, i perfectly understand what's going on.....and i said that in certain fields it is extremely needed, but when it comes to the boundaries of the solar system and the universe we are talking about a whole different dimension.



The problem is that all claims are far outside any induvidual frame of reference.....
When they present something like this, it might also be true without anyone knowing the difference.


And i also noticed that you are a forum troll, because one of the moderators pointed that out in a topic.
Not so nice of you to pretend you are open for discussion while being a clear troll.
Because the authority of this forum has said so it must be true,....just like you believe all space authorities and their fantasy claims you will never be able to check

What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?

What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?

That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant.  The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes.  You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.

What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?

What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?

That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant.  The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes.  You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.

Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.

On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.

As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.

It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....

All you say regarding NASA is as false as are your accusations that accuse me of being a Troll, quite a cop out......and you still avoid answering your inconsistencies regarding your comments on space radiation and cameras in space. How convenient. Ignore that and instead accuse me of being a troll!

The fact that even you can post CGI images begs the question why has NASA never done that on an even bigger and grander scale, what with all the billions you say they squeeze out the American taxpayer.

...and you still don't understand the electromagnetic spectrum! nor get the point that NASA is just one of the many space agencies around the world, why so obsessed with NASA?   .......as this is what you post:

All you say regarding NASA is as false as your accusations that accuse me of being a Troll......and you still avoid answering your inconsistencies regarding your comments on space radiation and cameras in space. How convenient. Ignore that and instead acme me of being a troll!

The fact that even you on a flat earth driven pc can post CGI images begs the question why has NASA never done that on an even bigger scale, given they have better computers than you!... what with all the billions you say they squeeze out the American taxpayer.

...and you still don't understand the electromagnetic spectrum! as this is what you post:

"I simply point out the groce inconsistancies in NASA claims and that all the really interresting stuff is a mere reflection of an artist trying to cram something back into an extremely narrow bandwith of the visible spectrum and then claim it is what is going on some quadrillions of miles and more near the boundaries of the cosmos."

If anyone can understand your last comment they deserve a prize as it makes no sense whatsoever.
You don't really get it or even want to try and understand how images can be created using everything from radio waves to x-rays with no cramming involved. Read this, but no doubt you will dismiss it as fyet more fakery:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2011/3248.html

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 20, 2019, 12:35:19 PM

What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?

What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?

That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant.  The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes.  You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.

Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.

On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.

As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.

It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 20, 2019, 12:35:19 PM

What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?

What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?

That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant.  The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes.  You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.

Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.

On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.

As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.

It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....

Regarding Mitchell.....the man was clearly unhinged, given his strange range of pseudo beliefs, though I can find no record of him claiming any Apollo photographs were forged. So if you could post a reliable link or Im calling you a big fibber on that one.  If you remember he was the one who stole a camera from NASA and tried to auction it.  You are like a dog with a bone regarding NASA and the Apollo missions.

If you care to read any thing that Mitchell published it is clear he was an advocate for space travel, he did believe in UFOs after all.

Its strange that people like yourself have to resort to making things up and distorting history to try and prove you point.

every single word dutchy posts must be disregarded.

He spelled "gross" as "groce"!



end of discussion.

Quote from: dutchy on January 20, 2019, 01:36:13 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 20, 2019, 12:35:19 PM

What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?

What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?

That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant.  The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes.  You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.

Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.

On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.

As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.

It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....

Quote from: dutchy on January 20, 2019, 01:36:13 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 20, 2019, 12:35:19 PM

What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?

What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?

That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant.  The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes.  You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.

Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.

On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.

As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.

It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....

Regarding Mitchell.....the man was clearly unhinged, given his strange range of pseudo beliefs, though I can find no record of him claiming any Apollo photographs were forged. So if you could post a reliable link or Im calling you a big fibber on that one.  If you remember he was the one who stole a camera from NASA and tried to auction it.  You are like a dog with a bone regarding NASA and the Apollo missions.

If you care to read any thing that Mitchell published it is clear he was an advocate for space travel, he did believe in UFOs after all.

Its strange that people like yourself have to resort to making things up and distorting history to try and prove you point.

I said a friend of Edgar Michell....... wow you are willfully misinterpreting my posts aren't you ?

every single word dutchy posts must be disregarded.

He spelled "gross" as "groce"!



end of discussion

You little back stabber,.... i hoped you were my friend...
Music, burgers, guitars and all...... and provider of your daily laughter.
Now what has become of us 

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on January 20, 2019, 01:52:30 PM

every single word dutchy posts must be disregarded.

He spelled "gross" as "groce"!



end of discussion

You little back stabber,.... i hoped you were my friend...
Music, burgers, guitars and all...... and provider of your daily laughter.
Now what has become of us 

Sorry bro...

I'm a bit fuzzy from the gig last night.
Jagerbombs were dropping on me all night. But I still nailed my leads on Gimme Three Steps!

Quote from: Lonegranger on January 20, 2019, 01:50:44 PM

Quote from: dutchy on January 20, 2019, 01:36:13 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 20, 2019, 12:35:19 PM

What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?

What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?

That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant.  The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes.  You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.

Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.

On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.

As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.

It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....

Quote from: dutchy on January 20, 2019, 01:36:13 PM

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 20, 2019, 12:35:19 PM

What does a deep field image have to do with an artist's impression?

What does either of them have to do with Star Destroyers?

That fact that you have no personal frame of reference for images of space (false colour or otherwise) images is irrelevant.  The whole point of putting a telescope in orbit is to see you things you can't see with your eyes.  You can't dismiss it just because it shows things you can't see with you eyes.

Who disagrees with you ? Not me !
Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.

On earth all claims can be much better varified and checked but deep space claims can be true or false to a varying degree without anyone noticing on earth.
And since it is absolutely clear to me and a growing number of people ( incl. top photographers with the best possible record in the industry) that the Apollo imagery was faked and not as NASA claimed 100% authentic moon footage that has never been doctored to deceive ONCE..... yes you heard that right !
NASA claims not a single tiny fragment of a single moon photograph was manipulated in order to deceive.

As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.

It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....

Regarding Mitchell.....the man was clearly unhinged, given his strange range of pseudo beliefs, though I can find no record of him claiming any Apollo photographs were forged. So if you could post a reliable link or Im calling you a big fibber on that one.  If you remember he was the one who stole a camera from NASA and tried to auction it.  You are like a dog with a bone regarding NASA and the Apollo missions.

If you care to read any thing that Mitchell published it is clear he was an advocate for space travel, he did believe in UFOs after all.

Its strange that people like yourself have to resort to making things up and distorting history to try and prove you point.

I said a friend of Edgar Michell....... wow you are willfully misinterpreting my posts aren't you ?

yea......and your implication was?......try and keep up mr dutch person.

Quote from: dutchy on January 20, 2019, 02:16:50 PM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on January 20, 2019, 01:52:30 PM

every single word dutchy posts must be disregarded.

He spelled "gross" as "groce"!



end of discussion

You little back stabber,.... i hoped you were my friend...
Music, burgers, guitars and all...... and provider of your daily laughter.
Now what has become of us 

Sorry bro...

I'm a bit fuzzy from the gig last night.
Jagerbombs were dropping on me all night. But I still nailed my leads on Gimme Three Steps!

I understand.... you are forgiven
'Gimmy three steps' is a groovy song for sure...

As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.

It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....

Why do you go on-and-on-and-on ad nauseum about the Apollo 11? Where is there evidence that all of Apollo 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 were faked?

And what is there evidence that the Russian Luna and Zond missions were faked?

Then there are numerous earlier and later photos of earth from space and all show it to be a Globe and many come from sources other than NASA.
I posted evidence of this only to have the resident NASAphobe ignore it and reply with:

More annoying copy paste gibberish from you as usuall.

I guess that's the expected behaviour of a conspiracy theorist conspititard - ignore all contrary evidence.

But you won't even debate the shape of the earth - you seem to have the idiotic idea that if you can destroy your nemesis, NASA, all will be well with the world.

Quote from: dutchy on January 20, 2019, 01:36:13 PM

As i have said numerous times, even the most die hard NASA defenders don't hold that position.... even a friend of Edgar Mitchell...
Many believe Apollo was an authentic event, but dismiss certain photographs as clear fakery.
But because NASA still claims such an assumption is out if the question their stand remains that in the vast library of Apollo pictures everything is as authentic as it could ever be.
If it turns out that NASA indeed messed around with some moon footage , contrary to all their claims, we simply cannot trust anything at all anymore because when an organisation cements itself in a known lie ( even when it is only about certain fake photographs) we all understand that only they determine the validity of space footage and we cannot continue to believe what they present to the general public.

It only needs one single disclosure from a few moon photographs and it means everyone will have another look at all other NASA outer space claims.
Very interresting indeed, because to me it is very clear that Apollo will be disclosed soon as a fabric of trickery and illusion.
From there the rest will tumble down eventually ....

Why do you go on-and-on-and-on ad nauseum about the Apollo 11? Where is there evidence that all of Apollo 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 were faked?

And what is there evidence that the Russian Luna and Zond missions were faked?

Then there are numerous earlier and later photos of earth from space and all show it to be a Globe and many come from sources other than NASA.
I posted evidence of this only to have the resident NASAphobe ignore it and reply with:

Quote from: dutchy on January 19, 2019, 02:56:10 PM

More annoying copy paste gibberish from you as usuall.

But you still will not face the plain simple irrefutable FACT that NASA had nothing to to with claiming the earth to be a Globe.

I guess that's the expected behaviour of a conspiracy theorist conspititard - ignore all contrary evidence.

But you won't even debate the shape of the earth - you seem to have the idiotic idea that if you can destroy your nemesis, NASA, all will be well with the world.

You aren't that smart are you rab ?
What happens if it will be proven that some photographs were indeed faked, contrary to all the strong arguments from NASA who have claimed the opposite for 50+ years ?
Then we can determine a few things.
If it turns out a few photographs were indeed faked ( doesn't matter what mission really....)

1 Space footage believers were duped and aren't able to discern the real photographs from the fake ones for 50 years.
2 We have to begin from scratch and have to come up with a new criteria when observing space footage
3 We can no longer trust NASA about any footage when they willfully lied about some of it for over 50 years.

I hope in your case they never confirm certain evidence of fakery, because you are the last person left that can claim any certainty about any space footage,.... because everything NASA has put out looks extremely real to you for over 50 years.
If any fakery is proven, you will need some really strong glasses....

So your argument is “what if?”

You aren't that smart are you rab ?
What happens if it will be proven that some photographs were indeed faked, contrary to all the strong arguments from NASA who have claimed the opposite for 50+ years ?
Then we can determine a few things.
If it turns out a few photographs were indeed faked ( doesn't matter what mission really....)

It's you who aren't that smart! One genuine photo of earth from space is enough to prove that the earth is not flat!
But the are tens of thousands from numerous sources and only a total conspiratard could claim that NASA could possibly control all of those.

1 Space footage believers were duped and aren't able to discern the real photographs from the fake ones for 50 years.

Incorrect! Please show photos genuinely from NASA that have been proven fake. Not claimed to be fake.

2 We have to begin from scratch and have to come up with a new criteria when observing space footage

Rubbish! You've only proven all this in your mind and that means nothing.

3 We can no longer trust NASA about any footage when they willfully lied about some of it for over 50 years.

You have not proven that by any means "that NASA . . . willfully lied about some of it for over 50 years!

I hope in your case they never confirm certain evidence of fakery, because you are the last person left that can claim any certainty about any space footage,.... because everything NASA has put out looks extremely real to you for over 50 years.
If any fakery is proven, you will need some really strong glasses....

Notwithstanding all that rubbish you claim, there are now photos from numerous sources that tell exactly the same story.

But, as I keep repeating, even if you kill off NASA and all space exploration, you still have no real evidence that the earth is flat.

By the way I was around when the USSR launched Sputnik I on my birthday!
I heard with my own ears the beeps from that little sphere received on 20.005 MHz via a HAM radio receiver right at the expected time.
Not please explain how those "pesky Russians" could have faked those transmissions - if you can't you might as well give up trying to debunk satellites orbiting the Globe.

This camera on a V2 rocket took a motion picture of the earth as the rocket climbed and no "fish-eye" lenses then!

V-2 Rocket Films Earth (1946)
Frames from that film were professionally stitched to make this panaroma:

Read details in: V2 rocket footage from 1948. There was no NASA back there!

Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.

Incorrect.

Images from Hubble don't come from NASA itself, but from the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) based in John Hopkins University.  Permanent staff conduct their own research, but they also schedule use of Hubble for other scientists.  I believe any suitably qualified astronomer or astrophysicist can submit research proposals to use it.

All data is publicly available.  For instance, the raw images and calibration data used to create the Ultra Deep Field Image you posted can be found here:

http://www.stsci.edu/hst/udf

 

Quote from: dutchy on January 20, 2019, 01:36:13 PM

Where i disagree is that we don't know what the raw data was, what device collected it from what distance relative to earth and who made the final image presented to the public.
You assume it was Hubble and all the data was meticulously interpreted to present a realistic view upon deep space with honest motivations that lead to the glossy imagery.
You can only rely on authorities that simply claim this as fact.

Incorrect.

Images from Hubble don't come from NASA itself, but from the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) based in John Hopkins University.  Permanent staff conduct their own research, but they also schedule use of Hubble for other scientists.  I believe any suitably qualified astronomer or astrophysicist can submit research proposals to use it.

All data is publicly available.  For instance, the raw images and calibration data used to create the Ultra Deep Field Image you posted can be found here:

http://www.stsci.edu/hst/udf

 

Dutchy has been told all this before and is blind to the truth. He has his beliefs and he is sticking to them regardless. The fact that you can download both the RAW data and a RAW converter plugin  for Photoshop to enable you to process your own Hubble Images is a fact lost on Dutchy. He just clams its all just Fakery. He thinks any processing of Images is devils work! What he can't understand is that a RAW image either taken by a regular earth bound camera such as my Sony A7R3 or the one on Hubble is just sensor image data and it requires some form of data processing/Raw conversion to realise the image.  If you are a photoshop user you will most likely use Adobe Camera RAW, though there are a number of options out there such as Capture One. The problem is ignorance coupled with denial is a major stumbling block for people like Dutchy to accept such simple truths.
http://hubblesite.org/get_involved/hubble_image_processors/

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.

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.

Stop joking! I'm fully aware of that silly student and that video!
And far from knowing "absolutely nothing about Hubble" I obviously know more than you and your "university student".

Have you forgotten this? Flat Earth General / Re: Exoplanets « Message by rabinoz on February 05, 2018, 07:44:03 AM ».
Your memory might be failing but mine isn't. So please don't repeat your old previously debunked rubbish!

That "university student" simply proved he was totally ignorant about the difference between an infrared telescope (like SOFIA) and an optical telescope (like the Hubble Space Telescope). They are different instruments that do a different tasks.

I imagine that this is the video you are drooling over?

The Hubble Space Telescope - It's Really on a Boeing 747? Godrules

He is told that HST can only receive to 5 μm but SOFIA can "see" out to 250 to 300 μm at present.
And you "expert student " phone caller replies, "Wait, wait . . . are you serious? Are you saying that SOFIA, which flies at 35,000 to 45,000 ft can see nearly 150 times further than Hubble".
What a total ignoramus your wonderful "expert student " turns out to be.

Now, dutchy, if you cannot see what to terribly and ignorantly wrong with that, I suggest that you make your own thread on:
"Is the SOFIA the real Hubble Space Telescope?" and prepare to be thoroughly humiliated!

Bring such a debate on!

The video is typical of the sort of ignorant rubbish that you and your flat earth cronies drool over.
And all it proves is the you, that "student",  the maker of the video and all the channels that mirror it are total morons!

Wow your ignorance is priceless if you rely on flat-earth videos for your information.

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.

Sofia, being a telescope on a converted aircraft collects its images in the infrared. I can’t see the problem with that. The only problem your inability to grasp the fairly simple concepts.
The fact that you can convert some/ most DSLRs into infrared cameras that still take pictures is possibly beyond you. This can be done as camera sensors are not just sensitive to visible light. Again the only problem with this is 6our inability to grasp the concept!

Cheers Rab.

I probably wouldn't have found the source for dutchy's unreferenced cut and past logic myself.

What "blew my mind" about that video was how helpful and patient Nicolas was, even as this student's questions were all over the place  ("I found an image of so and so nebular", "did you take an image of that supernova" - what was the point of these?  There was no follow up, he just moved on.)

The only "discrepancies" were what the student told Nicolas he had found (or not found) or what he claimed someone else said.

Nicolas said nothing unusual or suspicious at all.  He appeared knowledgeable and professional throughout.  Although he seemed less engaged towards the end, probably as it dawned on him that his time was being wasted by some conspiracy theorist, not someone actually interested in genuine research.

The only confirmed liar of this piece was the "student" caller.

Side note:  "Seeing further into the infrared spectrum"  is fairly normal language to use to describe seeing wavelengths further from the visible spectrum.  It's quite funny to confuse it with distance.