*
ADMIN NOTICE (simon): I have created this "Stars/no stars and other space oddities" topic - so as to keep our I$$ thread focused on that specific, engine-less batship which allegedly orbits around Earth every 90mins (16 times a day) - at 28.000km/h...
*****************************
[Original post by Starbucked starts here] :
Nice video explaining why Actornauts claim they can't see stars from LEO and what we SHOULD see from the I$$ if it wasn't sitting in a large swimming pool
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP0TQ99bMrw
Stars/no stars - and other space oddities
-
Starbucked
- Member
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am
-
simonshack
- Administrator
- Posts: 6783
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Yup - that's a fine video by my current pen pal (and fellow Clues member) Allan Weisbecker.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
The two of us have been exchanging a bunch of thoughts and musings over e-mail lately.
Allan is the author / director of a great 'on-the-road' movie called Water Time, where he travels around America (with his dog / cum co-producer, Honey) - on a fascinating 'discovery journey' of sorts... but I think Allan can describe his adventures far better than myself. Allan?
Here's Allan's blog: http://banditobooks.com/seen_watertime.php
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
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
-
truthseeker
- Banned
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:51 pm
Welcome allan!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
I would be really interested in what you don't agree with Simon on? I love your books by the way.
thanks, truthseeker.
briefly, yes i am a book writer and former tv and movie writer, going back to the old Miami Vice, which i helped create, god help me. those who want to know more about my sorry ass can go to my site banditobooks.com and click thru to 'About AW'.
re my site: i will try to plug my film, Water Time, in ways i figure i can get away with
. simon liked the film, so maybe i won't be admonished for this; anyway, it's available for free viewing via my site, so maybe it's ok, if technically off-subject. (in general i think it's completely ON subject re the whole September Clues phenomenon -- in the sense of dealing with the denial you all must face on a daily basis.)
part of what i'm doing today is going back and re-reading past posts - i actually did go thru this whole thread, back to when it was named something else, etc. what impressed me was the general lack of forum BS and high degree of critical thinking -- the lack of the latter had kept me from participating in web forums in the past. (i long ago had perused many of the 9/11 threads here, tho, and found them likewise refreshing in that way.)
Ok, be back later.
briefly, yes i am a book writer and former tv and movie writer, going back to the old Miami Vice, which i helped create, god help me. those who want to know more about my sorry ass can go to my site banditobooks.com and click thru to 'About AW'.
re my site: i will try to plug my film, Water Time, in ways i figure i can get away with
. simon liked the film, so maybe i won't be admonished for this; anyway, it's available for free viewing via my site, so maybe it's ok, if technically off-subject. (in general i think it's completely ON subject re the whole September Clues phenomenon -- in the sense of dealing with the denial you all must face on a daily basis.)part of what i'm doing today is going back and re-reading past posts - i actually did go thru this whole thread, back to when it was named something else, etc. what impressed me was the general lack of forum BS and high degree of critical thinking -- the lack of the latter had kept me from participating in web forums in the past. (i long ago had perused many of the 9/11 threads here, tho, and found them likewise refreshing in that way.)
Ok, be back later.
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?Welcome allan!
I would be really interested in what you don't agree with Simon on? I love your books by the way.
he said, no problem, the firearm wouldn't work.
i begged to differ.
and off we went.
Ok, folks, here's a take on my interests and how they relate to this thread, and i like to be specific: let's take the example of the video of mine Starbucked posted above -- let me explain what happened when i sent it to some people.
you all are no doubt familiar with the apollo hoax crew, i.e., the filmmakers/bloggers, etc who have gone to sometimes great lengths to spread the word that apollo was a mass psy-op. full-blown movies made, youtube vids by the hundreds, symposiums on youtube, etc etc. ok, well, one way or another i have communicated with just about every one of them. i won't name names but you name him/her, i was in contact. okay? mostly about apollo. i really wanted to get it right for part Two of Water Time -- i'm about halfway thru the edit on that (in it i attempt to find the bottom of the bunny hole).
then i sent them the above video, right? Guess what? The silence was deafening. People i was emailing back and forth with - detailed scientific musings - were suddenly mute. The one response i did get was totally irrelevant, a total non sequitur (and from a guy with a Masters degree in astronomy AND photography). This was my response to his avoidance of the issue:
(Listen: forgive me if this is old news to you guys, but it came as a shock to me.)
I also sent the video to one of those.... ah.... I'll name this one... to Forbidden Knowledge TV -- i figured it was one way of spreading it around. I had had videos posted by this person before and gotten 14,000 plus hits. This is part of what I got in return:
Keep in mind that this is someone who regularly posts 911 truther stuff and even Apollo hoax stuff.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
My film is about denial of the masses (sheeple, whatever), but it has taken quite a while for me to realize that people whom I THOUGHT I KNEW are in the same, no... worse... states of denial than those masses. I came to realize this a while back re MSM fakery, mainly via simon's work, so it should not have been such a surprise that apollo hoaxers likewise DO NOT WANT TO GO NEAR the possibility that we are still being lied to by NASA.
Again, probably old news to you guys. So what's my real point?
In my video i sorta left open the question of what the 'Lying astronauts' means, and likewise with the faked imagery. I did this so as to get 'normal' people (asleep) to think about it, rather than telling them what i think (more on what i think some other time). sometimes you have to go one step at a time in waking people up.
in all humility i think one aspect of my video is extremely valuable in terms of spreading some truth (about NASA) to the world outside this forum... one thing i believe i did do was to prove beyond doubt -- even to many of the masses -- that ASTRONAUTS ARE LYING ABOUT THE VIEW.
the idea that someone hovering in low earth orbit cannot see stars -- which four astronauts not counting the apollo boys -- have blurted to the whole world... that idea is nothing short of absurd. we know this. shouldn't we do more with it? i mean in getting it 'out there'?
but i'm rambling a bit -- what does this have to do with the 'stars' of the apollo hoax crew not accepting the obviousness of current NASA fakery?
i love the debate/revelations on this thread, don't get me wrong, and will try to participate when i feel up to it, in terms of my knowledge of physics and logic, etc.... but... 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?
after posting the above video i went and watched two movies: the Hubble IMAX documentary and h-wood's 'Gravity.' did a bunch of screen captures on both. it of course did not surprise me that Gravity went along with NASA on the 'no stars visible' lie (altho they stuck in a few faint ones here and there). i'm going to make another video really showing how ridiculous this all is.
(i know you have dealt with this issue on this thread. i am merely suggesting that it is worth a try to really get it out there.)
the difference between this matter and the stuff you guys are hashing out here lately, is, again, how obvious the stars issue is. (so far the feedback from the video has told me that people are ripe for this expose.)
hey, really, watch that IMAX hubble docu. at the end we have the camera TRACKING (where's the italics here?) through the cosmos with DiCaprio telling us this is a Hubble image! Are you kidding me? Hubble can travel at light speed through the universe? whoa. (you guys do the same here -- expose scientific and technical absurdities -- but this one, like the 'view' lie, is in another realm of obviousness. that's all i'm saying.)
you guys can be pretty brutal when someone screws up here (so fire away) but what i am suggesting is we (maybe via a separate thread) hatch a plan to expose the absurdity of the 'no stars are visible from space' lies, as spoken by the astronauts in my video and elsewhere (i found those quotes in a mere hour on youtube).
i realize that if the great unwashed are not going to 'see' the 9/11 video fakery, maybe they are not going to 'see' this, but i would submit that this is.... a little different. isn't it worth a try?
This didn't come out as coherently as i'd hoped.
you all are no doubt familiar with the apollo hoax crew, i.e., the filmmakers/bloggers, etc who have gone to sometimes great lengths to spread the word that apollo was a mass psy-op. full-blown movies made, youtube vids by the hundreds, symposiums on youtube, etc etc. ok, well, one way or another i have communicated with just about every one of them. i won't name names but you name him/her, i was in contact. okay? mostly about apollo. i really wanted to get it right for part Two of Water Time -- i'm about halfway thru the edit on that (in it i attempt to find the bottom of the bunny hole).
then i sent them the above video, right? Guess what? The silence was deafening. People i was emailing back and forth with - detailed scientific musings - were suddenly mute. The one response i did get was totally irrelevant, a total non sequitur (and from a guy with a Masters degree in astronomy AND photography). This was my response to his avoidance of the issue:
So far no response to the above email. and as mentioned, none of the apollo hoax big shots will deal with it.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
(Listen: forgive me if this is old news to you guys, but it came as a shock to me.)
I also sent the video to one of those.... ah.... I'll name this one... to Forbidden Knowledge TV -- i figured it was one way of spreading it around. I had had videos posted by this person before and gotten 14,000 plus hits. This is part of what I got in return:
To which I replied: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.
She then emailed me to opine that i need 'psychological help'.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.
Keep in mind that this is someone who regularly posts 911 truther stuff and even Apollo hoax stuff.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
My film is about denial of the masses (sheeple, whatever), but it has taken quite a while for me to realize that people whom I THOUGHT I KNEW are in the same, no... worse... states of denial than those masses. I came to realize this a while back re MSM fakery, mainly via simon's work, so it should not have been such a surprise that apollo hoaxers likewise DO NOT WANT TO GO NEAR the possibility that we are still being lied to by NASA.
Again, probably old news to you guys. So what's my real point?
In my video i sorta left open the question of what the 'Lying astronauts' means, and likewise with the faked imagery. I did this so as to get 'normal' people (asleep) to think about it, rather than telling them what i think (more on what i think some other time). sometimes you have to go one step at a time in waking people up.
in all humility i think one aspect of my video is extremely valuable in terms of spreading some truth (about NASA) to the world outside this forum... one thing i believe i did do was to prove beyond doubt -- even to many of the masses -- that ASTRONAUTS ARE LYING ABOUT THE VIEW.
the idea that someone hovering in low earth orbit cannot see stars -- which four astronauts not counting the apollo boys -- have blurted to the whole world... that idea is nothing short of absurd. we know this. shouldn't we do more with it? i mean in getting it 'out there'?
but i'm rambling a bit -- what does this have to do with the 'stars' of the apollo hoax crew not accepting the obviousness of current NASA fakery?
i love the debate/revelations on this thread, don't get me wrong, and will try to participate when i feel up to it, in terms of my knowledge of physics and logic, etc.... but... 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?
after posting the above video i went and watched two movies: the Hubble IMAX documentary and h-wood's 'Gravity.' did a bunch of screen captures on both. it of course did not surprise me that Gravity went along with NASA on the 'no stars visible' lie (altho they stuck in a few faint ones here and there). i'm going to make another video really showing how ridiculous this all is.
(i know you have dealt with this issue on this thread. i am merely suggesting that it is worth a try to really get it out there.)
the difference between this matter and the stuff you guys are hashing out here lately, is, again, how obvious the stars issue is. (so far the feedback from the video has told me that people are ripe for this expose.)
hey, really, watch that IMAX hubble docu. at the end we have the camera TRACKING (where's the italics here?) through the cosmos with DiCaprio telling us this is a Hubble image! Are you kidding me? Hubble can travel at light speed through the universe? whoa. (you guys do the same here -- expose scientific and technical absurdities -- but this one, like the 'view' lie, is in another realm of obviousness. that's all i'm saying.)
you guys can be pretty brutal when someone screws up here (so fire away) but what i am suggesting is we (maybe via a separate thread) hatch a plan to expose the absurdity of the 'no stars are visible from space' lies, as spoken by the astronauts in my video and elsewhere (i found those quotes in a mere hour on youtube).
i realize that if the great unwashed are not going to 'see' the 9/11 video fakery, maybe they are not going to 'see' this, but i would submit that this is.... a little different. isn't it worth a try?
This didn't come out as coherently as i'd hoped.
-
simonshack
- Administrator
- Posts: 6783
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
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?A gun fired underwater:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=502KryEguA0
There are also, of course, underwater explosives, depth charges, torpedoes, etc. An explosive needs an oxidizing agent, not necessarily gaseous oxygen as is found in the air.
But, apart from all that -- who says there is no air on the Moon? NASA? The point being that we do not know what the Lunar environment is really like because our only source of information is a bunch of liars and hoaxsters.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=502KryEguA0
There are also, of course, underwater explosives, depth charges, torpedoes, etc. An explosive needs an oxidizing agent, not necessarily gaseous oxygen as is found in the air.
But, apart from all that -- who says there is no air on the Moon? NASA? The point being that we do not know what the Lunar environment is really like because our only source of information is a bunch of liars and hoaxsters.
Absolutely. you were... is 'gallant' a correct adjective here?... in your admission of possible error. I didn't want to go into detail on a private back-and-forth but am glad we have input from the brain trust here.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:
First, of all, I've watched some of your YT videos and I'd like to say I really like them and I'm glad that you are posting here.
Incidentally, my own personal "elephant in the room" as regards the Apollo hoax is that in virtually every motion picture clip of them "on the moon" they move around in slow motion. Huh? Why would someone move in slow motion in a reduced gravity? I can see that falling objects would move more slowly but why would other motions be in slow motion as well? For example, why would a person walking in a reduced gravity move as if he were underwater as we see in those Apollo clips? If anything I would think the motions would be faster than in a normal gravity, wouldn't they? I mean what would be slowing them down such that they move as if underwater? We can see them jumping and hopping around and their upward movements are just as slowed-down as their downward movements. How can that be? And, this enormous gaffe appears in virtually all the Apollo moon footage. This, it seems to me, is something that an intelligent person could wrap their wits around if it were pointed out to them.
The director of those old Apollo videos did not have the CGI tech that is available today so his only choice to make it look "space-like" was to use good old slow-mo photography. Many believe that it was Kubrick who directed the Apollo scenarios and that works for me. It is logical that he would be the best choice given his 2001: A Space Odyssey in production at about the same time as Apollo. Oddly, however, the only scene in 2001 where people are shown walking on the moon (the scene in which the lunar monolith is discovered) shows the astronauts walking normally with no slow-motion used. Go figure.
First, of all, I've watched some of your YT videos and I'd like to say I really like them and I'm glad that you are posting here.
I agree that it is a huge lie and I certainly don't want to add words of discouragement but I feel it would be banging one's head against a wall to pursue this point with the sleeping masses. The average public person is clueless about photography, optics, astronomy and such and, besides, they can see that stars don't "come out" in their own nighttime photos so it would just be your word against their beloved TV "science" oracles. But, as always, I could be wrong about that.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?
Incidentally, my own personal "elephant in the room" as regards the Apollo hoax is that in virtually every motion picture clip of them "on the moon" they move around in slow motion. Huh? Why would someone move in slow motion in a reduced gravity? I can see that falling objects would move more slowly but why would other motions be in slow motion as well? For example, why would a person walking in a reduced gravity move as if he were underwater as we see in those Apollo clips? If anything I would think the motions would be faster than in a normal gravity, wouldn't they? I mean what would be slowing them down such that they move as if underwater? We can see them jumping and hopping around and their upward movements are just as slowed-down as their downward movements. How can that be? And, this enormous gaffe appears in virtually all the Apollo moon footage. This, it seems to me, is something that an intelligent person could wrap their wits around if it were pointed out to them.
The director of those old Apollo videos did not have the CGI tech that is available today so his only choice to make it look "space-like" was to use good old slow-mo photography. Many believe that it was Kubrick who directed the Apollo scenarios and that works for me. It is logical that he would be the best choice given his 2001: A Space Odyssey in production at about the same time as Apollo. Oddly, however, the only scene in 2001 where people are shown walking on the moon (the scene in which the lunar monolith is discovered) shows the astronauts walking normally with no slow-motion used. Go figure.
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
I completely agree about the slo-mo walking; it's ridiculous. (Yes, i noticed and wondered about the normal moon walking in 2001 too.) And you may very well be right about it being futile to point out the 'no stars' lie, especially considering i just got another email from an Apollo Hoax Big Shot that was amazing in its Orwellian denial about the question i had put to him about NASA's current imagery, but..
(picture me thinking, like the statue...)
...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.
...i have this thing about lies. don't like em. expose em if you can. 'can't see stars from space'? that one doesn't require critical thinking. it just requires a repetition of the lie with a 'Do you believe...' in front of it.
(picture me thinking, like the statue...)
...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.
...i have this thing about lies. don't like em. expose em if you can. 'can't see stars from space'? that one doesn't require critical thinking. it just requires a repetition of the lie with a 'Do you believe...' in front of it.
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Okay please clarify the " no stars visible in space lie" for me.
Are you stating that asstro-nots do in fact see stars with the naked eye, but these 4 lied about it and said they did not?
Or are you stating that no asstro-not sees stars while up there, and are instructed to cover that fact up, and these 4 spilled the beans?
I have an interesting spin on this issue, but would like to know if my info syncs up with yours before I try to put something together.
Are you stating that asstro-nots do in fact see stars with the naked eye, but these 4 lied about it and said they did not?
Or are you stating that no asstro-not sees stars while up there, and are instructed to cover that fact up, and these 4 spilled the beans?
I have an interesting spin on this issue, but would like to know if my info syncs up with yours before I try to put something together.
Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$
Excellent! Your videos are well done and present compelling evidence so my pessimism may be unfounded.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.