Miscellaneous NASA comedies

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby lux on Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:34 pm

Meet …
Mars Explorer Barbie!

Image

"Barbie goes to Mars in 2013 with her career of the year doll. The Mars Explorer Barbie was created in honor of NASA's Mars rover Curiosity's landing on the Red Planet in 2012."

More exciting news and photos here.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby lux on Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:12 pm

Another fake NASA paste-o-rama photo montage, this one "taken" by our old ISS astro-naught friend, Cady Coleman ...
Image
http://www.space.com/22050-students-spark-zero-gravity-fires.html

… allegedly showing UC San Diego students on the "Zero G" plane observing what fire looks like in micro gravity. Unfortunately, they don't show us what fire looks like in microgravity. I guess Cady forgot to shoot that. Darn -- I'd really like to see that!
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby Heiwa on Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:48 pm

lux wrote: Darn -- I'd really like to see that!

As nobody is up there at the ISS lighting up flamable material you have to contend with http://www.space.com/13766-internationa ... earch.html :lol: :D :P :blink:
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby lux on Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:02 pm

^ Yeah, I saw that, Heiwa. But, I want to see an ISS astro-naught light a match in “micro-gravity” and show us what it looks like as it burns. They could light a candle too and we could watch it float around the ISS as it burns.

Maybe if I ask NASA, they will do this for me.

Trouble is, I'm still waiting (for months) for a reply from having “asked NASA” several times to explain how the ISS copes with meteor showers. But, I'm sure they will answer me on that one any day now. :unsure:
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby lux on Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:37 pm

Take a look at this 1961 “Launch of Alan Shepard On Mercury-Redstone 3/Freedom 7”


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm9ez-6Njgo

This clip seems very odd to me.

There doesn't seem to be much supporting this rocket as it sits on the launch pad. The two structures that fall away don't appear to be there for physical support and it doesn't look like they would provide any if they were. It looks like a stiff breeze could easily knock the rocket over. Is NASA using some of it's magic bolts at the rocket's base to hold it in place?

Why did they leave a truck parked so close to the rocket's exhaust (lower right corner)? Trucks have fuel tanks – wouldn't there be a fire or explosion hazard?

Why does the rocket and nearby structures cast long shadows but the telephone poles beside the road that is about ¼ way up from the bottom have no shadows? The pole at the lower left edge of the frame also has no shadow.

Nothing apart form the rocket itself and its two falling support structures seem to be moving in this scene. The clouds don't move, no birds flying by, even the beach surf in the background seems oddly still.

When the rocket ignites the exhaust flames seem rather wimpy in comparison to what we have been shown in later “manned” rocket launches. And, the rocket barely moves up at all before they cut away to another POV to follow the rocket's ascent.

Is this a composite shot? A model rocket in the foreground filmed in slow motion combined with a full size, possibly still background?
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:08 pm

Yes, it's a composite. The reason a "breeze" seems to effect the thing so much in the opening shot is because there appears to be a problem they had splicing the videos together. That's case closed for this bullshit. Unless they want to explain to us why they decided to cut and paste the rocket launch.

It's also another strangely slow launch, it lacks any opening audio (are we meant to believe for "security" reasons?) and the lift off is digitally scrambled.

Finally, though it's proof of nothing, the "camera movement" creates an awful lot of phallic sky thrusting. Seems to be a complete joke.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:48 pm

lux wrote:Take a look at this 1961 “Launch of Alan Shepard On Mercury-Redstone 3/Freedom 7”

This clip seems very odd to me.


:lol: Thanks, Lux - for another hilarious/pathetic example of alleged 'rocket launch footage'.

I especially love that 'rocket sound sample' they've been using now for 50-odd years (seemingly recorded by sticking a microphone into a popcorn kettle...)

And - wot? No visible exhaust flame / smoke trail? Hey - their rockets must have been far more ecological-friendly back in the sixties ! :P

We have been duped out of our wits for decades: the entire space industry is a colossal fraud - and a continuous insult to our intelligence.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6687
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby Heiwa on Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:01 pm

I always wonder why there is always some steam or smoke leaking out from the NASA rockets prior lift-off ... like from an 1880 Western steam engine. Maybe added by the Hollywood producers as some live action? :D
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby lux on Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:08 pm

^ I think the vapor is supposed to be liquid oxygen, part of their liquid fuel system.

But, why did they ever use liquid fuel for these "manned" rockets in the first place? It's much more difficult to build a liquid duel rocket motor than a solid fuel motor (ask Goddard) and the only advantage to liquid fuel (that I know of) is that you can adjust the thrust or turn it on and off. But these rockets "headed for space" just burn full blast until they run out of fuel and then drop the empty stage away and go on to the next one (theoretically).

And, for that matter why did they design the V2 rockets with liquid fuel motors? Weren't they supposed to just rise to their apogee and then simply fall back to Earth on a trajectory? Why didn't old Von Braun just stick a solid fuel motor on them? Same with the V1. Why did Von Braun need Goddard's research into liquid fuel rocket motors to build his "V" rockets? Makes no sense to me.

Later, in the 1980s, the Shuttles used boosters that were admitted to be solid fuel rockets. So, if they can supposedly put the Shuttle "into space" with a solid fuel rocket, why use any liquid fuel rockets at all for "space" launches? Such as for satellites?

(these are meant as rhetorical questions about NASA rocketry in general)
Last edited by lux on Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby lux on Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:18 am

NASA claims that this is a photo of a planet found outside our solar system:
Image
http://www.space.com/22265-small-alien-planet-direct-photo.html

How was this photo taken? Good question. The answer is ... uh ... a little vague but they claim it was done using the Subaru Telescope and a good deal of double talk described here and here.

I was not able to find the distance of this planet from Earth but, since it's orbiting another star, it would have to be light years away. That's a pretty nicely detailed snapshot of an object that is trillions of miles away, no? :rolleyes:

In fact the photo rivals the ones NASA shows us taken by the Cassini Mission from their super photo space ship orbiting Saturn and whatnot.

Sarcasm aside, how the hell can anyone believe that an Earth bound telescope can take detailed photos of planets trillions of miles away but they can only show blurry dots on the Moon that represent the Apollo hardware?

Image
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby anonjedi2 on Sun Aug 11, 2013 3:40 am

In the caption of that photo, you will read the following:

"This image is an artist's representation of the alien world."

I don't think even NASA is stupid enough to claim this is a real photo.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:06 am

anonjedi2 wrote:I don't think even NASA is stupid enough to claim this is a real photo.


"Stupid enough?" :huh:

From NASA's official website:

"Image to left: The Eagle has landed. This photo of the Apollo 11 lunar module Eagle was taken by Commander Neil Armstrong. Credit: NASA"
Image http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsyste ... overs.html

Image

Stupidity is nothing you can take away from NASA. <_<

Sadly, there are enough fools in this world to let them get away with it...
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6687
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby lux on Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:54 am

anonjedi2 wrote:In the caption of that photo, you will read the following:

"This image is an artist's representation of the alien world."

I don't think even NASA is stupid enough to claim this is a real photo.


The caption was changed since I posted this! It originally said it was a photo taken by the aforementioned telescope.

However, the link to the page is still: http://www.space.com/22265-small-alien-planet-direct-photo.html

and the article title is still "Pink Alien Planet Is Smallest Photographed Around Sun-Like Star" and the first line of the article is still, "Astronomers have snapped a photo of a pink alien world that's the smallest yet exoplanet found around a star like our sun."

Since most people only look at images and only read headlines, I think it's clear that they are still trying to give the impression that this is a photo.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby I, Gestalta on Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:36 pm

Yes, the composite beneath the artist's depiction is supposed to be the "direct photo".
I, Gestalta
Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies

Unread postby lux on Mon Aug 12, 2013 2:21 pm

^ Yes -- easy to see now but the page changed since i posted my original comments. The original caption stated that the pink planet image was the photo.

This strongly suggests to me that someone at space.com is monitoring this forum.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests