Cool Mission?

  • 577 Replies
  • 37922 Views
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #210 on: January 02, 2023, 01:03:14 PM »
Quote
2019-01-26 20:39 UTC
TRACKING GOOGLE LOON BALOONS ON RADARBOX

https://www.radarbox.com/blog/tracking-google-loon-baloons-on-radarbox

Tracking Loon Balloons on Radarbox.com

Loon Ballons on Radarbox.com can be clearly identified by the yellow balloon icon, that resembles a hot air balloon with the registration HBALxxx.  Users can spot them drifting over Brazil, Equador, Colombia, the Carribean islands and the Pacific ocean. Here are a few images of the Loon Baloon on Radarbox.com



A Loon Balloon just off the coast of Panama (flight card on the left).


And again… if there were “secret” balloons, it would be found out.  Everything from flight safety to amateurs.

Quote
Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun
https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/?amp
« Last Edit: January 02, 2023, 01:11:40 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22472
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #211 on: January 02, 2023, 04:58:32 PM »
If it isn't science, why should any of us be interested?
It isn't using a wide body of scientific knowledge. For example, it isn't using gravity.
But it can still be described as science in the sense of making observations and hypotheses and testing them.

Is that true? Is there only one way of seeing only one side of the moon? No,but REers seem to think so.
No, there are several ways, but that is not the only point.
The argument has several points which work together to demonstrate a FE is nonsense.
If you just focus on one of these points while ignoring the others, you can make it work on a FE, but the other points then destroy that idea.

It isn't simply that they see the same side of the moon.
Instead, it is that everyone sees roughly the same face of the moon, at roughly the same size (this part can even be ignored), without distortion (i.e. a full moon is always roughly a circle, not an ellipse), and yet at different apparent locations in the sky.

That collectively would only work on a FE which has magical bendy light to make Earth appear to be round, a FE where nature itself conspires against you. (And for the rest of this post I will ignore the nonsense of magical bendy light)

You cannot address all these points collectively any other way.

If the moon was a flat circle above a flat Earth then it would only appear as a circle for those directly in line with it. For anyone who sees it off at an angle, it will appear as an ellipse.
So this would require everyone on Earth to be seeing the moon pretty much directly in line with it. But the only way for that to happen is if the distance to the moon is many times the distance between observers, which would then make them see the moon in the same location.
i.e. if it appeared directly overhead for one observer, it would appear directly over head for all.

So this idea fails.
Making the moon flat will not save you.
All it does is mean that instead of seeing different faces of the moon, you should see it distorted (flattened into an ellipse).

And of course, because you can't defend your delusional BS against this simple disproof, you flee and resort to all sorts of other BS.

Because the moon has no other side, except according to NASA. We have never observed anything else, except according to NASA.
Wrong again.
Because the moon is only ~400 000 km away, and has an elliptical orbit, we actually see slightly different parts of the moon in different locations, and over time.
But that isn't important for the main argument.

until you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that space missions are real
You mean until you can bring yourself to accept the mountains of evidence that demonstrates you are wrong, which you have no interest in doing because it destroys your fantasy?

you would have to explain to me how rocket fuel burns in an anaerobic environment (you said it has oxidizers) with further has no air for friction or surface tension, meaning if it got space, and even if it burned, it wouldn't go nowhere), that's not happening.
And more delusional crap.
For starters, plenty of rockets use oxygen as the oxidiser. That means it is not an anaerobic environment.
But appealing to that, when you admit that it has oxidisers just further either your dishonesty or your complete ignorance of what you are talking about.
If you have fuel and an oxidiser it will combust. Some monopropellants are inherently unstable and don't even need that.

But the most deluded part of that is your claim that because there isn't air outside, the combustion products will magically sit there doing nothing.
That is claiming you can have very high pressure combustion products, sitting right next to a vacuum, with no barrier to separate them, yet the high pressure gas just sits there?
Just what magic are you appealing to to contain this gas?

Back in reality, if you have a situation like this, the high pressure gas will be pushing outwards in all directions, applying a force in all directions. This will act on the rocket to propel it (and also provide the more than enough pressure for further combustion), while it will push gas out the nozzle as exhaust.

You don't need air for a rocket engine to work.
But because you want to reject at all costs, you spout such delusional nonsense.

But your idea about the moon orbiting an orbiting and rotating Earth has a flaw. At best, we have a geostationary satellite, meaning the moon is over New Jersey and nowhere else. At worst we have the moon dragging behind unable to stay in orbit.
Why?
Because you say so?
Yet again you just spout absolute garbage with no justification at all.

We have the moon in orbit around Earth, with the entire Earth-Moon system in orbit around the sun.
The sun doesn't drag Earth which then has to drag the moon. The gravity from the sun acts on the moon as well.

*

JackBlack

  • 22472
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #212 on: January 02, 2023, 04:59:07 PM »
12 mph
2,288 miles per hour
And now you are just spouting numbers, with no justification or source.
As a rough approximation, the velocity of the moon RELATIVE TO EARTH is easily calculated from the length of its orbital path (which I will approximate as a circle with a radius of 400 000 km), and its orbital period, which I will approximate as 28 days.
This gives us 3740 km/hr.
This is close to the 2288 miles per hour.

making it go from one end to another of Earth in 3 hours
Only if you want to pretend it is travelling in a straight line, passing directly through Earth, instead of orbiting around Earth (and even then I get 3.4 hours).

So I take it this is more delusional crap you want to try appealing to?
To ignore the fact that the moon is roughly 400 000 km away, orbiting Earth, and instead pretend it is just 6371 km away from the centre of Earth?

However, it is good to note that this is comparable to the duration of totality of a lunar eclipse, and the duration that a total solar eclipse is visible somewhere on Earth (i.e. from the time it starts to the time it ends).

So this is not the problem you are making it out to be.

Based on what "science" has told us, the Earth rotates at roughly 1000 mph. This means even if the Earth rotates against the moon, the moon gains two hours for every hour Earth moves. All of this is a convoluted mess
The only convoluted mess is the delusional BS you stoop to, which is likely a wilful misrepresentation of what science has told us.
What science actually has is that Earth rotates with a period of revolution of ~24 hours (closer to 23 hours 56 minutes), while the moon orbits with a period of roughly 28 days.
And for this there are actually 2 different orbital periods. The first is the sidereal orbital period. That is the time it takes to orbit Earth relative to the background stars and is 27.3 days.
The other is the synodic. This is the average time taken to orbit in a reference frame which keeps the sun and Earth in the same orientation, i.e. the average time between new moons, which is 29.5 days.

The vast majority of the apparent motion of the moon comes from Earth's rotation. This causes it to appear to move at roughly 15 degrees per hour.
The orbit is responsible for the changing phase and partly for it appearing at different times of day.

After all, a plane passes out of sight much sooner than a few hours. Yet the moon doesn't move like this, making it patent nonsense.
Yes, your delusion BS is patent nonsense.
A plane flies overhead at roughly 10 km. If it flies lower it is seen for an even shorter period. Meanwhile, the moon is roughly 400 000 km up.

Where did I get that from?
From more delusional BS which is in no way connected to reality, which ignores the range you should be able to see the moon at (see below) and pretending it is travelling along the surface at the equator.

So while people in New Zealand can see the moon, eighteen timezone hours from me, it hasn't gone anywhere in hours. I can still see it when I go to bed at night. This implies either we are able to see halfway across the Earth (invalidating curvature theory) or that there are two moons.
Why not say it in a more straight forward and honest manner. Them being ahead a day doesn't really matter. Being 18 hours ahead means they are 6 hours behind.
That is 1/4 of the way around Earth. But of course, that isn't anywhere near as impactful as your dishonest BS.

But again, you want to pretend the moon is sitting on Earth's surface. IT ISN'T.
So no, this in no way invalidates the fact that Earth is round.
And the fact that you have chosen to not even bother doing the simple math, just further demonstrates how deluded or dishonest you are.

Just like I did for the ISS, you can easily calculate just how large an area would see the moon.
This is trivial to do by drawing a simple picture, and doing the math:

Here instead of R+h, we just use the radius of the moon's orbit, 400 000 km. And we want to find out a.
And from the diagram we know that cos(a)=R/(R+h).
This gives us 89 degrees. Doubling that to get the range gives us 178 degrees.
That means if you are 89 degrees away from the sub-lunar point on this very real round Earth that you hate so much, you will still be able to see the centre of the moon.
If we also throw in the angular size of the moon (0.5 degrees), that puts us closer to 179 degrees. (more precisely it would be 178.67 degrees).
And if we throw in refraction near the horizon, which is 0.5 degrees on each side under standard conditions for an object like the sun or moon, that would bump us up to ~180 degrees.
So with the very real RE, roughly half of Earth should be able to see the moon at a given time. This also means you should be able to see it for roughly 12 hours, if it just say in the same position relative to Earth with Earth rotating below it.

This also means your calculation of how fast the moon is going is complete garbage.

I'll let you decide which one is more plausible
Well considering how you have entirely failed to provide any justification at all of how this could ever work for a FE, and instead focused on spouting pure delusional garbage to try and pretend there are problems with the RE model, all of which are easily seen to be pure garbage, and so you have failed to demonstrate any actual flaw with the RE model, it certainly seems like the RE model is more plausible.

With a non-rotating non-orbiting Earth, no such flaw exists.
What flaw? You are yet to provide any.

We know this from real science.
No, you don't.
You don't know it, and you aren't using science to reach that conclusion.
Instead you just spout delusional BS while ignoring the actual science.
Actual science which has demonstrated beyond any sane doubt that Earth is rotating about its axis and orbiting the sun.

We also know because the moon is tidally locked, that it cannot rotate (12 mph or otherwise). So something else is at work here. Either the moon is reflecting light from the sun at an asynchronous rate, or there is a third object in the sky that we cannot see, but which obstructs the moon.
And more delusional BS.
Unless you wish to claim the moon is magically fixed in position, it most certainly rotates.
A tidally locked body means its orbital period is equal to its rotational period.
That means the moon rotates at the same rate that it orbits (on average).
But it isn't its rotation that causes the phases, and nothing is obstructing the moon.
It is the orbit of the moon which causes phases, with a different angle at the moon for the separation of Earth and the sun.
When that angle is roughly 0 degrees we have a full moon, when it is roughly 180 degrees, we have a new moon, and when it is roughly 90 degrees we have a quarter moon.

Real science always takes observations, wherever they might lead
Which is why you hate it, as it leads to reality, that Earth is round, rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun; and you hate that.

Now care to try addressing the flaws with the FE model, rather than repeatedly lashing out at the RE model with your delusional BS?

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #213 on: January 03, 2023, 03:32:07 AM »
is actually dangling suspended from a helium balloon with a rope or string attached below it.



Let’s reference one more cited source…

Quote
Project Loon’s Internet balloons spotted over Guyana

Posted by: Denis Chabrol  in News Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 21:13 3 Comments



A Project Loon balloon spotted over Trinidad earlier Wednesday. (photo taken by camera phone through a telescope by Mr. Mohamed
[/img]

Now..

In a world where I personally used satellite TV in the 80’s.

Personally used “satellite” email while at sea in the middle of the pacific in the 2000’s on a ship that used GPS satellite for navigation and weapons systems.
(Still waiting on a flat earther to answer what navy has a tactical advantage by treating and modeling the world as flat)

Seen the international space station and the starlink satellites for myself.

In a world where amateurs track spy satellites and space missions.

In the context Google/Loom tried a limited trial of high altitude balloon based communications with balloons that in a short time could be spotted from the ground, showed up on radar, would occasionally crash to the ground, tracked by amateurs, actively broadcasting, with balloons that had to be replaced ever 5 months.


Now.  For EchoStar 16 broadcasting from a geosynchronous orbit in the KU band.  Can you give a number of how many balloon stations required to provide the equivalent coverage.  And can you provide any EVIDENCE that the signal from EchoStar 16 is from anything other than from a SINGLE geosynchronous satellite.

Of course not, your a troll….
« Last Edit: January 03, 2023, 04:13:11 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #214 on: January 03, 2023, 05:46:00 AM »
Quote
That's what sheeple do, cover their eyes and ears so as not to be exposed to anything that may challenge their belief system.

Yes, you do.

Despite me telling you numerous times that these things aren't real, you continue to fall back on "holograms are fake, but NASA clearly is not movie magic."

And I did watch video 1, as explained in my updated post.

And if you're gonna tell me about CGI only being very recent, background filming dates back to black and white era.

I asked, what exactly, specifically, makes you quite sure?

As in, what evidence do you have that makes you "quite sure"? Or is just that you believe it to be the case because your belief system won't allow you to think otherwise.

Specific evidence required or you're just being a sheeple.

Okay, here's evidence. Zero Background astronaut jumping.

Wait, your specific evidence is a 3 second stock footage green-screen clip??? You realize that's not evidence. I'm talking about EVIDENCE that the actual events are fake. All you're doing is saying that a forger can paint a Picasso that looks like the real thing, therefore the original Picasso is fake. Do realize how stupid that is?


Do you understand what reasonable doubt is?

In this world true evidence is rare.

So if you're gonna convict someone, there must be no reasonable doubt in the minds of the judge or jury.

Likewise, if you're going to spend millions in tax money on space programs, reasonable doubt should be all that is needed to put the brakes on such a thing.

 To that end, I am not showing that it is faked (AS I HAVE NO WAY OF DOING THIS, lacking any direct contact with NASA). I only need to show that it can be faked, and how it can be faked.



Quote from: posters
Quote
Cognitive dissonance - the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
Quote
I’m extraordinarily unlucky too since 8 days after my first shot.  Am on daily anticoagulant injections and may still lose my toes and have to have a stent put in.  Would be interesting to know just how many extraordinarily unlucky people are out there don’t you think?
Quote
Sorry to hear you’re have complications from the jab. To answer your question, as of Dec. 24, 2021, there were more than 700,000 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in the VAERS database. And they say that figure is only 1% percent of actual cases.

This is the level of cognitive dissonance you have. You know something could be fake, and I even showed you actual ways you can set up a green screen effect. But a green screen is not required. All an amateur photographer needs to do is be able to... is splice the word? Probably not. Basically you're taking film and cutting out part of it, and sticking it on top of another film. The film is run, and the man goes, "Just one small step for man, one giant leap (jumps) for mankind."  Beside which, before they had green screen, they had black screens.

The first CGI effect used in a film was 1973 "Westworld". Before that, low tech tricks were used, but no less effective.



Thankfully, unlike COVID vaccine blood clots, actual human death isn't on the table... except for all the deaths when rockets blow up because launch tech isn't able to work.

Google's project Loom was transparent. They mentioned that it was done by balloon. If it was seen, then it was seen. If we're gonna guess as to why NASA is more successful, well, it's because they are more committed to the lie. They fly higher (the maximum range of radar is 158 km, but it's not necessarily a dome that measures this distance upward), they use more helium, and they are probably inspected and repaired (Google is a rich business but they are not trying to keep secrets, with regard to their balloons anyway). NASA's satellites are funded not only by money but by resources. And these "satellites" do fall, they just are tied in such a way that if they do, the satellite will slip off the weather balloon cord.



Or not! Notice the red cord. A "parachute"? Or a helium balloon that is still floating on camera? Samsung came to check on it, to make sure everything was okay (or to make sure nothing was exposed). Then Samsung collected it, as mentioned by the reporter. The satellite does broadcast things, but it is not held up by space but by balloon in Earth's stratosphere.

The media knows it's fraud. Hollywood knows it's fraud. Tech companies like Samsung knows it's fraud. Much of the government knows it's fraud.

You once asked, how NASA could keep such a secret. Well let's see, they are backed by four organizations, all fairly wealthy?



« Last Edit: January 03, 2023, 06:21:55 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #215 on: January 03, 2023, 07:22:04 AM »

Do you understand what reasonable doubt is?


Too bad you use BS with no evidence….

For EchoStar 16 broadcasting from a geosynchronous orbit in the KU band.  Can you give a number of how many balloon stations required to provide the equivalent coverage provided by EchoStar 16. And can you provide any EVIDENCE that the signal from EchoStar 16 is anything other than from a SINGLE geosynchronous satellite.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #216 on: January 03, 2023, 07:27:18 AM »
NASA's satellites

How was/is EchoStar 16 dependent on “NASA”…


Quote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

EchoStar XVI was built by Space Systems/Loral, and is based on the LS-1300 satellite bus. It is equipped with 32 J band (IEEE Ku band) transponders.[1] At launch it had a mass of 6,258 kilograms (13,797 lb). It has a design life of fifteen years.[2] It has a common configuration with EchoStar XI and EchoStar XV.

The launch of EchoStar XVI was conducted by International Launch Services, using a Proton-M carrier rocket with a Briz-M upper stage. The launch occurred on 20 November 2012, 18:31 UTC from Site 200/39 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.[3][4]


*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #217 on: January 03, 2023, 09:12:25 AM »

Do you understand what reasonable doubt is?

In this world true evidence is rare.

So if you're gonna convict someone, there must be no reasonable doubt in the minds of the judge or jury.

Likewise, if you're going to spend millions in tax money on space programs, reasonable doubt should be all that is needed to put the brakes on such a thing.

 To that end, I am not showing that it is faked (AS I HAVE NO WAY OF DOING THIS, lacking any direct contact with NASA). I only need to show that it can be faked, and how it can be faked.

I'm pretty sure I've asked this before.  Are you stupid?

There is an inherent difference between doubt and reasonable doubt.

You are conflating the two as being the same.

The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is generally considered being met when a prosecutor demonstrates that there is no plausible reason to believe anything other than what they present.  It is not an absolute standard where the prosecution must prove their case beyond any doubt whatsoever. The reasonable doubt standard provides that the prosecution is required to prove the defendant’s guilt to the extent that no reasonable individual could reasonably doubt the defendant’s guilt.

Additionally, for you to show reasonable doubt, you would have to cast doubt on the evidence.  Circumstantial Evidence is the easiest evidence to cast doubt against.  Hard (non-circumstantial) evidence is all but impossible to cast doubt on.  You would have to prove it to be fake, planted, or manipulated to cast doubt.  Simply saying it is and how it could have been, doesn't make it so.

Orgies of evidence, while rare in criminal cases, aren't going to shot down by simply claiming something to be fake.


EXAMPLE:

Man is charged with murder.

EVIDENCE:

Video of the defendant committing the murder.
Fingerprints.
DNA.
Murder Weapon.
Multiple Credible Eyewitnesses

Based on your statements above this is how you think Reasonable Doubt works:

Well your honor, Video can be faked with CGI using XYZ, Fingerprints and DNA can be planted via methods XYZ, and eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and people lie all the time.  That's reasonable doubt.  The defense rests.


You can't just say, well it's fake and CGI, they do it films, reasonable doubt accomplished.  That's not reasonable doubt.  It doesn't cast doubt against the actual evidence.  You would have to show that CGI was actually used or that the video was tampered with in order to draw doubt on that evidence.  Simply saying how it could have been faked doesn't make it fake.

In the future, I would stay away from comparing legal terms, because you don't know what you are talking about.



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.

*

JackBlack

  • 22472
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #218 on: January 03, 2023, 12:37:42 PM »
Do you understand what reasonable doubt is?
Do you?
Because what you are displaying is not reasonable doubt. It is paranoid, delusional "doubt", where you reject any and all evidence that shows you are wrong.

I only need to show that it can be faked, and how it can be faked.
Doing that does not provide the necessary reasonable doubt.
You would also need to provide a motive to fake it.
And so far we have it costing vastly more to fake than to just do it for real.

You are also yet to explain the long duration 0 g footage.

This is the level of cognitive dissonance you have. You know something could be fake, and I even showed you actual ways you can set up a green screen effect. But a green screen is not required. All an amateur photographer needs to do is be able to... is splice the word? Probably not. Basically you're taking film and cutting out part of it, and sticking it on top of another film. The film is run, and the man goes, "Just one small step for man, one giant leap (jumps) for mankind."  Beside which, before they had green screen, they had black screens.
No, this is the level you have.
You find some crappy way to make a very obvious effect, and act like it could explain footage which doesn't look anything like the results produced from this crap.
You use this, often focusing on a single aspect, to ignore the vast majority of it which you can't explain.

Google's project Loom was transparent. They mentioned that it was done by balloon.
And notice the completely different standard you give to it?
You happily accept it, because it fits with your delusion.
If you had an honest standard, why not apply the same standard and dismiss project Loon as fake?
After all, it could hypothetically be faked by satellites.

If we're gonna guess as to why NASA is more successful, well, it's because they are more committed to the lie.
Or take the rational approach of they have satellites in space, removing (or minimising) the vast majority of the problems that Loon faced.

And these "satellites" do fall, they just are tied in such a way that if they do, the satellite will slip off the weather balloon cord.
The actual satellites typically burn up in the atmosphere upon re-entry if they fall. But some large ones do rarely make it back to Earth.
But there is no weather balloon attached.

Or not! Notice the red cord.
And more dishonest BS.
That wasn't a satellite. And it had nothing to do with NASA.
That was Samsung launching a balloon to get a selfie in space.
Did you even bother reading, where they stated it was a balloon?

The media knows it's fraud. Hollywood knows it's fraud. Tech companies like Samsung knows it's fraud. Much of the government knows it's fraud.
And more delusional BS.
So much for your reasonable doubt.
See, you are not actively claiming it is a fraud.
That places the burden on you to actually demonstrate it is a fraud. Not just that it hypothetically could be faked, but actually is faked.
Otherwise, reasonable doubt indicates it is not fraud.

So yet again, you have provided no reason (that is reasonable) to doubt the existence of satellites, nor have you provided any evidence at all to support your allegations of fraud.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #219 on: January 04, 2023, 06:44:41 AM »

Do you understand what reasonable doubt is?

In this world true evidence is rare.

So if you're gonna convict someone, there must be no reasonable doubt in the minds of the judge or jury.

Likewise, if you're going to spend millions in tax money on space programs, reasonable doubt should be all that is needed to put the brakes on such a thing.

 To that end, I am not showing that it is faked (AS I HAVE NO WAY OF DOING THIS, lacking any direct contact with NASA). I only need to show that it can be faked, and how it can be faked.

The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is generally considered being met when a prosecutor demonstrates that there is no plausible reason to believe anything other than what they present.  It is not an absolute standard where the prosecution must prove their case beyond any doubt whatsoever. The reasonable doubt standard provides that the prosecution is required to prove the defendant’s guilt to the extent that no reasonable individual could reasonably doubt the defendant’s guilt.

Additionally, for you to show reasonable doubt, you would have to cast doubt on the evidence.  Circumstantial Evidence is the easiest evidence to cast doubt against.  Hard (non-circumstantial) evidence is all but impossible to cast doubt on.  You would have to prove it to be fake, planted, or manipulated to cast doubt.  Simply saying it is and how it could have been, doesn't make it so.

Orgies of evidence, while rare in criminal cases, aren't going to shot down by simply claiming something to be fake.


EXAMPLE:

Man is charged with murder.

EVIDENCE:

Video of the defendant committing the murder.
Fingerprints.
DNA.
Murder Weapon.
Multiple Credible Eyewitnesses

Based on your statements above this is how you think Reasonable Doubt works:

Well your honor, Video can be faked with CGI using XYZ, Fingerprints and DNA can be planted via methods XYZ, and eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and people lie all the time.  That's reasonable doubt.  The defense rests.


You can't just say, well it's fake and CGI, they do it films, reasonable doubt accomplished.  That's not reasonable doubt.  It doesn't cast doubt against the actual evidence.  You would have to show that CGI was actually used or that the video was tampered with in order to draw doubt on that evidence.  Simply saying how it could have been faked doesn't make it fake.

In the future, I would stay away from comparing legal terms, because you don't know what you are talking about.

Misrepresentation at its best. Were I a defense attorney in such a case where they also had a video, I would be required to call into question whether or not it is fake, not simply declare it could be. I would look at time stamps, and then conclude that in fact the time stamp was from a year ago. The DNA evidence is not from the murderer, but someone who had wild sex with the girl two hours before. The murder weapon is there, but the fingerprints were tampered with. The eye witnesses thought they saw the person, but they were actually a woman disguised as the guy. (All of this can be faked, yes)

But the same rigor falls to the prosecutor. He has to prove that such  video is real. He has to prove the eyewitnesses are credible and not smallminded idiots, that DNA is unassailable (it's usually not, btw),
https://www.popsci.com/dna-evidence-not-foolproof/
https://www.mfellattorneyatlaw.com/is-dna-evidence-accurate-100-far-from-it/
and that the murder weapon even WAS the murder weapon and not something planted at the scene to implicate somebody else. They must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

But neither of us are in court. We are in a webforum. The only standard of proof here is proving whether or not something could happen. Not only could it, but I personally found out that it is an easy matter with a computer and no camera, and without a computer, there are a number of low-tech tricks that can be done, many of which date to over a century ago, and are readily available.

Here's a very easily trick.



There are only five layers in this picture.
1. Black background
2. Soil of "moon". Actually it looks like gray gravel and dirt that I have dealt with working with driveways before.
3. Space module and shadow (this might be two layers)
4. Flag
5. Spacemonaut in suit

With a computer, it would take layering effects, but not be that complicated to pull an astronaut, the ground, etc from thin air. With a camera, it involves getting someone to wear a suit, then pouring gravel and sand, but in some ways it is even easier. A black poster board in a poorly lit room, some sand, and some props. That's it. You don't even have to work with layers or hire pro photographers.

(In fact, later today, I may prove how easy it is to do this shot by making my own)

Likewise, blind trust in NASA is cute, but no.


We see pictures of NASA flying into "space" but then they level off. And then they descend. And then the camera switches to a cut of "space" with the launcher separating.

Uhhh okay, so the craft was in the lower atmosphere where we can see it, then toppled over, and we are expected to believe that it went into space? No, the point where we can see objects is about the troposphere during the day, and only at night can we see beyond that to the stars (and unfortunately our depth perception is shit at night, and planes directly above and stars look the same height). I personally know this, having followed the line of sight of a plane, and watching it disappear. This is what I meant by the parabola. You get to a dome around yourself where objects disappear from view. The only thing the space ship escaped is our parabola. Outer space is much much farther.

Meanwhile whenever a flat Earther tries (and fails) to get a rocket into space (because the technology doesn't work, and he thought to his doom he could test it), we call that out as proof that flat Earth is stupid. So I suppose all times where the Challenger blows up is proof RE is wrong?
Have some damned intellectual honesty!
« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 06:49:59 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #220 on: January 04, 2023, 07:08:51 AM »

Misrepresentation at its best.



Really?


With the Soviets (now Russia), the Chinese, and USA space agencies at odds with each other, or at some point in history.  Each would benefit in numerous ways if they could expose any fraud.  But all have managed to place satellites in orbit.

And…

Before NASA.  There was the navy’s of the world.
Again..

If the earth is flat, in the context of “profiting”, what navy has a tactical advantage, can bring ships on station faster with less fuel, and has more accurate and better targeting solutions because they treat the earth as flat??


If the world was really flat.  Why hide it.  Why waste money and resources on hiding it.  In your delusion, why go to the cost and expense to develop a service for a flat earth, then add on the extra costs and resources to make the service act like it’s designed for a spherical earth.


I don’t know what to tell you.  The earth isn’t flat with only one side.  In reality, it would be more like a six sided cube.  Start rounding those corners, you get a spherical earth…

And that is the reality, a spherical earth…

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #221 on: January 04, 2023, 07:50:52 AM »


Here's a very easily trick.



What was response to…


Prove it.

Again…

Any proof the missions to the moon weren’t broadcasting from the moon?


Quote
Kettering Grammar School

In 1966 the project went international when Swedish student Sven Grahn contacted the group with a recording of the signals from Kosmos 104.[10][11] The same year it discovered Soviet launches from Plesetsk Cosmodrome, officially unacknowledged until 1983.[9]

In 1969, a group used simple radio equipment to monitor the Apollo 11 mission and calculated its orbits.[12][13] According to the group, in December 1972 a member "pick[ed] up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".[14]

In 1973 the group tracked Skylab[15] and in July 1975, the team supported ITN in their coverage of the Soyuz - Apollo link up which took place 140 miles over Bognor Regis on 17 July 1975.[16]

In 1978 the group predicted the crash of Kosmos 954 spacecraft.[17]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #222 on: January 04, 2023, 08:19:11 AM »






10:20 to 11:08. And that was mainly after trying and failing to make a good shadow (and I ignored the organic matter).



This is how long it took me to recreate a "moon landing" on the computer.

But, you say, "This is before computer editing and CGI."

So. What.

Black poster board. A few tons of granite. A flag. And a guy in a space suit. You can do all of that without ever leaving the Earth, and might I add, without spending more than maybe $200 to $500. The space suit requires someone to construct it, and an air tank. The granite is about $50 to $75 a ton.
https://homeguide.com/costs/gravel-prices

I even added a "view of Earth" to my picture.



Not much different from the picture here, other than the absence of shadows, which BTW are impossible as the moon is in an area with no atmosphere, correct? So how is light cast on this picture? Shouldn't it be much darker, and not able to cast such shadows?

Are you really prepared to continue this farce?

Quote
(Have you) Any proof the missions to the moon weren’t broadcasting from the moon?

Yea I do.  We are told that radio waves bounce off the Earth's atmosphere in a round Earth. Or in a flat Earth, for that matter, that radio waves don't behave like they say in RE theory. So in order for any signal to reach the moon, the moon has to be within the Earth's atmosphere (a FE theory).

If not, you could get a signal from the moon... I guess? But without being able to "shut off the Earth's atmosphere" you would be unable to get a signal to the moon. Likewise to ISS, assuming it is in space, only one way signals (maybe) from the ISS, with them hearing not a damned thing. So, ground control asking the ppl on the moon questions? Impossible, they wouldn't even get a signal. Not even them so unclear that moon ppl gotta  say back to ground control, "You'll have to say that again, Houston." Not even static. Dead silence.

This tidbit was pointed out on the article about why radio waves prove flat Earth.

That you're asking me "again"  possibly means you haven't read it properly the first ten times.
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/
Would you like to read that article "again"?


Further, without a powerful broadcast (meaning cell towers on the moon), you would have a time sending anything from the moon either. What are you using to send it? A lunar module? The moon is supposedly 238,855 miles away (under the RE theory).

But yet, you are telling me that without satellites, a signal from a celltower cannot travel even 2000 miles from Korea to LA, then 2000 more to give me a live signal in Virginia from Korea. This traveling at the speed of light, you say. Because of the *scoff* curvature, you tell me that distance is impossible.
Yet somehow a signal that is not using a major radio tower can be picked up from outer space, make it through the same atmosphere that radio systems use to bounce signals off because gravity, to be received by all major networks. "Oh, I'm afraid the deflector shield will be quite operational..."



Sorry. Either the moon is in Earth and you get to travel to moon and send text messages to your bro Buzz, or it's not and you can't.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 09:18:06 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #223 on: January 04, 2023, 08:25:51 AM »

This is how long it took me to recreate a "moon landing" on the computer.



And it looks like a child’s cut and paste from a magazine with no proper shadows, with objects out of proper shape and proportions.


Note added..


With obvious pixels being out of place.  And the lighting not properly blending correctly from the “moon” to the astronaut…

With no answer to how the images were lived broadcast in the 1960’s and 1970’s over live feeds.  With you providing no evidence the missions didn’t broadcast from the moon.  With cited evidence individuals other than NASA tracked and verified the missions to the moon by the spacecraft actively broadcasting.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 09:13:17 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #224 on: January 04, 2023, 08:27:13 AM »


This is how long it took me to recreate a "moon landing" on the computer.

Wow, that's amazing! Looks exactly like this...


Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #225 on: January 04, 2023, 08:31:33 AM »

So. What.



That you’re an obvious troll.  Or just stupid? 

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #226 on: January 04, 2023, 11:32:46 AM »

This is how long it took me to recreate a "moon landing" on the computer.



And it looks like a child’s cut and paste from a magazine with no proper shadows, with objects out of proper shape and proportions.


Note added..


With obvious pixels being out of place.  And the lighting not properly blending correctly from the “moon” to the astronaut…

With no answer to how the images were lived broadcast in the 1960’s and 1970’s over live feeds.  With you providing no evidence the missions didn’t broadcast from the moon.  With cited evidence individuals other than NASA tracked and verified the missions to the moon by the spacecraft actively broadcasting.

All you're proving to me is that you know how to do drop shadow effect. Could I draw some shadows and make his foot look indenting into the gravel? Sure, you just erase part of the bottom and it looks like it sank into the sand.


You can also darken shadows around something, so some appears to be sinking in the surface.

This gives the illusion that there is pressure in a surface when actually they are not a part of it.

But with all the talk of shadows and the feet not making prints, you missed a detail.
That picture is in dunes. Dunes. Lemme repeat that a third time. Dunes.



Lest you fail to understand, we are seeing a good picture of what the moon looks like in the sky every night. It is a rocky circle in the sky, not as this shows, a soft clay/sand space. It is soft enough to leave footprints on, how is it holding together? We should see dust circling the moon as it moves around Earth, especially since its gravity is supposed to be 83.3% lower than that of the Earth (less capable of exerting force on objects like sand and soil), and is further supposed to be pulled around by Earth. So why aren't we seeing sand shuffle around? No, what we do see are rocky craters everywhere.  Where are the rocky craters on your picture? And where are the dunes on our vision of the moon?

Not the same place. 

So where are they? Well, a gray desert, shot at night during a new moon.



Yes, sand does come in gray. No camera tricks necessary. Let's plant a flag in this remote area, claiming it's settled by America. You got the shot? Good, let's get out of here before the Turkish/Bulgarian/Uzbekistani government arrests us.

The footprints are real. The location is not. Anyway, as I said before, it is entirely possible they just got a black screen and some sand. Unlike my computer etchings, you get an impression on sand. This doesn't mean you are on the moon.

Where are the stars? Where's the sun? If shadow is coming in, there should be a light source.



 
« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 11:55:06 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #227 on: January 04, 2023, 11:52:10 AM »

All you're proving to me is that you know how to do drop shadow effect.

What I did was outline how to determine a fake while you ignore the moon missions were verified by the active broadcasting.  Radio and images.  Broadcasts verified to be from the moon.  Broadcasted live.

While ignoring there was no technology at that time to “photoshop/CGI” live broadcasts…




Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #228 on: January 04, 2023, 11:58:53 AM »
[



Lest you fail to understand, we are seeing a good picture of what the moon looks like in the sky every night.

And here’s a more close up view from my own relatively small telescope..





At least I invest in time and resources to actually study the reality to be observed.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #229 on: January 04, 2023, 12:28:53 PM »

All you're proving to me is that you know how to do drop shadow effect.

What I did was outline how to determine a fake while you ignore the moon missions were verified by the active broadcasting.  Radio and images.  Broadcasts verified to be from the moon.  Broadcasted live.

While ignoring there was no technology at that time to “photoshop/CGI” live broadcasts…

"How are they able to keep a secret from the world?" I believe you asked that.

In this thread or some other, I answered... through the collusion of satellite companies, the media, and the government.

If NASA is exposed as fraud, there is need to convince the public to keep funding the hoax or suddenly all of these "satellites" go up in a puff of smoke. If we don't fund Samsung and Google and all the rest in their satellites "to space" (celltowers and balloon-supported broadcasting systems), pretty soon we have dead zones all over the place. This is a connectivity issue, so even though people now could accept other explanations for how internet and radio is broadcast, the lie is kept going. 

"Broadcast live"? Or broadcast in advance?

Keep in mind, it is somewhat easy to broadcast a show like Jeopardy or the Bachelor several months in advance. The audience cannot tell the difference. Suppose this live broadcast was done 3 months in advance? 

And even though it is the twentienth time, I will tell you again.

CGI is not important to this discussion. But since you asked, the invention of CGI predates 1973 (Westworld), as the technology was technically available. Limited CGI was involved in some Hitchcock films.



1958. 11 years before the moon landing of 1969. Could you make a crude mashup of a layer or two? Probably so.

I have a computer, so I am showing you how things can be made from whole cloth.
Without CGI, you use a set. You get real sand. You have to put a real person in an astronaut costume. Still doesn't mean you are in the actual area.

Remember, the entirety of the first Star Wars series and Star Trek were done for the most part without CGI. They managed to create the illusion of visiting other worlds by space ship. And you know, without CGI, we actually get more convincing images because no editing need be done on footprints or shadows.



Really defeats the illusion, no?

And before you ask, film composite shots have been around way before the moon launch. Before computers were smaller than this room or even existed. If you use real sand, you get people standing in sand. But they may be in a broadcast studio in New York or LA. Not anywhere near space.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 12:45:39 PM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #230 on: January 04, 2023, 12:39:46 PM »
Sure, you just erase part of the bottom and it looks like it sank into the sand.




Looks fucking fake as hell.


Looks washed.  And the shadowing, pixels, pattern, and texture is all wrong.  Adds blurring where there is no indication of wind…


https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/beached-yacht-in-sand-royalty-free-image/82067489





Again.

Your just demonstrating how to spot “photoshop/CGI” fakes…



« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 12:51:32 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #231 on: January 04, 2023, 12:46:23 PM »



Keep in mind, it is somewhat easy to broadcast a show like Jeopardy or the Bachelor several months in advance.

Has nothing to do with verified live broadcasts from the moon…

Again..

Any proof the missions to the moon weren’t broadcasting from the moon?


Quote
Kettering Grammar School

In 1966 the project went international when Swedish student Sven Grahn contacted the group with a recording of the signals from Kosmos 104.[10][11] The same year it discovered Soviet launches from Plesetsk Cosmodrome, officially unacknowledged until 1983.[9]

In 1969, a group used simple radio equipment to monitor the Apollo 11 mission and calculated its orbits.[12][13] According to the group, in December 1972 a member "pick[ed] up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".[14]

In 1973 the group tracked Skylab[15] and in July 1975, the team supported ITN in their coverage of the Soyuz - Apollo link up which took place 140 miles over Bognor Regis on 17 July 1975.[16]

In 1978 the group predicted the crash of Kosmos 954 spacecraft.[17]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Grammar_School

And has everything to do with the Soviet space program at that time would have exposed any NASA fraudulent missions..  It had every motive and reason to do so…

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #232 on: January 04, 2023, 01:22:52 PM »
Quote
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Apollo 11

The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[17]
A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969.[18]
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[19] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[20] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[21]
Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[22] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[17][23]
The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy, also detected transmissions coming from the mission[24][25] using a 10 meters dish.[26]

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2793
  • God winds the universe
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #233 on: January 04, 2023, 01:31:07 PM »

Keep in mind, it is somewhat easy to broadcast a show like Jeopardy or the Bachelor several months in advance.

Has nothing to do with verified live broadcasts from the moon…

Because someone "verifies" something as live, do you believe them? Because I don't.
Well, that's obvious.


Again..

Any proof the missions to the moon weren’t broadcasting from the moon?

Yes. As I said before, broadcasts from the moon are from 225,623 miles away. There is no broadcast station on the moon. In 1969, we barely had decent computers at this time. A signal from that distance? No.

This should be obvious. If one is not in deep cognitive dissonance.



There was no broadcast from the moon. It was a hoax, and our governments were in on it, and cable companies were in on it, and NASA was in on it. All of these groups had a vested interest in pushing this hoax.
1. The prevalence of spy drones in the sky above people's heads was appealing for government, who secretly wanted to rule 1984 style.
2. More radio/cell towers and "weather balloons" could be set up, each of which would be deflected as only part of the broadcast system with "satellites in space" being the supposed cause. Even though such signals were perfectly viable well before satellites ever appeared. The benefit of media doing this is obvious, it represents a trade secret (until everyone did it) and allows more money funding such systems.
3. NASA supports it not only to get huge tax payouts but to affect hegemony. Being they are a secular socialist company, they can push all sorts of propaganda about things, and they "know" because they can see into space. Like "trust us when we say Mars is red and Saturn has rains of carbon diamonds, we can see these things."   


And has everything to do with the Soviet space program at that time would have exposed any NASA fraudulent missions..  It had every motive and reason to do so…

What if I told you that it didn't? That there was never any serious rivalry between Russia and US, that governments have always been against the notion of "by the people, for the people, and of the people" and you have slowly been betrayed as government worked together to push state control over your life? It doesn't matter if you are told that your country is communist or capitalist, all that matters is personal freedom. That goes out the window when companies like Google have license to surveillance.  They never had any reason to expose each other, because they were in cooperation! Space program was a cash cow that would lead to money

Unlike simply telling the public "we're going to build a network of celltowers, far more than we need, and we're going to launch a bunch of balloons with electronic devices attached, many of which will fall or freeze, or get swept off course by freak weather. These things will be used to spy on you and to broadcast all sorts of frequencies," they were able to spin it as "fighting the Russians who obviously want to launch beams from space that will kill us all" and "exploring the moon and beyond." In other words they capitalized on science fiction films since before the 50s. 


Now so you don't ask me about CGI ever again... How to do green screen before CGI.



It says that compositing can be done live on set around 2:44 of the video.
So, not only is CGI moot, but it being live is also moot! Good try, though.

Good to know you also hate other people's CG as much as mine.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 01:43:25 PM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22472
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #234 on: January 04, 2023, 02:15:26 PM »
Misrepresentation at its best.
Yes, that does seem to be all you have.

Wilful rejection of the evidence, and appealing to a massive conspiracy with no clear motive or reason for it, and no evidence for this conspiracy at all, does not constitute reasonable doubt.
You reject the evidence because you don't like it.

Not only could it, but I personally found out that it is an easy matter with a computer and no camera, and without a computer, there are a number of low-tech tricks that can be done, many of which date to over a century ago, and are readily available.
Only for pathetic examples that are nothing like what you are refusing to attempt to explain.

We see pictures of NASA flying into "space" but then they level off. And then they descend.
Yet again appealing to this dishonest double standard.
Does this mean you accept the sun descend, passing below Earth, and doesn't remain above Earth?
The rockets going to space orbit Earth. They aren't descending, as they are still gaining altitude until they reach their orbit, the curvature just makes it look like they are, because the region of they are over is lower than you, and perspective helps to as they are far away.

Uhhh okay, so the craft was in the lower atmosphere where we can see it, then toppled over, and we are expected to believe that it went into space? No, the point where we can see objects is about the troposphere during the day, and only at night can we see beyond that to the stars
And more delusional garbage.
This has nothing at all to do with distance.
Instead it is to do with luminosity.
You can only see objects brighter than the sky.
During the day, when the sun is out making the sky quite bright, you can't see the stars due to how faint they are. But you can still see the moon (which as demonstrated in another thread, is very far away, well outside the troposphere).
At night, when the sun is on the other side of Earth, not lighting up the sky, the sky is much darker, so you can see the faint stars.

This is what I meant by the parabola.
You mean your delusional parabola, that you are yet to prevent any evidence of its existence, and all your attempts to justify its existence have failed miserably.

Meanwhile whenever a flat Earther tries (and fails) to get a rocket into space
Because they make no attempt to design or make a full scale rocket, not do they even bother to get help from amateur rocket clubs.
Instead they either use little toys which aren't made to go high, or try using a steam powered toy.
They don't even attempt any calculations to see if their rocket should be able to go to space.

This is how long it took me to recreate a "moon landing" on the computer.
An extremely obvious fake, which any idiot can see is fake due to the glaringly obvious seams, and a complete failure of lighting.

So nothing even remotely close to reasonable doubt.

other than the absence of shadows, which BTW are impossible as the moon is in an area with no atmosphere, correct? So how is light cast on this picture? Shouldn't it be much darker, and not able to cast such shadows?
You sure do love spouting delusional BS don't you?
Just why should an atmosphere be required to cast a shadow?
Do you think that without an atmosphere, light will magically pass straight through an object to illuminate the area behind it?
If so, that is truly delusional.

It actually works the complete opposite way around.
The atmosphere scatters light.
Without an atmosphere light will go directly from its source (the sun) to the object, illuminating it quite brightly, and casting a very dark shadown.
With an atmosphere, the light from the sun will be scattered, making it less harsh when it illuminates the object. Additionally, some of that scattered light will scatter towards the object from other directions, and into the shadow. This will make the portions that are in the shadow still somewhat illuminated.

So what is observed in that photo is what is expected on the moon.

Are you really prepared to continue this farce?
Yes, I will keep facing your delusional BS.

Yea I do.  We are told that radio waves bounce off the Earth's atmosphere in a round Earth.
And more dishonest BS.
You are told that SPECIFIC FREQUENCIES bounce off Earth's atmosphere. Not that all do.
You have already had it explained that the frequencies used for HAM radio which do bounce are different from those used for satellites which don't bounce.

Or in a flat Earth
As there is no evidence of anything from FE theory, that would mean it doesn't help you provide proof.
Your baseless assertion that radio waves are actually sound waves and can only travel in an atmosphere is not evidence the moon landing is fake. That is evidence of the level of desperation you need to stoop to to pretend your fantasy is true.

This tidbit was pointed out on the article about why radio waves prove flat Earth.
That you're asking me "again"  possibly means you haven't read it properly the first ten times.
Or, it means your article is dishonest BS, wilfully misrepresenting the science, to pretend Earth is flat; and that it has already been addressed, and the fact that you bring this up shows that either you haven't bothered reading what we have said, or that you are happy to blatantly lie to everyone to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.

Further, without a powerful broadcast (meaning cell towers on the moon)
Why would you need cell towers on the moon?
Do you even know why cell towers need to be powerful?
Because they broadcast in all directions, and are picked up by unidirectional antennae in low power devices, which also send out signals which the cell towers need to pick up.

If instead you use a parabolic reflector on each end, the signal intensity doesn't drop anywhere near as much with distance.
People have even done that with wifi.

But yet, you are telling me that without satellites, a signal from a celltower cannot travel even 2000 miles from Korea to LA, then 2000 more to give me a live signal in Virginia from Korea. This traveling at the speed of light, you say. Because of the *scoff* curvature, you tell me that distance is impossible.
And with this you further demonstrate your dishonesty.
You know the curvature blocks the signal, yet you want to pretend this distance should relate to a case where curvature is not an issue (unless you want to discuss why there were several ground stations as the moon would not be visible from a single location on Earth for the entire trip).

*

JackBlack

  • 22472
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #235 on: January 04, 2023, 02:42:35 PM »
But with all the talk of shadows and the feet not making prints, you missed a detail.
That picture is in dunes. Dunes. Lemme repeat that a third time. Dunes.

Lest you fail to understand, we are seeing a good picture of what the moon looks like in the sky every night. It is a rocky circle in the sky, not as this shows, a soft clay/sand space.
And more delusional BS.
Just how can you tell from that picture that it is rocky, rather than having a sandy or dusty surface?
You can't. But because you want to look for excuses to dismiss reality as fake, you come up with whatever delusional BS you can think of.

Quote
It is soft enough to leave footprints on, how is it holding together? We should see dust circling the moon as it moves around Earth, especially since its gravity is supposed to be 83.3% lower than that of the Earth (less capable of exerting force on objects like sand and soil), and is further supposed to be pulled around by Earth. So why aren't we seeing sand shuffle around?
Before asking how it is holding together you should ask what is trying to tear it apart.
The best you have for that is Earth's gravity.
And with that, you further misrepresent reality.
The gravity of the moon, on the surface of the moon is roughly 1/6th (equivalent to your 83.3% lower) than the gravity of Earth on the SURFACE of earth.
The moon is not on the surface of Earth. So that comparison is entirely useless to support your delusional BS.
What you want is the strength of gravity at the moon.
So with Earth's surface being 6371 km from the centre of Earth, and the moon being ~400 000 km, that is a ratio of  ~62.8. But gravity, like the electrostatic force, follows an inverse square law. So the acceleration due to gravity would be based upon that squared, which is a ratio of ~3942. So combining that with the 1/6 from before, that gives us a total ratio of ~657/1. i.e. on the surface of the moon, the strength of gravity from the moon is roughly 657 times the strength of gravity form Earth.

But even that is not the correct comparison to make.
The moon is in free fall, meaning the gravity from Earth is acting on the entire moon to accelerate all of it. So it is not simply trying to rip things from the surface of the moon while leaving the rest behind. So what you actually need to look at is the tidal force.
That is the difference in the strength of gravity at the surface of the moon compared to the centre.
The simple approximation to calculate that is F=2GMmr/d^3, where r is the radius of the moon, and d is the distance to it. (As a comparison, for gravity itself it is F=GMm/d^2).
So, to complete the comparison we need to multiply our value by the distance to the moon and divide by the radius of the moon.
This gives us a factor of 151291.
i.e. the gravity from the moon, holding the moon together, is 151291 times the strength of the tidal force trying to rip it apart.

So no, we should not see dust being ripped from its surface, nor shuffling around.

Quote
No, what we do see are rocky craters everywhere.  Where are the rocky craters on your picture? And where are the dunes on our vision of the moon?
And more delusional garbage.
Why don't you see the Pacific Ocean when you are in New York?
Why don't you see the overall shape of America, in a picture form New York?
Why can't you see all the tiny detail in pictures taken from very far away?

Because of the sheer difference in size. The moon, while not as large as Earth, is still very big. Because of that, you shouldn't expect to see the entire moon from a single location. They didn't land in the rocky craters, so why expect to see it.

Quote
Where are the stars? Where's the sun? If shadow is coming in, there should be a light source.
The stars are too dim to be visible.
If you had the exposure set to be able to capture the stars, then any illuminated region would just be pure white.
As for the sun, they weren't dumb enough to take a picture of the sun (well, they did once when setting up a camera during Apollo 12, destroying the camera in the process), so that means it is out of frame.
Do you complain when pictures are taken on Earth and you can't see the sun? Does that mean they are fake?

Quote
In this thread or some other, I answered... through the collusion of satellite companies, the media, and the government.
Yes, you appeal to a global conspiracy, involving multiple competing companies and the government; all without any motivation for this conspiracy to exist.

If NASA is exposed as fraud
The question is why there would be a fraud in the first place?
Why would these other entities have gone along with the fraud, rather than expose it?

Quote
"Broadcast live"? Or broadcast in advance?
Broadcast in advance from the moon?
So they recorded it all in advance and then went to the moon to broadcast it?

Quote
I have a computer, so I am showing you how things can be made from whole cloth.
And producing an incredibly poor example of it.

Quote
Remember, the entirety of the first Star Wars series and Star Trek were done for the most part without CGI. They managed to create the illusion of visiting other worlds by space ship. And you know, without CGI, we actually get more convincing images because no editing need be done on footprints or shadows.
And do you know one thing they lacked?
0g, or anything other than 1g.

Because someone "verifies" something as live, do you believe them? Because I don't.
You could have just left that as someone verifying anything that goes against your delusional BS.
You will reject it for that reason alone.

Yes. As I said before, broadcasts from the moon are from 225,623 miles away.
So no, you have no evidence at all, nor any reason to think it is fake.

There was no broadcast from the moon. It was a hoax, and our governments were in on it, and cable companies were in on it, and NASA was in on it.
Why? To prop up your paranoid fantasy because you can't handle reality?

The benefit of media doing this is obvious, it represents a trade secret
A trade secret invovling numerous companies and numerous media companies, which then don't give them any real advantage?

3. NASA supports it not only to get huge tax payouts but to affect hegemony.
Except those tax payouts would be entirely wasted on faking everything.

Being they are a secular socialist company, they can push all sorts of propaganda about things, and they "know" because they can see into space. Like "trust us when we say Mars is red and Saturn has rains of carbon diamonds, we can see these things."   
And why would they care about that?

What if I told you that it didn't? That there was never any serious rivalry between Russia and US
We would point out that yet again you appealing to a delusional fantasy to try and escape from reality.
Your delusional BS is so in conflict with reality, you need to resort to BS upon BS upon BS.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #236 on: January 04, 2023, 03:39:47 PM »

]Yes. As I said before, broadcasts from the moon are from 225,623 miles away. There is no broadcast station on the moon.


There would be on the spacecraft.  Like there are ones in aircraft.

Quote
FROM THE MOON TO YOUR LIVING ROOM: THE APOLLO 11 BROADCAST

https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/moon-to-living-room-apollo-11-broadcast

As Neil Armstrong eased himself onto the ‘porch’ of the Lunar Module, he pulled open a storage assembly attached to the lander’s lower stage. Contained within it, surrounded by gold-coloured installation blankets, was the black-and-white Westinghouse television camera. To ensure it was able to record images of the mission, the small camera was specially equipped to deal with the high contrast between light and shade on the Moon.

The image and sound signals were transmitted via a lightweight antenna on the top of the lander. The umbrella-like antenna was lined with 38 miles of fine gold-plated wire, thinner than human hair, to reflect the signal 250,000 miles back to Earth.

In the cabin, Buzz Aldrin closed a circuit breaker, and black-and-white TV pictures of Armstrong’s ghostly form were beamed back to Earth. The images were grainy and indistinct, but they represented a stunning breakthrough in broadcasting.

Like there are crafts and machines broadcasting from the moon at this very time.


Quote
Chinese spacecraft successfully lands on moon's far side and sends pictures back home
The spacefaring first promises new insights into lunar composition and evolution

3 JAN 2019BYDENNIS NORMILE

https://www.science.org/content/article/chinese-spacraft-successfully-lands-moons-far-side-and-sends-pictures-back-home

China's Chang'e-4 spacecraft successfully landed on the far side of the moon this morning Beijing time, accomplishing a worldwide first in lunar exploration. China's state media confirmed that touchdown occurred at 10:26 a.m. local time; later in the day, the China National Space Administration released the first close-ups of the surface of the far side, taken by Chang'e-4 after it landed.

"It's a milestone for China's lunar exploration project," Yang Yuguang, of the China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation in Beijing, told China Global Television Network, a state-operated English TV channel.


Quote
Chang’e 4: how China’s lander talks to us from the far side of the Moon

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/change-4-how-chinas-lander-talks-to-us-from-the-far-side-of-the-moon/amp/

The Moon, being a large lump of rock, does an excellent job of getting in the way of Chang’e 4’s transmissions. To get around this problem, CNSA launched a satellite in May 2018 into an orbit beyond the Moon to act as a relay.


The lunar messenger is named Queqiao, meaning ‘Magpie Bridge’, from a story in Chinese mythology in which a bridge of magpies allows a pair of lovers to reunite. Much like its namesake, the satellite’s job is to establish a connection between Earth and the far side of the Moon. Sitting in orbit around a point in space known as L2, 60,000 kilometres beyond the Moon, Queqiao splits the journey up into two line-of-sight paths.


I believe Chang’e 4 and its relay satellite Queqiao are still actively broadcasting.  Any evidence they are broadcasting from someplace other than the moon.

Of corse not.  Your a troll…


Added this cited source…


Quote
Radio Amateurs Receive Images from Chinese Lunar Satellite

http://www.arrl.org/news/radio-amateurs-receive-images-from-chinese-lunar-satellite

An open telecommand protocol allows radio amateurs to take and download images. The spacecraft transmits on 70 centimeters (435.400/436.400 MHz) with 250/500 bps GMSK using 10 kHz wide FM single-channel data, with concatenated codes or JT4G. JT4 uses four-tone FSK, with a keying rate of 4.375 baud; the JT4G sub-mode uses 315 Hz tone spacing and 1,260 Hz total bandwidth.


The Apollo missions are a moot point with all the current lunar missions actively broadcasting from the moon…
« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 03:52:40 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #237 on: January 04, 2023, 04:10:33 PM »
Don’t want to forget this either



Because the moon has no other side,

WTF?   You understand how objects work? Right?

Example.  A cube has six sides.

Even if the moon was some sort of cylinder, which there is no proof it’s anything but a relatively solid (as proven by tides on earth and blocks the sun during a solar eclipse) spherical body, you would get this effect…



People in the South American country of Argentina would see the”face” in this example.

People in Easter Brazil would see it on edge.

People in North America would see the backside of the “face”.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #238 on: January 05, 2023, 02:32:48 AM »
Quote
The 17 biggest lunar missions leading up to NASA’s 2024 moon landing
NASA’s Artemis program is heralding a moon rush, and nobody—from SpaceX to Russia—wants to be left behind.
By Neel V. Patelarchive page
February 27, 2020

https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/27/905641/lunar-missions-before-nasa-2024-artemis-moon-landing-space-x-mining/


NASA: Artemis 1, Late 2020

China: Chang’e 5 and 6, Late 2020 and 2023

India: Chandrayaan-3, 2021


Russia: Luna 25, 26, and 27; July 2021, 2024, and 2025

Astrobotic and Intuitive Machines: CLPS 1 and 2, July 2021

ispace and Draper Lab: Hakuto-R Mission 1 and 2, October 2021 and 2023

PTS: ALINA, 2021

Japan: SLIM, January 2022

South Korea: KPLO, July 2022

NASA: VIPER, 2022

NASA: Artemis 2, Late 2022

SpaceX: #dearMoon project, 2023



Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #239 on: January 05, 2023, 02:40:07 AM »
Quote
UArizona students confirm errant rocket's Chinese origin, track lunar collision course
Students studying the object's composition confirmed that it is most likely a Chinese booster and not a SpaceX booster, as previously reported.

https://news.arizona.edu/story/uarizona-students-confirm-errant-rockets-chinese-origin-track-lunar-collision-course

Using the RAPTORS system, a telescope atop the Kuiper Space Sciences building on campus, UArizona students took observations on the nights of Jan. 21 and Feb. 7, the latter of which was the last time the rocket would be visible before it hits the moon in March.

"I am astounded that we can tell the difference between the two rocket body options – SpaceX versus Chinese – and confirm which one will impact the moon with the data we have. The differences we see are primarily due to type of paint used by SpaceX and the Chinese," said Adam Battle, a graduate student studying planetary science. Battle has worked at the Space Domain Awareness lab since 2018 and focuses on spectroscopy, which helped confirm the booster's origins. An object's spectrum can also reveal the effects of space weathering.

Visible conformation that man made items are at the moon….

If meteorites can make it to the moon to cause craters, why can’t humans go where meteorites have already traveled…..