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.
Why doesn't NASA lend their wondrous cameras to airplane photographers? Wouldn't we have far superior/ sharper imagery of our cities by now? Wait! WE DO! - courtesy of the $209 million GEO EYE satellite - which apparently hovers above earth - in outer space - at a distance of 681km (423miles)! Here's for instance an alleged "GEO-EYE" photograph of the White House:
You know, if all the photography is just done from airplanes then all the rest of the supposed satellite activities could be too -- GPS, communications, weather research, etc.
lux wrote:
Again, NASA seems to have no trouble photographing dim specks of city street lighting yet capturing stars in their photos continues to elude them.
Oh, Lux - you just don't seem to understand, do you?
Stars are simply too dim to be captured by any existing camera on earth (or in space) ! You obviously do not possess the slightest notion of the technical realities of photography /lens aperture/ shutter speed - etc...!
Besides, EVERYONE knows that city lights emit far more lumen than stars ! And YOU should know that! "A lux is one lumen per square meter."
Also, as you can easily see here, the sheer brightness of this astronut would make it impossible for the camera to capture BOTH the astronut AND the stars. If you don't like that, you should complain with the artist of this canvas - uh, I mean, digital photograph! So don't come here and complain senselessly about the lack of stars in the NASA pictures - there's nothing we can do about it!...
I wonder how NASA reconciles the above nigh-time image of sprawling metropolises (metropoli?) in the Western Australian desert with the fact that there are no sprawling metropolises in the Western Australian desert, as per this freely available map:
What's NASA's purpose for training astronots in swimming pools? It certainly doesn't equate to zero gravity or 1/6th earth gravity in the case of the moon. Not to mention, they are surrounded by water. The pressure, resistance, friction, motion in water would be nothing like that of space, where you know ... there's no water. So what are these astronots to do when all of their many hours of water training has now suddenly rendered them completely useless in space? They should be used to performing all of their tasks, using their tools, navigating, etc. in a very specific underwater environment. One would expect these same tasks to incur many errors, blunders, etc. due to the fact that they essentially have had zero hours of space condition training and no matter how many hundreds of hours of underwater training, all of it would be mostly useless.
So what's the point of training in water? The conditions wouldn't be anything like that of outer space. (Rhetorical question, of course)
anonjedi2 wrote:What's NASA's purpose for training astronots in swimming pools?
Easiest ist to ask NASA. The person to ask is actually Terrence W. Wilcutt, NASA's Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance. Terrence heads the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) that assures the safety and enhances the success of all NASA activities through the development, implementation, and oversight of Agencywide safety, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance (SRM&QA) policies and procedures.
If you get hold of Terrence, pls inform me! I doubt he exists.
anonjedi2 wrote:What's NASA's purpose for training astronots in swimming pools? It certainly doesn't equate to zero gravity or 1/6th earth gravity in the case of the moon. Not to mention, they are surrounded by water. The pressure, resistance, friction, motion in water would be nothing like that of space, where you know ... there's no water. So what are these astronots to do when all of their many hours of water training has now suddenly rendered them completely useless in space? They should be used to performing all of their tasks, using their tools, navigating, etc. in a very specific underwater environment. One would expect these same tasks to incur many errors, blunders, etc. due to the fact that they essentially have had zero hours of space condition training and no matter how many hundreds of hours of underwater training, all of it would be mostly useless.
So what's the point of training in water? The conditions wouldn't be anything like that of outer space. (Rhetorical question, of course)
Good points.
Due to the slow-motion video used in the Apollo footage NASA has created a precedent of sorts. They've created a public perception that people in space must move as if they were under water, i.e., in slow motion. But, of course, there is no reason that they would move that way in space. So, now they must keep up this silly slo-mo public image for the sake of consistency.
And how is it that there isn't a large group of scientists, engineers, physicists, young and old ... college students, etc. that question this one simple anomaly? Part of the hardest thing to come to terms with in hoaxes like these is HOW ON EARTH CAN THERE NOT BE ANYONE IN ACADEMIA that can figure this out or at least ask questions? Is the world really filled with this many stupid people?
anonjedi2 wrote: Is the world really filled with this many stupid people?
Evidently.
But it's also a survival point, i.e., paycheck, career, social acceptance, etc.
For example, NASA told us before their recent Mars rover hoax that a good portion of their engineers felt it wouldn't work (the tethered landing thing, etc) so there must be some people with a modicum of smarts in the industry. But speaking up would likely mean loss of employment, loss of career, loss of social status -- financial and personal ruin.
Bill Kaysing was very smart. He left the aerospace industry altogether and became self employed before he went public with his views.
But what about retired people or others who aren't connected to NASA in any way? Surely there must be at least SOME scientists, engineers, physicists and such who could put together a small group of people, make a documentary perhaps? Expose this ridiculousness for the comedy that it is? Why aren't there more Bill Kaysings, David Percys and William Coopers out there? Does NASA have such a grip over the entire world? Evidently so, I suppose. It's disheartening.
It's not just a lack of intelligent experts willing to tell all -– it's also the denseness and apathy of the public.
A few experts have come forward, written books, lectured, etc. But, the media ignores or ridicules them so the general public does too. The public “thinks” what the media tells them to think – period.
Increasing general public awareness of the falsity of the media is, I think, our best chance of breaking this monopoly of opinion.
anonjedi2 wrote:Is the world really filled with this many stupid people?
Nope, they aren't stupid - but they are gullible. Intelligence and book-learning provide no protection against gullibility, and don't make someone more likely to have the courage to think for himself outside the mainstream.
Here's the latest SpaceX mission to the ISS on the Dragon 9 rocket
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik0ElKl5kW4
At around 45:08 we see the wagging of a nozzle, which happens several times in this flight
Not sure of the technical reasons for this wag, but it makes the rocket look cool
Interesting video, Starbucked.
Such realism!
With those cute little drops of water, it couldn´t possibly be fake:
The two cartoons are not well synched:
Cloud cover suddenly becomes reticulate. Must be a question of altitude...
Hey guys...next time put the teleprompter closer to the camera!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik0ElKl5kW4).
