NASA Artemis

  • 39 Replies
  • 5746 Views
*

rvlvr

  • 2148
NASA Artemis
« on: September 22, 2021, 02:26:50 AM »
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/

Nasa selects landing site for Moon rover mission:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58608295

We will finally find out if Moon really is made of cheese.


*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2021, 10:58:34 AM »
Hopefully it isn't limburger.
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.

Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2021, 07:53:40 PM »
Right? It's so interesting!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2021, 09:29:07 PM »
With the technology we have to day to make things look much more believable, this will prove nothing other than us being treated to another film but with a bit of added extra just to whet the sci-fi buff's appetites.

They can sell us any fiction as a reality if we don't know the reality of the story they're selling.

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2021, 12:22:26 AM »
Can you tell us again why all the theatrics?

I guess China does its thing for the Chinese, and NASA caters for a more Western audience? More Matt Damon, and so on?

Though, it does sound to me you just choose to deny, as these latest developments eat into your view of the world. Space starts to get crowded what with all the different programs. And that, of course, can't happen as it is a direct attack on what you think.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2021, 01:25:23 AM by rvlvr »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2021, 07:16:36 PM »
With the technology we have to day to make things look much more believable...
If we have the technology to make things look believable, then what makes you think that we don't have technology to make things real?
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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2021, 09:03:21 PM »
With the technology we have to day to make things look much more believable...
If we have the technology to make things look believable, then what makes you think that we don't have technology to make things real?
Because no amount of technology is going to make space a reality so the best that can be done is to merely pretend it is by fobbing us off with CGI movies.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2021, 04:09:09 PM »
Because no amount of technology is going to make space a reality...
I suppose that depends on how you define "space".

... so the best that can be done is to merely pretend it is by fobbing us off with CGI movies.
If there is no such thing a space, then how would the CGI movie makers know how to make it look realistic?
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.

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2021, 11:38:33 PM »
The only thing i would be very interested inlooking at, at this point,s if someone discovered holes in the plot.
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2021, 01:43:45 AM »
Yet, sadly there are none :(
« Last Edit: October 06, 2021, 01:46:53 AM by rvlvr »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2021, 10:55:11 AM »
With the technology we have to day to make things look much more believable...
If we have the technology to make things look believable, then what makes you think that we don't have technology to make things real?
Because no amount of technology is going to make space a reality so the best that can be done is to merely pretend it is by fobbing us off with CGI movies.

The problem with the CGI argument is that there is all kinds of footage from Skylab, for example, the predates CGI  by at least a decade plus.

Skylab footage can be found that:

- Is not CGI because it didn't exist at the time
- No "cable" systems as combination of movements preclude any known single take cabling techniques
- Clips exist that are far longer than the 30 seconds or so max of a vomit comet
- And they are obviously not under water

So back in the early seventies they were either up in what we consider Space and in a weightless environment or I don't know what. No other explanation seems to fit.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2021, 04:06:42 AM »

If there is no such thing a space, then how would the CGI movie makers know how to make it look realistic?
Make it look realistic?
They're making it look like anything they wish it to look like. It's got nothing to with making something look realistic or knowing how to. You just make the story and add in whatever you want to cater for what we're told.
 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2021, 04:57:42 AM »
The problem with the CGI argument is that there is all kinds of footage from Skylab, for example, the predates CGI  by at least a decade plus.
Skylab footage can be found that:

- Is not CGI because it didn't exist at the time
Or so we're told.

Quote from: Stash
- No "cable" systems as combination of movements preclude any known single take cabling techniques
Or so we're told.

Quote from: Stash
- Clips exist that are far longer than the 30 seconds or so max of a vomit comet
A vomit comet isn't the only scenario.

Quote from: Stash
- And they are obviously not under water
Many clips suggest they are.

Quote from: Stash
So back in the early seventies they were either up in what we consider Space and in a weightless environment or I don't know what. No other explanation seems to fit.
Of course, to you because you believe it all. I wouldn't expect you to think any differently, to be fair.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2021, 01:11:50 PM »
The problem with the CGI argument is that there is all kinds of footage from Skylab, for example, the predates CGI  by at least a decade plus.
Skylab footage can be found that:

- Is not CGI because it didn't exist at the time
Or so we're told.
And that is a key part where the problems for the conspiracy really start to pop up.
They need to claim NASA has top secret, super advanced technology that allows them to do the impossible; all while claiming they couldn't do the impossible.

If NASA really is that advanced, what is stopping them actually going to space and the moon?
You not liking it is not enough.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2021, 02:55:44 PM »
The problem with the CGI argument is that there is all kinds of footage from Skylab, for example, the predates CGI  by at least a decade plus.
Skylab footage can be found that:

- Is not CGI because it didn't exist at the time
Or so we're told.

We had badass CGI decades before we were exposed to badass CGI? I've never seen any evidence of this. If you have some evidence of such, lay it on me.

Quote from: Stash
- No "cable" systems as combination of movements preclude any known single take cabling techniques
Or so we're told.

"So we're told" is sort of a toddler's response. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present.

Quote from: Stash
- Clips exist that are far longer than the 30 seconds or so max of a vomit comet
A vomit comet isn't the only scenario.

What are some other scenarios that allow for weightlessness like a vomet comet where there is no water, cables, or CGI?

Quote from: Stash
- And they are obviously not under water
Many clips suggest they are.

Many clips suggest they are not. What about those?

Quote from: Stash
So back in the early seventies they were either up in what we consider Space and in a weightless environment or I don't know what. No other explanation seems to fit.
Of course, to you because you believe it all. I wouldn't expect you to think any differently, to be fair.

Obviously, I wouldn't expect you to "think" differently, to be fair. That's not what I'm after. I'm looking for evidence, you know, facts and such. Not "So we are tolds", which means literally nothing as i could say that about almost everything.

I just can't figure out how they did these super long uninterrupted shots with some complex movements with GCI (didn't exist at the time), Vomit Comet (Too long), Underwater (Too long and doesn't at all look underwater considering movements), Cabling (Can't see how you could moved in all axis directions simultaneously, pirouette, move around fixed objects, etc., all in single long takes)

You have to watch on Youtube, but's kinda interesting 6+ minutes of jumping around (Start around a minute in):


Here are some highlights that I can't explain away other than by the conventional reasoning:




*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2021, 03:48:47 PM »
"If NASA didn't put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (and ten more people) on the Moon, then who did?"

At the time NASA had 400 000 employees. Give them $100k each to keep silent, and it is 40 billion.
Add the "filming and evidence fabrication" expenses and the numbers multiply.
Those numbers also grow more when you add subcontractors.

To send people to the Moon was cheaper and easier:
Quote
NASA's total budget appropriations for the Apollo Program through 1969 was $16.1 billion per official documents.
The total cost of the Apollo Program up through about 1974 was $25.4 billion.

And how many of those employees would get greedy and want more?
And how many of them would take the money and still blow the whistle?

Why Soviets (main Cold War enemy) didn't debunk "the conspiracy"?
They would benefit greatly by denying the American victory in The Space Race.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2021, 03:50:53 PM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2021, 04:58:21 PM »
The problem with the CGI argument is that there is all kinds of footage from Skylab, for example, the predates CGI  by at least a decade plus.
Skylab footage can be found that:

- Is not CGI because it didn't exist at the time
Or so we're told.

Quote from: Stash
- No "cable" systems as combination of movements preclude any known single take cabling techniques
Or so we're told.

Quote from: Stash
- Clips exist that are far longer than the 30 seconds or so max of a vomit comet
A vomit comet isn't the only scenario.

Quote from: Stash
- And they are obviously not under water
Many clips suggest they are.

Quote from: Stash
So back in the early seventies they were either up in what we consider Space and in a weightless environment or I don't know what. No other explanation seems to fit.
Of course, to you because you believe it all. I wouldn't expect you to think any differently, to be fair.

Says the guy sitting in front of a computer monitor who easily accepts science is responsible for the post he just made, the electricity flowing into his house, the microwave which sits in his kitchen, his air conditioner, his electric toothbrush, his car alarm, the very paint which lines the walls of his house, etc.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2021, 04:40:29 AM »
The problem with the CGI argument is that there is all kinds of footage from Skylab, for example, the predates CGI  by at least a decade plus.
Skylab footage can be found that:

- Is not CGI because it didn't exist at the time
Or so we're told.

We had badass CGI decades before we were exposed to badass CGI? I've never seen any evidence of this. If you have some evidence of such, lay it on me.

Quote from: Stash
- No "cable" systems as combination of movements preclude any known single take cabling techniques
Or so we're told.

"So we're told" is sort of a toddler's response. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present.

Quote from: Stash
- Clips exist that are far longer than the 30 seconds or so max of a vomit comet
A vomit comet isn't the only scenario.

What are some other scenarios that allow for weightlessness like a vomet comet where there is no water, cables, or CGI?

Quote from: Stash
- And they are obviously not under water
Many clips suggest they are.

Many clips suggest they are not. What about those?

Quote from: Stash
So back in the early seventies they were either up in what we consider Space and in a weightless environment or I don't know what. No other explanation seems to fit.
Of course, to you because you believe it all. I wouldn't expect you to think any differently, to be fair.

Obviously, I wouldn't expect you to "think" differently, to be fair. That's not what I'm after. I'm looking for evidence, you know, facts and such. Not "So we are tolds", which means literally nothing as i could say that about almost everything.

I just can't figure out how they did these super long uninterrupted shots with some complex movements with GCI (didn't exist at the time), Vomit Comet (Too long), Underwater (Too long and doesn't at all look underwater considering movements), Cabling (Can't see how you could moved in all axis directions simultaneously, pirouette, move around fixed objects, etc., all in single long takes)

You have to watch on Youtube, but's kinda interesting 6+ minutes of jumping around (Start around a minute in):


Here are some highlights that I can't explain away other than by the conventional reasoning:




That video is a classic example as to why it's all clap trap.
The men supposedly running around the spaceship.  ::)

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2021, 04:41:49 AM »


Says the guy sitting in front of a computer monitor who easily accepts science is responsible for the post he just made, the electricity flowing into his house, the microwave which sits in his kitchen, his air conditioner, his electric toothbrush, his car alarm, the very paint which lines the walls of his house, etc.
I'm arguing against space and the shenanigans, not alarms and what not.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2021, 05:00:35 AM »
That video is a classic example as to why it's all clap trap.
The men supposedly running around the spaceship.  ::)
You mean you response is a classic example of clap trap. You can't raise any actual objections, so you just dismiss it. Because rejecting reality is so much easier than admitting you are wrong.

Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2021, 08:42:57 AM »
I wonder how much time will pass until we reach point where space travel becomes undeniable thing and we will finaly know truth.  Artemis will land on moon sometime in 2020's , no matter how much they delay it. Only way to elongate this is by massive economic crisis or false-flag rocket crash which will destroy public's opinion on space travel.

Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2021, 12:49:30 PM »
I wonder how much time will pass until we reach point where space travel becomes undeniable thing and we will finaly know truth.  Artemis will land on moon sometime in 2020's , no matter how much they delay it. Only way to elongate this is by massive economic crisis or false-flag rocket crash which will destroy public's opinion on space travel.

Space travel is already an undeniable thing.  I think when space travel becomes common place the flat Earthers will simply move the goalposts.  They will say things like the dome is much further out than we thought, and the Earth's curvature is an illusion of distance (kind of like sunsets on the horizon).  There is an enormous amount of proof the Earth is a sphere  right now.   GPS is used daily, plane flights daily, watching sunrises and sunsets etc. etc..    Adding in the common occurrence of space travel will just be one more piece of conclusive proof that will be rejected.   

Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2021, 01:03:02 PM »
Yes they will move goalposts but then it whoud be obivious what they are doing. It will be impossible to be flat earther when you look up and  see lights on the moon form colonies or when 90% of exotic materials comes form space

Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2021, 01:08:52 PM »
Yes they will move goalposts but then it whoud be obivious what they are doing. It will be impossible to be flat earther when you look up and  see lights on the moon form colonies or when 90% of exotic materials comes form space
But they can watch the sun set below the horizon every day of their lives.  It is already obvious what they are doing.

*

Gumwars

  • 793
  • A poke in your eye good sir...
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2021, 01:12:04 PM »
I'm arguing against space and the shenanigans, not alarms and what not.

Scepti, you're arguing against a lot more than that.  I provided a video here some time ago showing an uncut shot of the lunar module ascending from the Moon's surface to the command module in orbit.  This film was shot in 1969 and shows the LM go from not being resolvable (you can't see it) to it being completely in view.  You've made claims that CGI was a possible solution, let me very clear, it wasn't. 

In 1969, the Apollo guidance computer had a maximum memory of 72Kb.  For reference, one or two pages from one post on this forum are probably more than that.  To say that a computer of that age could even come close to creating an image of that fidelity isn't just a stretch, it strains past the breaking point any believability of what a computer can even accomplish.  TRON came out in 1982 and computers of that age didn't even have the ability to do realtime renders.  Animators of that day didn't even know what the image would look like when they were creating them.  These shapes were plotted using three-axis geometry and then the renders would take days to bake.  They'd come back and see what turned out and hope everything was where it was supposed to be.  So, to think that computers from more than a decade earlier could do it better and with a greater degree of fidelity ignores Moore's Law, the technology of the time, and what was possible even with conventional special effects.

Marooned (the film) came out in 1969 and represents what a large budget film of the time could do with space-based special effects.  The budget for that film was between $8 and 10 million, adjusted for inflation, about $75 million today.  I'm giving up those numbers to represent that the film wasn't a B-movie, but if you watch it, it isn't even on the same page as that lunar ascent film.  In order to pull that shot off, you'd need a number of things that just aren't possible if you shot it on Earth. 

To your credit, the CIA apparently did look at trying to fake the moon landing.  However, after talking to the folks at NASA, they concluded that making it believable would be impossible.  The USSR would have caught the deception and made the US look like fools on the world stage.  It would have required special effects technology to be created that didn't exist at the time of the Apollo program, and represented an unknown cost that no one of that day had any clue would take to pull off.  What NASA did know, is that a lunar mission was possible.  They had already proven that orbital operations were possible with Mercury, and that ship-to-ship intercept and docking could be accomplished through Gemini.  Apollo could be done, and they did it.

Why is that so hard to believe?
Quote from: Carl Sagan
We should endeavor to always keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2021, 02:12:49 PM »
Yes they will move goalposts but then it whoud be obivious what they are doing. It will be impossible to be flat earther when you look up and  see lights on the moon form colonies or when 90% of exotic materials comes form space
It will be no more impossible than it is now.

To those who actually take the time to critically think about it, it is obvious what they are already doing. Blatantly denying reality and claiming a massive global conspiracy, cherry picking specific things while ignoring the context to blatantly misrepresent reality and pretend Earth is flat.

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2021, 11:14:57 PM »
Did you guys ever think that maybe the moon is just some vast distance over the ocean?
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2021, 12:37:53 AM »
Did you guys ever think that maybe the moon is just some vast distance over the ocean?
I see it quite high in the sky fairly often.
In fact, I see it at lots of different angles. And as it changes apparent position in the sky, it's apparent size remains fairly constant, and I see roughly the same size.

To me, that indicates it remains a fairly constant distance away and the distance to it must be many times the size of Earth.

Now this could be consider to be able a point some vast distance over the ocean, but not in the FE sense.
The near constant apparent size shows it isn't just vanishing from view because it is too far away and is appearing too small.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2021, 12:21:09 PM »
Did you guys ever think that maybe the moon is just some vast distance over the ocean?

Yes. It is a vast distance over the oceans, over land and all things inbetween, close to 240,000 miles away from our oceans and land.

Re: NASA Artemis
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2021, 12:23:44 PM »
I'm a new poster and interested in the topic. I am curious why there are so many who do not believe the idea of a flat earth on here when this forum should be for those who want to learn and discover more. Instead I find many posters shutting down discussion, much like paid disinfo agents on other forums, why is that?