Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System

  • 159 Replies
  • 18548 Views
?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #90 on: October 05, 2019, 02:56:12 AM »
I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.
Do you have anything at all to indicate it is fake?
So far deniers haven't been able to come up with a single thing which withstands scrutiny.
Instead they can only spout nonsense based upon wilful ignorance or outright lies/deception.
Let me elaborate rab,....

You have been near space as much as me or 99,99999999% of humanity.
How would anyone know how things look out there other than hearsay and footage that even a child should discern as fake.

But the ‘outerspace jargon’ ‘topping’  promotes cartoons to real footage because of intoxicating supposed properties of space that reason away the total fake appereance.
And those properties cry fake for anyone with a pair of human eyes !! Never remotely an outer wordily exciting new dimension was presented that we could marvel about.

Instead......film slomo studio set + back drop and multiple studio lightsources is how Apollo footage on the moon looks like coincidentally.
Instead......a cartoon about a car in orbit looks fake because of the behaviour of light in a vacuum .... therefor it looks more fake than Musk’ own company’s CGI. (caugh)
Instead..... the most expensive machinery that has  all the fancy technology hidden beneath a trashy ( but shiny ::)) outer layer looks like mere wannabee tech.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 02:59:41 AM by dutchy »

*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • What do you, value?
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #91 on: October 05, 2019, 03:02:31 AM »
Show me how you would insulate a spacecraft then, dipshit?

The LM had some very fancy and expensive technology, the most impressive one has to be the AGC. Which I guess they just made for the lols?

Multiple light sources would create multiple shadows, not something we see in the Apollo photos nor video feed you moron.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2019, 03:07:59 AM by Denspressure »
):

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #92 on: October 05, 2019, 03:12:09 AM »
Show me how you would insulate a spacecraft then, dipshit?

The LM had some very fancy and expensive technology, the most impressive one has to be the AGC. Which I guess they just made for the lols?

Multiple light sources would create multiple shadows, not something we see in the Apollo photos you moron.
Boehoehoe.... namecalling because i rightfully point out the scandalous fake Apollo moon propaganda and other crincheworthy forms of space fakery ?

And there are indeed multiple lightsources in the Apollo footage as the TOP photographers of worldrenowned fame and expertise so easily show in the docu ‘American Moon’ .... you can buy it on Amazon ( i did)..... or you believe the enthousiastic amatures around the www (Clavius for instance) who reason away the discrepancies in the Apollo footage in a way one expects from enthousiastic amatures.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #93 on: October 05, 2019, 03:21:27 AM »
Instead......film slomo studio set + back drop and multiple studio lightsources is how Apollo footage on the moon looks like coincidentally.

More appropriately, it looks like Apollo footage of people on the moon. Your argument amounts to, "Anything that can be replicated by movie techniques is fake." I don't think that's what you mean. Otherwise, all things are fake.

Instead......a cartoon about a car in orbit looks fake because of the behaviour of light in a vacuum .... therefor it looks more fake than Musk’ own company’s CGI. (caugh)

How does light work in a vacuum?

Instead..... the most expensive machinery that has  all the fancy technology hidden beneath a trashy ( but shiny ::)) outer layer looks like mere wannabee tech.

This wannabee tech you speak of, what would you propose? Something less 'trashy'? Money doesn't buy class, not functionality, form follows function. So your argument is that considering the money spent, all space paraphernalia should look like a Bughatti?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #94 on: October 05, 2019, 03:32:14 AM »
I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.
Do you have anything at all to indicate it is fake?
So far deniers haven't been able to come up with a single thing which withstands scrutiny.
Instead they can only spout nonsense based upon wilful ignorance or outright lies/deception.
Let me elaborate rab,....

You have been near space as much as me or 99,99999999% of humanity.
How would anyone know how things look out there other than hearsay and footage that even a child should discern as fake.

But the ‘outerspace jargon’ ‘topping’  promotes cartoons to real footage because of intoxicating supposed properties of space that reason away the total fake appereance.
And those properties cry fake for anyone with a pair of human eyes !! Never remotely an outer wordily exciting new dimension was presented that we could marvel about.

Instead......film slomo studio set + back drop and multiple studio lightsources is how Apollo footage on the moon looks like coincidentally.
Instead......a cartoon about a car in orbit looks fake because of the behaviour of light in a vacuum .... therefor it looks more fake than Musk’ own company’s CGI. (caugh)
Instead..... the most expensive machinery that has  all the fancy technology hidden beneath a trashy ( but shiny ::)) outer layer looks like mere wannabee tech.
The more silly they make things the more some people believe them because they argue " why would they make things look silly if they were fake."
This implies that although they agree they do look silly they think this is an argument for realism.

It beggars belief.
The people who rig this garbage up at the expense of the wider public must be crying with laughing at how easily it is swallowed up by the majority.

Mind you it's getting to the stage where a lot of people are actually waking up to it. The issue will be, they will be pacified once again because something will be brought to the fore to convince people it's all real...and back to square one it goes.

Human beings being smart?.......Hmmmmmmm.
I'd say, on the whole we're good at parroting/mimicking, which means we can be sold whatever stories are on offer, told as fact for fiction or fiction for fact....or a little bit in between.


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #95 on: October 05, 2019, 04:10:36 AM »
I think NASA & co could drastically lower their ‘outerspace footage’ budget cap even more..
You know .... just like Elon Musk did with his car in orbit... and got away with it in broad daylight.
Two people max could do the parttime job of creating space related imagery and a lot of money will be saved.
Do you have anything at all to indicate it is fake?
So far deniers haven't been able to come up with a single thing which withstands scrutiny.
Instead they can only spout nonsense based upon wilful ignorance or outright lies/deception.
Let me elaborate rab,....

You have been near space as much as me or 99,99999999% of humanity.
How would anyone know how things look out there other than hearsay and footage that even a child should discern as fake.

But the ‘outerspace jargon’ ‘topping’  promotes cartoons to real footage because of intoxicating supposed properties of space that reason away the total fake appereance.
And those properties cry fake for anyone with a pair of human eyes !! Never remotely an outer wordily exciting new dimension was presented that we could marvel about.

Instead......film slomo studio set + back drop and multiple studio lightsources is how Apollo footage on the moon looks like coincidentally.
Instead......a cartoon about a car in orbit looks fake because of the behaviour of light in a vacuum .... therefor it looks more fake than Musk’ own company’s CGI. (caugh)
Instead..... the most expensive machinery that has  all the fancy technology hidden beneath a trashy ( but shiny ::)) outer layer looks like mere wannabee tech.
The more silly they make things the more some people believe them because they argue " why would they make things look silly if they were fake."
This implies that although they agree they do look silly they think this is an argument for realism.

How is your statement any different than the inverse:
"The more silly serious they make things the more some people believe disbelieve them because they argue 'why would they make things look silly serious if they were real.' This implies that although they agree they do look silly serious they think this is an argument for realism."

It's rather confounding how your sentiment really carries no water and is really just a circular statement, not leading to any higher ground.

It beggars belief.

Perhaps it's more of a beggars banquet.

The people who rig this garbage up at the expense of the wider public must be crying with laughing at how easily it is swallowed up by the majority.

Who are the people that rig? Specifically.

Mind you it's getting to the stage where a lot of people are actually waking up to it. The issue will be, they will be pacified once again because something will be brought to the fore to convince people it's all real...and back to square one it goes.

What's waking up and being brought to the fore? And what might that fore be to convince people what is all real?

Human beings being smart?.......Hmmmmmmm.
I'd say, on the whole we're good at parroting/mimicking, which means we can be sold whatever stories are on offer, told as fact for fiction or fiction for fact....or a little bit in between.

Ain't that the truth.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #96 on: October 05, 2019, 04:56:40 AM »
Let me elaborate rab,....
I'm not rab.

How would anyone know how things look out there other than hearsay and footage that even a child should discern as fake.
You could start by actually trying to understand how things look and why.
For example, understanding the role of the atmosphere and exposure times.

Saying it looks fake does not explain why it looks fake.
Likewise, the ability to fake the footage also doesn't actually mean it is fake.

Again, you assert that the footage should discerned as fake, but provide absolutely no basis for it.

Why should one think it is fake?
Can you provide any justification, or just insults and deflection?

Try to actually elaborate on why you think it is fake.

you can buy it on Amazon
I have no interest in buying a crappy mockumentary from a conman.
If you think there is proof that there were multiple light sources on the moon, then provide this proof.

I'd say, on the whole we're good at parroting/mimicking,
Yes, you are quite good at parroting/mimicking, but not coming up with any rational arguments to justify your claims.
Lots of those who claim NASA fakes things are quite like that, parroting the same baseless claims without any rational basis.
How about instead of just insulting people you try to justify your claims.

Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #97 on: October 05, 2019, 06:30:39 AM »

Add to that the ‘highschool project’ appearence of ‘space machines’ because it doesn’t have to look good only functional ::) ::)


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #98 on: October 05, 2019, 06:38:48 AM »
You see if were me, I’d probably be curious about what the words “yo-yo de-spin” might mean as they flash up on screen just as the rocket stops spinning.
Or ask yourself why the camera keeps going up after it "hits the dome".

I'm sure that FE'rs have an explanation, like the dome swallowed it after impact.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #99 on: October 06, 2019, 02:24:12 AM »

Add to that the ‘highschool project’ appearence of ‘space machines’ because it doesn’t have to look good only functional ::) ::)


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

It somehow did the trick in 1969-1972 , but i hardly believe an intelligent person in 2019 can be so self delusional and convince him/herselves that the LEM with human tissue onboard actually landed on the moon as described by NASA and the accompagnying footage at display.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #100 on: October 06, 2019, 03:03:55 AM »

Add to that the ‘highschool project’ appearence of ‘space machines’ because it doesn’t have to look good only functional ::) ::)


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

It somehow did the trick in 1969-1972 , but i hardly believe an intelligent person in 2019 can be so self delusional and convince him/herselves that the LEM with human tissue onboard actually landed on the moon as described by NASA and the accompagnying footage at display.

Correct, it did the trick. Why so vehemently opposed that it happened? What's the core belief behind the fact that it didn't happen? What's the threat if it did?

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #101 on: October 06, 2019, 03:36:24 AM »

Add to that the ‘highschool project’ appearence of ‘space machines’ because it doesn’t have to look good only functional ::) ::)


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

It somehow did the trick in 1969-1972 , but i hardly believe an intelligent person in 2019 can be so self delusional and convince him/herselves that the LEM with human tissue onboard actually landed on the moon as described by NASA and the accompagnying footage at display.

Correct, it did the trick. Why so vehemently opposed that it happened? What's the core belief behind the fact that it didn't happen? What's the threat if it did?
Nothing...if it happened then...

1 humans are able to briefly fly to the moon to collect rocks and pictures.
2 humanity has benefitted from some specific inventions we don’t know would be aquired without the space industry.
3 humans are capable of doing the unthinkable ...a positive motivation for future generations ?

I really cannot think of anything else positive,... now the negatives.

1 The space industry was not about ‘who goes where first’, but a military based urge to concore space and the moon to control atomic weapon system and future laser systems from outside earth’s atmosphere ..... who controls the heavens controls it all !
2 The space industry needed NAZI war criminals because of their knowledge about rockets and therefor everything that international LAW is all about was flushed down the drain.
Giving a very clear lecture..... the international community has certain laws we all underline, unless we decide it’s beneficial to ignore those laws.
3 We lost, destroyed, forgot how to go back to the moon and it’s painfull to built back the assembly lines, vehicles and more..... showing that at least 90% of the total budget was waisted in hindsight.
Some pretty expensive pictures i would say.....

This is considering it DID happen which i obvious do not believe...


*

kopfverderber

  • 441
  • Globularist
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #102 on: October 06, 2019, 04:24:55 AM »
There's more than enough evidence of the moon landings for any sane person to believe they indeed happened. All arguments brought forward by moon hoaxers have been thoroughly refuted, but nothing is going to keep some people from believing  this sort of things. Deniers are gonna deny.

In the mean time space programs continue their course and nobody cares what a bunch conspiracy nutjobs, tin foil hat wearers and other crackpots say.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #103 on: October 06, 2019, 04:37:30 AM »
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions
So you are upset that they were able to make it work?
Just what do you think the issue is?
It was tested on Earth.
It isn't like they just decided, screw it, lets send up a bunch of astronauts to the moon to test it there first and who cares if they die.

It somehow did the trick in 1969-1972 , but i hardly believe an intelligent person in 2019 can be so self delusional and convince him/herselves that the LEM with human tissue onboard actually landed on the moon as described by NASA and the accompagnying footage at display.
They don't need to be delusional or try to convince themselves as those intelligent people are already convinced that we did land on the moon.

3 We lost, destroyed, forgot how to go back to the moon and it’s painfull to built back the assembly lines, vehicles and more..... showing that at least 90% of the total budget was waisted in hindsight.
No, the US won, they were the first to land on the moon.

We also didn't just forget everything. We still put probes in orbit/on the moon. We still have the scientific data.
All that was lost was the production facilities which were not being used and would have wasted loads of money if they just kept them and the employees for it around just in case we decided to make another lunar mission decades in the future with what would then be quite old technology.

Again, do you have an actual problem, or are you just capable of repeatedly insulting those who accept the lunar landings were real?

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #104 on: October 06, 2019, 09:19:32 AM »
Houston, we still have the same problem.

The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth. We can’t find any curvature to fly over and around.

Houston, do you copy?

This is Houston, we copy.

Get me that Dumb Assed Professor on the line.


The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #105 on: October 06, 2019, 09:29:32 AM »

Add to that the ‘highschool project’ appearence of ‘space machines’ because it doesn’t have to look good only functional ::) ::)


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.
Actually, NASA did have some practice with landing on the moon with the Surveyor program where 5 of 7 successful landings.  They also practiced quite a bit with the LLRV, which Neil Armstrong claimed gave him the confidence to take manual control of the LM at the last minute.  BTW, you do know that the lunar landing was intended to be completely controlled by the LM guidance computer, don't you?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #106 on: October 06, 2019, 09:39:26 AM »
There's more than enough evidence of the moon landings for any sane person to believe they indeed happened.
Any sane person would sincerely doubt why we simply do not replicate the technological achievements of 1969-1972 in our highly advanced era by going to the moon NOW.
And ‘they’ want to go back in a nano second.... and new world powers with vastly superiour resources and technology have a manned moontrip on top of their wishlist also.

Any sane person would never fall for the weakest of excuses ever invented..... ‘pesky congressmen are not willing to give the money’ and ‘it’s painfull to built back technologies like an assembly line for moon machinery’ ... and ‘The Chinese simply don’t have the required cutting edge understanding of manned moon missions like the ‘Texas Rangers’  of 1969’... ;D ;D ;D
What utter fool would fall for such cheap excuses ?
Quote
All arguments brought forward by moon hoaxers have been thoroughly refuted, but nothing is going to keep some people from believing  this sort of things. Deniers are gonna deny.
In the mean time space programs continue their course and nobody cares what a bunch conspiracy nutjobs, tin foil hat wearers and other crackpots say.
‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

It seems the enthousiastic Apollo bandwagon has only the arguments of amatures...
The best they ever brought forward was SG Collins who claimed to be an expert of 1969 film special effects.
‘Even if they wanted to, they could not have faked it in 1969’ was his core argument.
He turned out to be an insignificant ‘lightguy’ with hardily any credentials about the level of 1969 equipment in the film industry.

So please mister ‘sane’ who is your expert(s) on photography who supports ALL Apollo footage as moon authentic !
The experts i heard claim for 100% that some/several Apollo photographs are undeniable the work of 1969 studio trickery.


« Last Edit: October 06, 2019, 09:42:29 AM by dutchy »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #107 on: October 06, 2019, 09:41:29 AM »
How far away is the vanishing point that sun is passing?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #108 on: October 06, 2019, 10:01:48 AM »

Add to that the ‘highschool project’ appearence of ‘space machines’ because it doesn’t have to look good only functional ::) ::)


Well, yeah.  I might be suspicious if spacecraft didn’t seem to have functional designs.
Really ?
I wonder what goes through one’s mind looking at the Apollo lunar lander and more specifically it’s landing gear.
Try to wrap your head around the speed and incoming angle of the moon vehicle and then try to convince yourself it gently lands on an alien surface for the very first time in history without proper practice in similar conditions.... without even braking or bending one of it’s little legs.
Noooo , it landed perfectly straight , dustfree and without any structural inconveniences for the American public and rest of this world to marvel at.

It somehow did the trick in 1969-1972 , but i hardly believe an intelligent person in 2019 can be so self delusional and convince him/herselves that the LEM with human tissue onboard actually landed on the moon as described by NASA and the accompagnying footage at display.

Hang on.  You were the one rolling your virtual eyes at the idea that spacecraft should look practical.  I was just saying that they should look like they should do the job.

The landing gear looks entirely sensible to me.  It had trusses for strength and stability, and collapsible honeycomb structures inside the primary and secondary struts for shock absorbance in vertical and horizontal directions.

I found some technical details for you here:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM_Landing%20Gear1973010151.pdf

Apparently the hardest landing was about 2m/s vertically, which is about a brisk walking pace.  Most other landings were more like 1m/s.  Horizontal velocity was around 0.5-1m/s.  The angle was as close to horizontal as the pilots could manage, because doing anything else would be stupid.

Not sure why you think landing on a alien surface is relevant?  The engineers knew the expected speed and mass of the spacecraft to calculate the forces it had to withstand.  That’s their job. No need for guesswork.

Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #109 on: October 06, 2019, 11:06:37 AM »
Houston, we still have the same problem.

The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth. We can’t find any curvature to fly over and around.

Houston, do you copy?

This is Houston, we copy.

Get me that Dumb Assed Professor on the line.




Plat tera, the astronauts aboard the ISS find curvature to fly around, every single second of every single day.  ;D

On your plane earth, the setting sun would be high above the horizon, shrinking into a tiny dot as it heads north west. It would never touch down at, or ever go down behind, the horizon. On your plane earth, the sun would behave like a high flying, well, plane.

Is God the pilot of your sun plane, plat tera, with Jesus his co-pilot?  ::)

Shut the gate! I can't believe you're latest meme is serious. Are you making a new mockumentary with Logan Paul?  ;)
« Last Edit: October 06, 2019, 11:34:03 AM by Sunset »

Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #110 on: October 06, 2019, 11:44:21 AM »
Platas concept of reflection are also questionable.
I love how ater manages to geab the light rays and transmit them along the surface.

Anorher interestng point is scale.
The persons feet to the persons head means this dude is taller than a mountain, coming up on 250k ft.
And yes
That is what we see on mountains.
Shadow at the base.
Lit up at the top.

Keep failing plata.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #111 on: October 06, 2019, 11:56:03 AM »
Houston, we still have the same problem.

The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth. We can’t find any curvature to fly over and around.

Houston, do you copy?

This is Houston, we copy.

Get me that Dumb Assed Professor on the line.



The only questions are, what is the size of your sun and how far away from earth is it? Until you can answer these I'm afraid there is no basis for your argument.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #112 on: October 06, 2019, 12:22:47 PM »
‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

It seems the enthousiastic Apollo bandwagon has only the arguments of amatures...
The best they ever brought forward was SG Collins who claimed to be an expert of 1969 film special effects.
‘Even if they wanted to, they could not have faked it in 1969’ was his core argument.
He turned out to be an insignificant ‘lightguy’ with hardily any credentials about the level of 1969 equipment in the film industry.

So please mister ‘sane’ who is your expert(s) on photography who supports ALL Apollo footage as moon authentic !
The experts i heard claim for 100% that some/several Apollo photographs are undeniable the work of 1969 studio trickery.

I found a pretty good/comprehensive write-up on the 'photographers':

"They’re famous photographers, but they’ve always worked on Earth. They have no experience of photography in space, where lighting and lunar soil reflectivity are very different from Earth. Moreover, they were asked to judge digitally altered versions of the photographs instead of the original scans, which show none of the alleged inconsistencies. In one case they were even shown a fake (a montage) instead of a real Apollo photo...
In other words, Massimo Mazzucco asked the photographers whether the lunar photographs are false by giving them a false photo to examine. Their answer is not surprising."


A lot more info here:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #113 on: October 06, 2019, 12:59:30 PM »
Houston, we still have the same problem.

The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth. We can’t find any curvature to fly over and around.

Houston, do you copy?

This is Houston, we copy.

Get me that Dumb Assed Professor on the line.
on a globe, maintaining the same altitude means they wouldn't have to dip the nose. the plane would do it continuously to maintain the altitude.




Thanks for the pics showing the sun reflecting off the ripples and not in a perfect straight line. That is exactly what is expected on a globe.



And you don't seem to understand the concept of a vanishing point. Thanks for the humor!

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #114 on: October 06, 2019, 01:13:21 PM »
‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

It seems the enthousiastic Apollo bandwagon has only the arguments of amatures...
The best they ever brought forward was SG Collins who claimed to be an expert of 1969 film special effects.
‘Even if they wanted to, they could not have faked it in 1969’ was his core argument.
He turned out to be an insignificant ‘lightguy’ with hardily any credentials about the level of 1969 equipment in the film industry.

So please mister ‘sane’ who is your expert(s) on photography who supports ALL Apollo footage as moon authentic !
The experts i heard claim for 100% that some/several Apollo photographs are undeniable the work of 1969 studio trickery.

I found a pretty good/comprehensive write-up on the 'photographers':

"They’re famous photographers, but they’ve always worked on Earth. They have no experience of photography in space, where lighting and lunar soil reflectivity are very different from Earth. Moreover, they were asked to judge digitally altered versions of the photographs instead of the original scans, which show none of the alleged inconsistencies. In one case they were even shown a fake (a montage) instead of a real Apollo photo...
In other words, Massimo Mazzucco asked the photographers whether the lunar photographs are false by giving them a false photo to examine. Their answer is not surprising."


A lot more info here:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html
So a person writes a blog and claims that the best photographic experts don’t understand ‘space photography’ because they have not experienced photography in outerspace ?
Is this person an astronaut ?
If not he/she is not an expert on space photography because he/she has no clue whatsoever about photography in space and has no clue whatsoever him/herself.

Secondly (again i strongly advise you to buy this docu American Moon), Massimo Mazzucco has obtained the very film copies and photographic copies strongly ADVISED by NASA and other experts  to make sure the ‘bad copy’ argument is off the table.
All in the docu American Moon including what specific copies were obtained.

Next....those experts actually KNOW the specific Hasselblad camera, film, studio tools, artificcial lightening, backdrop technologies , scale model technologies, reflectors used in the specific Apollo era.
Don’t you see ? They are able (as they rightfully claim) to SEE in a few seconds what’s going on in many Apollo photographs ....they are totally familiar with the tools, lightening, artifacts and more ..present in the photographs.
Of course the argument that ONE photograph is actually not from NASA ..and everyone knows is moot.
It reminds me of the Michael Collins Gemini photograph in ‘space’ that was a flipped photograph from a practice session on earth with a black out background.
When Ralph Rene ( only one at the time)  found out about this fakery , the NASA repair team made up a story about a glossy/magazin publisher who thought it was a great idea to take a practice photograph of Michael Collins, flip the image and black out the background and sell it as a Gemini spacewalk..... surely no authority would object ?
You can’t really make this stuff up, because the excuses are so extremely lame.....
Whenever NASA is caught red handed it is not theirs.....

Finally ... it’s in the docu (American Moon) .....how the NASA light experts of those days ( not some wannabe blog writer) claim that it will be extremely hard to capture any proper image with detail on the moon..... either something is in full sunlight or full darkness with nothing in between.
The offcial written details about the lunar lightening conditions prior to Apollo are in the docu.
But the Apollo pictures show great detail between sunlid and shadow area’s contrary to all previous claims about the behaviour of light and photography on the moon.

I am baffled when reading a so called self promoted expert claiming that the TOP experts in the docu American Moon have it all wrong.....and unknowingly about the NASA lunar light experts prior to Apollo.
... stunning the least......


*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #115 on: October 06, 2019, 02:10:22 PM »
So dutchy will fall back and appeal to the authority of a few film makers who are simply out to make a buck off the conspiracy crowd. (With only their opinion, btw).

I think I'll stick with the achievements of tens of thousands of highly intelligent people who have dedicated their lives to their field.

You know, the tens of thousands of people that dutchy has labeled "liars"!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #116 on: October 06, 2019, 02:12:37 PM »
‘All arguments brought forward by propagandists related to moon photography’ are the works of enthousiastic amatures with some background in photograpy from a personal hobby or interrest.
Compare that to the following names including some of the best world renowned film and photography experts in the docu ‘American moon’ :
Olivier Toscani,Toni Thorimbert, Paolo Attivissimo, Aldo Fallai, Peter Lindbergh, Danilo Pasqua, Nicola Pecorini who switly point out the appearent studio set up artifacts in many Apollo footage.
They know the equipment used in 1969, techniques of the days, studio tools, camera’s, film and much more...
And when those expert show that many Apollo photographs are 100% shot in a studio environment who are your photographic experts to claim the authenticity of ALL Apollo photographs ?

It seems the enthousiastic Apollo bandwagon has only the arguments of amatures...
The best they ever brought forward was SG Collins who claimed to be an expert of 1969 film special effects.
‘Even if they wanted to, they could not have faked it in 1969’ was his core argument.
He turned out to be an insignificant ‘lightguy’ with hardily any credentials about the level of 1969 equipment in the film industry.

So please mister ‘sane’ who is your expert(s) on photography who supports ALL Apollo footage as moon authentic !
The experts i heard claim for 100% that some/several Apollo photographs are undeniable the work of 1969 studio trickery.

I found a pretty good/comprehensive write-up on the 'photographers':

"They’re famous photographers, but they’ve always worked on Earth. They have no experience of photography in space, where lighting and lunar soil reflectivity are very different from Earth. Moreover, they were asked to judge digitally altered versions of the photographs instead of the original scans, which show none of the alleged inconsistencies. In one case they were even shown a fake (a montage) instead of a real Apollo photo...
In other words, Massimo Mazzucco asked the photographers whether the lunar photographs are false by giving them a false photo to examine. Their answer is not surprising."


A lot more info here:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html
So a person writes a blog and claims that the best photographic experts don’t understand ‘space photography’ because they have not experienced photography in outerspace ?
Is this person an astronaut ?
If not he/she is not an expert on space photography because he/she has no clue whatsoever about photography in space and has no clue whatsoever him/herself.

Secondly (again i strongly advise you to buy this docu American Moon), Massimo Mazzucco has obtained the very film copies and photographic copies strongly ADVISED by NASA and other experts  to make sure the ‘bad copy’ argument is off the table.
All in the docu American Moon including what specific copies were obtained.

Next....those experts actually KNOW the specific Hasselblad camera, film, studio tools, artificcial lightening, backdrop technologies , scale model technologies, reflectors used in the specific Apollo era.
Don’t you see ? They are able (as they rightfully claim) to SEE in a few seconds what’s going on in many Apollo photographs ....they are totally familiar with the tools, lightening, artifacts and more ..present in the photographs.
Of course the argument that ONE photograph is actually not from NASA ..and everyone knows is moot.
It reminds me of the Michael Collins Gemini photograph in ‘space’ that was a flipped photograph from a practice session on earth with a black out background.
When Ralph Rene ( only one at the time)  found out about this fakery , the NASA repair team made up a story about a glossy/magazin publisher who thought it was a great idea to take a practice photograph of Michael Collins, flip the image and black out the background and sell it as a Gemini spacewalk..... surely no authority would object ?
You can’t really make this stuff up, because the excuses are so extremely lame.....
Whenever NASA is caught red handed it is not theirs.....

Finally ... it’s in the docu (American Moon) .....how the NASA light experts of those days ( not some wannabe blog writer) claim that it will be extremely hard to capture any proper image with detail on the moon..... either something is in full sunlight or full darkness with nothing in between.
The offcial written details about the lunar lightening conditions prior to Apollo are in the docu.
But the Apollo pictures show great detail between sunlid and shadow area’s contrary to all previous claims about the behaviour of light and photography on the moon.

I am baffled when reading a so called self promoted expert claiming that the TOP experts in the docu American Moon have it all wrong.....and unknowingly about the NASA lunar light experts prior to Apollo.
... stunning the least......

Fair points you raise. I've seen elsewhere from astronauts and space experts exactly what that rando blogger mentions. I just thought the individual captured those bits comprehensively.

But no, I would not say these fashion photoags are at all familar with photography on the moon.

I looked into Rene's Gemini claim. People have looked at Collin's book ('Carrying the Fire') where Rene supposedly found the "fake" photo. It's in the Collin's book but is captioned, 'The zero-G airplane - sickening!' and clearly shows it to have been taken inside an aircraft. So I'm not sure what you're referring to.


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #117 on: October 06, 2019, 02:36:36 PM »
The Zero G Plane is maintaining the same altitude over the ocean with exact horizontal flight.  We do not have to dip the nose or descend to keep from gaining altitude over the Earth.
Prove it.
So far all we have along these lines is the same repeated baseless assertion.
The amount a plane would have to dip to follow the curve is so tiny it would not be felt.


As for your latest meme, again it is pure nonsense.
You have brought up that exact same argument before and had it refuted.
Oceans are level, but not flat.
You are aware the sun doesn't just shoot out light from the centre?
You also seem to completely ignore how a reflection works.
It doesn't just hit the surface then cruise along.
And for a FE, your sun is far too low. You have it at head height.

For a FE, you should see the sun vanish high in the sky, or always see it.
With the claimed 5000 km above the surface, in order to have it within a degree of the horizon (ignoring refraction which would make it appear higher) you would need to have it over a point roughly 290 000 km away, i.e. well beyond the range of the known Earth.
As such, it would never appear to set for a FE.

So that picture is nothing like what you would expect for a FE.

And of course you massive exaggerate the curve.
For a curve like that you would need a much greater altitude. Like from a mountain, which has already been brought up before in favour of a RE, where the sun initially shines upwards, casting shadows upwards, and illuminating the tops of objects before the base.

Try redrawing the same meme, but this time make sure for the FE you have the sun at the appropriate height, showing how it is no where near the horizon.
For the RE, draw in the expected curve, not a massive exaggeration.
And for both, draw in the reflections properly, from all of the sun, not just the middle.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #118 on: October 06, 2019, 02:45:50 PM »
Any sane person would sincerely doubt why we simply do not replicate the technological achievements of 1969-1972 in our highly advanced era by going to the moon NOW.
And what? Then going again next year, then the next then the next and so on?
Then people will complain about why we are wasting so much money repeatedly going to the moon.
Just because you can take a flight around the world (with some stops along the way) does that mean you do so each week? No.

A sane person would expect you to do something just because you can.
Why should we go to the moon NOW?

What is more insane with that line of "reasoning" is that you appeal to a highly advanced error, but want us to cling to the technology of the past.

Compare that to the following names
No. Forget the names.
Don't try to appeal to the authority of some photographer, as that seems to be all deniers can do. Just repeatedly appeal to some guy who claims it is fake, without being able to provide any justification.
Actually provide an argument to indicate they are fake.

claim that it will be extremely hard
Yes, claim. No rational argument, just a claim.
What basis is there for this claim?

Again, all you have provided is assertion and insult.
You have provided nothing of substance to indicate the moon landings were fake.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Houston We Have a Problem. There’s No Heliocentric System
« Reply #119 on: October 06, 2019, 02:52:06 PM »
So dutchy will fall back and appeal to the authority of a few film makers who are simply out to make a buck off the conspiracy crowd. (With only their opinion, btw).

I think I'll stick with the achievements of tens of thousands of highly intelligent people who have dedicated their lives to their field.

You know, the tens of thousands of people that dutchy has labeled "liars"!
No ....not again this avatar thief mister clutchwater.....

The top photographers are loaded they don’t need anything from online admirers.
They simply cannot believe the simpletons who think the Apollo footage was shot on the moon while countless of familiar film and studio atributes are present in the Apollo photographs.
They have worked with all the same equipment as famous world renowned photographic experts.
Surely their arguments hold some water mister crutch ?

I have never called the NASA labour force liars.
They are mostly hardworking people trying to provide their families while working on some very small and detailed fragment of the whole Apollo program.
I called Neil Armstrong ( the star denier), Buzz Alldrin ( the drunk punchy type), Alan Bean ( the VAB ignorant), Edgar Mitchell ( the Roswell alien technologies, secret government , free energy, ten times brighter star believer) and Don Pettit (the moon technology destroyer) LIARS.

False accusations mister crutch....If only my friend ‘here to laugh at you’ was present to teach you some proper forum manners.