Starbucked wrote:Nice video explaining why Actornauts claim they can't see stars from LEO and what we SHOULD see from the I$$ if it wasn't sitting in a large swimming pool
allancw wrote:thanks, simon!
i'm going to keep this short and compose what i hope will be a relevant post for later today. it'll take a few hours to get it together.
for now: reading this forum, going back a looooong way, has been a revelation for me, as has been my private back and forth with you.
having said that, as you know i don't agree with everything you believe. however, you've launched me (no pun) into a whole new area - the video above being one example (thanks to Starbucked for posting it).
okay, more later. (i'm new to forums so expect some screw ups).
allan
Welcome allan!
I would be really interested in what you don't agree with Simon on? I love your books by the way.
my instinctive reaction to your email is to think that you're avoiding the (to me) staggering implications, not just of the astronauts' lies, but of the imagery; for example, the NASA images that prove (even tho it's obvious) that stars are also absolutely photographable from low earth orbit. i show a frame (and there are others) wherein the sunlit side of the earth AND the stars are both exposed correctly.
Doesn't this mean that all the images of space as a 'deep black bottomless void starless bucket' blah blah are fabricated? It sure means that to me.
it makes no sense that they would fake all that imagery only to back up a lie told half a century ago (apollo). right? (in other words, say, erase the stars from otherwise real shots of the ISS, etc.)
After making the video i watched the Hubble documentary, narrated by Mr. Global Warming Himself, Lenny DiCaprio. All those IMAX space shots must, by logic, be fabricated. there is no more reason to believe in the ISS than there is in Apollo. in fact, with all the NASA footage of the 'black sky lie', there is less reason to believe it.
watch the end of that film. DeCaprio is telling us that the tracking shots (not zooms, be they optical or digital) through the endless galaxies are Hubble images; he is absolutely clear on this. this is an insult to the intelligence of every astronomer and every photographer on the planet!
Right? i mean don't we have to follow the evidence wherever it leads? '... whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,' as you-know-who put it.
allan
I won't quibble with the possibility about astronauts
lies totally contradicting cosmonauts about stars but
as somebody who know something about "overexposure";
the effect is to wash out everything and indeed could lead to
a velvety blackness IN PHOTOS - NOT with the naked eye
or at normal or low exposures.
So put that in you pipe and smoke it - I like this but you have to
get your facts straight or it'll just be more BS.
You know something about 'overexposure' do you?
i'll make your ignorance really simple: see the attached and explain how the the stars and the sunlit side of the earth could both be in correct exposure - as i say in the video 'in the same frame.' [note to SC: i don't know how to imbed a photo - it'd be the image from the video at about 7:45 in, showing the sunlit earth and stars in perfect exposure in the same frame]
you say:
indeed could lead to
a velvety blackness IN PHOTOS - NOT with the naked eye
or really, then why are our astronauts - four of them - claiming that WITH THEIR NAKED EYES they could not see stars?
our tax dollar paid astronauts are clearly LYING. if you don't see that, then you are more than rude in referring to my information as BS. that's just pure lack of critical thinking.
see attached and explain the NASA image, ms photographer.
allancw wrote:For now, here's one thing simon and i disagreed on. via a thought experiment, i asked him if we were on the moon and i had a 9mm pistol, would it be ok with him if i pointed it at him and pulled the trigger?
he said, no problem, the firearm wouldn't work.
i begged to differ.
and off we went.
Lol, yes - but on second thought, as you remember, i conceded that i may be wrong about that - being no firearms expert. What I was thinking was that gunpowder needs oxygen in order to explode - and that an explosion is basically a violent air-pressure displacement. Now, do we have any firearms experts on board? How exactly does the gunpowder interact with the surrounding air - if at all?
allancw wrote:
... the biggest, most transparent, most ridiculous lie that NASA has stuck itself with is the 'no stars visible in space' one. they've counted on the 'cameras can't pick up stars' lie since apollo but now they've got CURRENT astronauts saying they can't SEE stars. has anyone really tried to blow the whistle on this one?
allancw wrote:
...all i can say for now is that i showed that video to a couple 'civilians' and both of them agreed that the astronauts were LYING. that's a start. i may have made an error in the video by getting into imagery faking -- for the reasons you state. I mean that dumb.... woman who runs Hidden Knowledge TV started in with 'exposure' bullshit -- completely assbackwards, but your point is well taken.
Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests