WTF, NASA?!

[pretzelogik]

The comment posted previously seemed to allude to the idea that those who fail to see the pattern that would indicate the presence of a tiger would get ate by said tiger, so the failure-to-recognize-pattern genes would be eliminated from the gene pool over time.

 

If anything, religion is an argument for the deliberate avoidance of recognizing actual patterns, as there are far more unfulfilled prophecies and unanswered prayers than vice versa.  Religion is an example of the ability to recognize actual patterns being removed from its adherents through conditioning.

 

In the case of NASA releasing a photo with intentionally embedded imagery (the intentional may be arguable, since no one will likely come forward to claim the subliminal) it would fit a long running pattern of image manipulation by NASA, although for many, the ability to recognize it as such has been inhibited through conditioning.

[shirgall]

Religion is the ascribing of importance to things that are coincidences, usually about things that are really important like rains for the crops, and making sure the people don't kill the chief that's parenting the next tribe with "Winning!" genes. It's not surprising that the gains of language are also gains for those that learn to manipulate, I mean influence.

 

But science also came from our desire to understand the tiger... Science tells us nothing except to give us a methodology to test claims. Religious claims do not want to be tested, but rather to be obeyed.

[Slavik]

The comment posted previously seemed to allude to the idea that those who fail to see the pattern that would indicate the presence of a tiger would get ate by said tiger, so the failure-to-recognize-pattern genes would be eliminated from the gene pool over time.

 

If anything, religion is an argument for the deliberate avoidance of recognizing actual patterns, as there are far more unfulfilled prophecies and unanswered prayers than vice versa.  Religion is an example of the ability to recognize actual patterns being removed from its adherents through conditioning.

 

In the case of NASA releasing a photo with intentionally embedded imagery (the intentional may be arguable, since no one will likely come forward to claim the subliminal) it would fit a long running pattern of image manipulation by NASA, although for many, the ability to recognize it as such has been inhibited through conditioning.

Religion is assigning meaning to patterns no matter if fallaciously or not.  You didnt rebut the other pattern creation, faces in objects, or objects in things around us.  It is not the gene that didnt see the correct pattern that was exterminated, its the gene that didnt see patterns at all, or wasnt looking for them.  

[Torero]

Great trodas, to have started a topic on the NASA scams. After all it is a government body that controls every "data" point "acquired" above the Earth's atmosphere.

 

For everyone not familiar with Dave McGowan, his Wagging the Moondoggie is an extensive and witty analysis of most of the lies on Apollo that we've been told:

 

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

 

And the latest scam on Pluto, if NASA would do their homework, the presented "photo" of Pluto should look more like this:

 

[shirgall]

And the latest scam on Pluto, if NASA would do their homework, the presented "photo" of Pluto should look more like this:

 

 

Actually, no, compared to the stars around it, Pluto is extremely bright.

 

http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html

[Torero]

Yes, I know the narrative.

 

And it is flawed. It's not "the stars are too dim, so they cannot be captured".

 

Single stars are indeed too dim to capture them on camera. But, we're not talking  individual stars, but a whole array of stars, galaxies etc. like shown in the picture.

 

For Pluto the narrative of the Moon (which is flawed in itself but not too relevant for Pluto) doesn't hold:

 

- let's assume NASA really sent a probe to Pluto -which is physically impossible, but let's assume they did-

- they take a "photo" of this dwarf planet at some 40 AU from the Sun (which should look like a big Venus from distant Pluto)

- hence the Sun as a light source on the surface of Pluto is negligible

- the surface is lit somehow on the "photo"

- so even if the Sun would play a role, it's behind the "camera"

- if that camera would be able to capture a dwarf planet with so little light, so with the right camera settings, all the stars and galaxies should light up like in the picture above

 

That NASA still presents pitch black (without any contrast) "photos" to the public, only gives away their hoaxing even more. Even in the case "stars are too dim to capture nicely", the amount of combined light coming from aaaaalll those millions of stars and other celestial objects can never ever produce a contrastless pitch black background.

[pretzelogik]

What do the occult, Scientology and Hollywood have in common?  Well, NASA, of course.

 

Take Jack Parsons, Aleister Crowley  and L. Ron Hubbard, then mix in a little T. Keith Glennan and you are well on your way to establishing one of the premier science agencies of the new technologic era.

 

How silly of those conspiracy researchers out there to suspect a new age, occultic Hollywood production outfit funded by unlimited amounts of federal dollars to be guilty of anything but the most rigorous adherence to transparency and the advancement of technology for the good of humankind.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot Wernher von Braun, who was inspired to rocketry by jules Verne (the science fiction writer who actually correctly identified the escape velocity of earth in the 1800s, go figure)  https://books.google.com/books?id=HaM6CpDYE3oC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=Jules+verne+correctly+estimates+Escape+velocity&source=bl&ots=MJSjmySw3B&sig=TZKBwcgDgm_F-sNCO6527jeVWXg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMIwsuZ1e-FxwIVDzGICh1TWgCh#v=onepage&q=Jules%20verne%20correctly%20estimates%20Escape%20velocity&f=false)

 

Of course, von Braun was very involved with Disney (already a known producer of overt pro military propaganda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World_War_II_propaganda_production) in promoting the space narrative (http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/disney_article.html) serving as technical director for both film and theme park exhibits.

 

So, is finding a Disney-esque subliminal in latest NASA offering a case of seeing a pattern that doesn't exist, or is dismissing it a failure to recognize a pattern that does?

[shirgall]

Pluto's albedo is greater than all the gas giants, Earth, and Mars, and on par with Venus's. The moon's albedo is only 0.12.

 

At Pluto's orbit the Sun is 450 times brighter than the reflected light from the moon to the Earth. That's not negligible.

 

Pluto's albedo of .5 to .7 means it reflects at least half the light it receives, similar to snow on Earth. The probe that took the picture is coming from very close to the Sun so it would have the among the very brightest possible pictures of Pluto you can get.

 

Therefore, your conclusions that follow from your incorrect premises do not need to be addressed.

[Torero]

Rrright. Are you posting this because you really think so, because you want to defend NASA (why??) or because you do not want your world view to be shattered by the reality of space fakery?

 

In any case it's hard to connect what you say to your own signature

 

 

 

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."  Voltaire

 

We are allowed to criticise NASA, but it will only provide ridicule and evading answers. Similar to the

 

NASA is a government-funded organisation that doesn't allow the public to check the facts (i.e. they rule over space), as nobody is able to get there (just like NASA by the way) to check the facts and scrutinise that organisation and all the related space agencies.

 

How do you know Pluto has an albedo of 50-70% (statement)?

What about the brown part in the lower left versus the "clouds" in the centre, that's the 20% difference you're telling me?

 

And this quote is also really cryptic:

 

 

The probe that took the picture is coming from very close to the Sun so it would have the among the very brightest possible pictures of Pluto you can get.

 

The probe is "coming" from "very close to the Sun", so...?

 

The narrative is that Pluto is some 30-48 AU (Astronomical Unit; distance Earth-Sun, about 150 million km) from the Sun, that this probe flew all the way there and took this "photo". It means the probe is at roughly the same distance from the Sun, which shines at a distance of this ~40 AU on the surface of Pluto.

 

No matter how you twist or turn the story to maintain the impossible position that this is a real photo, the background can never be pitch black. Where is all the light from the stars behind Pluto? Why is every NASA fantasy showing a pitch black background wihout any stars?

 

Because they started doing that with the Apollo hoax and have to maintain the same lies to keep a consistent story.

 

And yet, all other depictions of space show stars, always. Pretty amateuristic for these heavily state-sponsored, non-merited, anti-scientific clowns.

[pretzelogik]

More fascinating video content from NASA's remarkable million mile lenses featuring static clouds:

 

[Torero]

More fascinating video content from NASA's remarkable million mile lenses featuring static clouds:

 

Great you posted it, pretzelogik.

 

Indeed:

- static clouds over a period of rotation from South America - Australia (some 1/4 + Earth rotation, so ~6+ hours) - impossible

- a strange static black rim on the right side of the Moon

- the Moon has a much lower albedo than a Full Moon would look like from Earth

- NO stars/galaxies in the background; pitch pitch contrastless black, yet Earth and Moon are sufficiently exposed - impossible

- the shadows on the lower left (start) and upper right sides (end) of the animation - they will "explain" it away is being the circular camera lense, but in the first frames on the left you see a "jump" of this shadow

- in order for this "video"/pasted set of images to be real, the camera on the space thingy should be statically focused on the Full Earth-Moon system - how do they want to accomplish a space thingy being static in space?

 

The more NASA jokes one sees, the more ridiculous they become... and yet the general public accepts and loves these without any criticism.

 

Pretzelogik (and others), did you see the "subliminal" SEX joke of NASA yet?

 

"Shot" by the "Deep Space Climate Obervatory" satellite on July 6th

 

 

If you don't see it at first glance, here it is...

 

[AncapFTW]

Rrright. Are you posting this because you really think so, because you want to defend NASA (why??) or because you do not want your world view to be shattered by the reality of space fakery?

 

In any case it's hard to connect what you say to your own signature

 

 

 

 

We are allowed to criticise NASA, but it will only provide ridicule and evading answers. Similar to the

 

NASA is a government-funded organisation that doesn't allow the public to check the facts (i.e. they rule over space), as nobody is able to get there (just like NASA by the way) to check the facts and scrutinise that organisation and all the related space agencies.

 

How do you know Pluto has an albedo of 50-70% (statement)?

What about the brown part in the lower left versus the "clouds" in the centre, that's the 20% difference you're telling me?

 

And this quote is also really cryptic:

 

 

 

 

The probe is "coming" from "very close to the Sun", so...?

 

The narrative is that Pluto is some 30-48 AU (Astronomical Unit; distance Earth-Sun, about 150 million km) from the Sun, that this probe flew all the way there and took this "photo". It means the probe is at roughly the same distance from the Sun, which shines at a distance of this ~40 AU on the surface of Pluto.

 

No matter how you twist or turn the story to maintain the impossible position that this is a real photo, the background can never be pitch black. Where is all the light from the stars behind Pluto? Why is every NASA fantasy showing a pitch black background wihout any stars?

 

Because they started doing that with the Apollo hoax and have to maintain the same lies to keep a consistent story.

 

And yet, all other depictions of space show stars, always. Pretty amateuristic for these heavily state-sponsored, non-merited, anti-scientific clowns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMD4UqwmQzk

[pretzelogik]

Great you posted it, pretzelogik.

 

Indeed:

- static clouds over a period of rotation from South America - Australia (some 1/4 + Earth rotation, so ~6+ hours) - impossible

- a strange static black rim on the right side of the Moon

- the Moon has a much lower albedo than a Full Moon would look like from Earth

- NO stars/galaxies in the background; pitch pitch contrastless black, yet Earth and Moon are sufficiently exposed - impossible

- the shadows on the lower left (start) and upper right sides (end) of the animation - they will "explain" it away is being the circular camera lense, but in the first frames on the left you see a "jump" of this shadow

- in order for this "video"/pasted set of images to be real, the camera on the space thingy should be statically focused on the Full Earth-Moon system - how do they want to accomplish a space thingy being static in space?

 

The more NASA jokes one sees, the more ridiculous they become... and yet the general public accepts and loves these without any criticism.

 

Pretzelogik (and others), did you see the "subliminal" SEX joke of NASA yet?

 

Anyone who has ever operated a camera or used a zoom lens realizes that the further the lens is from the subject when it is at the end of its focal length, the more dramatic the effects of the slightest movement of the lens.

 

Below is a sample of a consumer grade 200x (digital, 50x optical) lens capturing the moon.  Notice the effect of the zoom button activation on a camera affixed to a tripod on stable ground.  Also, notice the city lights appear with no adjustment to the iris and the moon still plainly visible in the frame. 

 

 

Actually, I am beginning to question the accuracy of the conventional notion of celestial distances.  According to doctrine, a telescope that would resolve to show Apollo remnants on the moon would require a 100 meter mirror - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/#.VcbJe_ksN8E 

 

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is supposedly 234,000 miles (minus 51) closer to the moon than the earth bound camera, and yet the resolution certainly does not appear to be 4680 times better than the Sony in the video above.

 

 

Apparently, NASA can not equip a space probe on a million mile voyage with a camera that has comparable optics to a $400.00 consumer Sony that would be capable of capturing stars. 

 

And yes Torero, I actually posted the NASA - Disney subliminal earlier in the thread, as well as another entry that traces the relationship between NASA, Disney and the occult.  Of course, the military ties go without saying.

[shirgall]

You expect a camera that was optimized for weight in 1971 (Apollo 14) to have superior image stabilization *and* dynamic range? Do you understand how much better cameras and sensors and electronics are now compared to then?

[MrCapitalism]

 

 

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is supposedly 234,000 miles (minus 51) closer to the moon than the earth bound camera, and yet the resolution certainly does not appear to be 4680 times better than the Sony in the video above.

Does this website help?

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/738

[Torero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMD4UqwmQzk

 

I see a guy taking NASA's stories for granted and explaining the image.

 

The Lagrangian points (he presents the "camera" that took the "photos" of the Moon and the Earth being in L1 (@ 0.99 AU)) are pure fantasy. They are not points (as they would follow the Earth orbiting the Sun, so become orbits) and they cannot be right because of the gravitational effects of the three main celestial bodies. You cannot regard an Earth-Sun gravitational system and exclude the Moon nor regard an Earth-Moon gravitational system and ignore the Sun. It is always a three-object gravitational system which makes that the theoretical Lagrangian points orbits shift all the time in 3rd order equations.

 

More about this Lagrangian fantasy can be found here.

 

Anyone who has ever operated a camera or used a zoom lens realizes that the further the lens is from the subject when it is at the end of its focal length, the more dramatic the effects of the slightest movement of the lens.

 

Below is a sample of a consumer grade 200x (digital, 50x optical) lens capturing the moon.  Notice the effect of the zoom button activation on a camera affixed to a tripod on stable ground.  Also, notice the city lights appear with no adjustment to the iris and the moon still plainly visible in the frame. 

 

 

Actually, I am beginning to question the accuracy of the conventional notion of celestial distances.  According to doctrine, a telescope that would resolve to show Apollo remnants on the moon would require a 100 meter mirror - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/#.VcbJe_ksN8E 

 

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is supposedly 234,000 miles (minus 51) closer to the moon than the earth bound camera, and yet the resolution certainly does not appear to be 4680 times better than the Sony in the video above.

 

 

Apparently, NASA can not equip a space probe on a million mile voyage with a camera that has comparable optics to a $400.00 consumer Sony that would be capable of capturing stars. 

 

And yes Torero, I actually posted the NASA - Disney subliminal earlier in the thread, as well as another entry that traces the relationship between NASA, Disney and the occult.  Of course, the military ties go without saying.

 

Ah right, sorry for having missed it. And I agree, it's laughable about the "camera" that NASA tells us they used on this "space" probe they "positioned" in the Lagrangian "point" 1 of the Earth-Sun gravitational system (which doesn't exist, see first part).

 

I am however curious how you come to the idea that "celestial distances" are not right? On what basis?

 

There is no possibility that any telescope would see any remnants of Apollo "space" craft on the Moon, as man has never been there (nor is able to get there). Maybe they should point a telescope at the Nevada desert, the Hawaiian surface or Stanley's studio in the UK, that would help a bit...

 

You expect a camera that was optimized for weight in 1971 (Apollo 14) to have superior image stabilization *and* dynamic range? Do you understand how much better cameras and sensors and electronics are now compared to then?

 

The LRO "images", the so-called "undeniable proof" that man landed on the Moon, are not from 1971, yet 2009. Indeed, it's hilarious that a multi-multi-billion organisation like NASA wouldn't be able to show crystal clear images of the "lunar" landers with 2009 technology if they were really standing there. You would indeed expect those LRO images to be much much better than what they could produce in 1969-72. Evidently that is not the case.

[green banana]

who was inspired to rocketry by jules Verne (the science fiction writer who actually correctly identified the escape velocity of earth in the 1800s, go figure)

 

 

Anybody with highschool knowledge in physics can do that.

 

They are not points (as they would follow the Earth orbiting the Sun, so become orbits)

 

Which is what L1 and L2 do.

 

and they cannot be right because of the gravitational effects of the three main celestial bodies.

 

 

Too bad there are satelittes in these places.

[pretzelogik]

You expect a camera that was optimized for weight in 1971 (Apollo 14) to have superior image stabilization *and* dynamic range? Do you understand how much better cameras and sensors and electronics are now compared to then?

This only strengthens the argument against the authenticity of these photos.  No, in fact I don't expect their cameras to be anything close to what would be required to photograph stable images from those distances.  That is why the authenticity should be questioned.  But forget the lenses, stabilization, maintenance of perspective, control of iris, manipulation of the controls in real time from a million miles away and the communication (visual feedback, plus zoom, pan, tilt, focus and iris, along with maintaining the position of the "craft") channel required.

 

What is the explanation for the static clouds?

Anybody with highschool knowledge in physics can do that.

 

Glad you mentioned escape velocity!

 

The escape velocity required to leave the gravitational field of earth according to NASA, is 36,960 ft/s. (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducato ... ty_prt.htm)

 

Also, according to Wickipedia, the.220 Swift rifle cartridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Swift) has a muzzle velocity of  4000 ft/s (commonly cited as one of the fastest available production model cartridges and yet still some nine times slower than an Apollo rocket, evidently).

 

Last month there was a bit of buzz about the possibility of new unmanned "hyper sonic" rockets changing the nature of warfare by the year 2040, the projected date of the perfection of these projectiles that will reach the currently unprecedented (except when talking about Apollo rockets) rate of 5573 ft/s: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/arms-race-betw ... ft-1508241

 

We have all seen the slow acceleration of the Apollo rockets that the camera follows until they are out of sight (at least two minutes or more, while the Kaman line is some seven seconds away at escape velocity), yet they are evidently all the while picking up enough speed to become virtually invisible to any cameras that might attempt to capture them by the time they reach "space".  And yet, if all goes according to plan, the military will have unmanned rockets capable of achieving speeds approaching less than one sixth the speed of Apollo rockets by the year 2040. That gives them another thirty years or so to achieve what they had already done nearly eighty years prior.

 

I find the idea of a manned rocket traveling nine times faster than the fastest rifle cartridge to be a bit of an eyebrow raiser, but even more puzzling is the fact that they are still working toward achieving unmanned rocket speeds that will fall far short of what was readily available in the sixties.

 

 

I am however curious how you come to the idea that "celestial distances" are not right? On what basis?

 

It's more of a suspicion, but earth bound camera resolution seems to me a bit more detailed than what I would expect for an object 234 or 237 thousand miles away.  In fact, we can see some details of the moon with the naked eye which seems unlikely at those distances, although I understand atmospheric conditions provide less interference when looking up. 

 

Mt. McKinley in Alaska can be seen from Anchorage, which is over 100 miles away, I'd like to compare the detail a 200X camera lens could provide to the mountain from Anchorage, then virtually extrapolate that 2300 times.  For someone who has spent thousands of hours behind expensive broadcast lenses the distances seems a bit off, but I have nothing more than intuition at this point.

[AncapFTW]

Glad you mentioned escape velocity!

 

The escape velocity required to leave the gravitational field of earth according to NASA, is 36,960 ft/s. (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducato ... ty_prt.htm)

 

Also, according to Wickipedia, the.220 Swift rifle cartridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Swift) has a muzzle velocity of  4000 ft/s (commonly cited as one of the fastest available production model cartridges and yet still some nine times slower than an Apollo rocket, evidently).

 

Last month there was a bit of buzz about the possibility of new unmanned "hyper sonic" rockets changing the nature of warfare by the year 2040, the projected date of the perfection of these projectiles that will reach the currently unprecedented (except when talking about Apollo rockets) rate of 5573 ft/s: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/arms-race-betw ... ft-1508241

 

We have all seen the slow acceleration of the Apollo rockets that the camera follows until they are out of sight (at least two minutes or more, while the Kaman line is some seven seconds away at escape velocity), yet they are evidently all the while picking up enough speed to become virtually invisible to any cameras that might attempt to capture them by the time they reach "space".  And yet, if all goes according to plan, the military will have unmanned rockets capable of achieving speeds approaching less than one sixth the speed of Apollo rockets by the year 2040. That gives them another thirty years or so to achieve what they had already done nearly eighty years prior.

 

I find the idea of a manned rocket traveling nine times faster than the fastest rifle cartridge to be a bit of an eyebrow raiser, but even more puzzling is the fact that they are still working toward achieving unmanned rocket speeds that will fall far short of what was readily available in the sixties.

Watch other videos by the guy who made the video I posted above, especially ones for a game called "Kerbal Space Program" and the realism overhaul that makes the star system in the game the Solar system.  Maybe then you'll understand the concepts of acceleration and escape velocity.  Maybe a bit of fun visual aid will help you conceptualize the idea of putting a ship in orbit.

 

As a basic explanation, though, for the space shuttles, NASA carries huge stages of extra engines/fuel up with them, then dumped them as they went up, letting them gain speed without having to carry extra mass into orbit.  It works, but wastes huge amounts of money and materials with every launch.  The military needs SSTO rockets, which can't dump stages and therefore need to be far more efficient at accelerating.  The chemical fuels used haven't improved so much that that is now easy, but they might have advanced enough that it is possible.

[green banana]

And yet, if all goes according to plan, the military will have unmanned rockets capable of achieving speeds approaching less than one sixth the speed of Apollo rockets by the year 2040.

 

The second stage is ignited in space. There you don't have drag. And to explain it quite simple: the drag becomes stronger by the square, relative to the speed. To get from Mach 2,5 to 5 you need four times the energy.

[pretzelogik]

The second stage is ignited in space. There you don't have drag. And to explain it quite simple: the drag becomes stronger by the square, relative to the speed. To get from Mach 2,5 to 5 you need four times the energy.

This offers very little in the way of explaining away the contradictions.

 

So, you are saying you find nothing implausible about astronauts moving at nine times the speed of one of the fastest rifle cartridges?

[shirgall]

This offers very little in the way of explaining away the contradictions.

 

So, you are saying you find nothing implausible about astronauts moving at nine times the speed of one of the fastest rifle cartridges?

 

It's not implausible. Standing on the equator you are revolving around the center of the Earth at over 1,000 miles per hour. The Moon orbits the Earth at just under 3,000 miles per hour. The Earth is revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour. The entire solar system revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 515,000 miles per hour as well.

 

Just standing "still" you are going very fast indeed.

[pretzelogik]

It's not implausible. Standing on the equator you are revolving around the center of the Earth at over 1,000 miles per hour. The Moon orbits the Earth at just under 3,000 miles per hour. The Earth is revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour. The entire solar system revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 515,000 miles per hour as well.

 

Just standing "still" you are going very fast indeed.

 This explanation nullifies the concept of velocity.

 

"What do you mean I was speeding, officer?  Look, you're moving a thousand miles an hour right now, so you are already 965 over the 35 MPH speed limit."

 

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who gets pulled over.

[shirgall]

 This explanation nullifies the concept of velocity.

 

You are relying on things that move to make a claim that nothing can move? I will assume this is specious snark, and move on. Pun intended. 

 

I put "still" in quotation marks for a reason. In one frame of reference you may appear still. In others you are moving very quickly indeed. One has to move very quickly compared to the Earth to get into Earth orbit, let alone beyond it. It is not implausible to do so. I've even observed it.

[green banana]

So, you are saying you find nothing implausible about astronauts moving at nine times the speed of one of the fastest rifle cartridges?

 

Of course not. To see how foolish your ideas are, do a simple calculation. Calculate the Force created by Drag at sea level by an object with a cw of 0,1 traveling at 6000 km/h. 

[WasatchMan]

hmmm... it seems some people don't understand the difference between acceleration, absolute velocity, and relative velocity.  Please educate yourself with researching "reference frames" and really try to understand that concept.  If you are interested in physics it is a very basic yet important concept.

 

[pretzelogik]

Of course not. To see how foolish your ideas are, do a simple calculation. Calculate the Force created by Drag at sea level by an object with a cw of 0,1 traveling at 6000 km/h. 

 

So when exactly is it that escape velocity occurs?  I still can't picture sitting in a vehicle that is moving nine times faster than something that is already impossible to see, but let's say that is possible. 

 

Isn't the moon supposed to be locked to the gravitational field of the earth?  How does the rocket escape that field in between here and the moon?

 

Oh, and don't forget the static clouds.  That's really the important thing.

 

hmmm... it seems some people don't understand the difference between acceleration, absolute velocity, and relative velocity.  Please educate yourself with researching "reference frames" and really try to understand that concept.  If you are interested in physics it is a very basic yet important concept.

 

 

I am simply using the figures that NASA puts out as far as the "speed" required to escape the earth's gravitational field.  When an auto manufacturer says a car will take x seconds to go form 0 to 60, what is reference frame to which they are referring?  How do we consider speed in common parlance when we are moving through space at x MPH?  Does the rocket ever leave the reference frame of the earth?  Is the earth's rotation in a particular direction added/subtracted to the speed of the rocket?  Are the relative trajectories of the moon's rotation around the earth and the rotation around the sun considered in the escape velocity speed?  I imagine my limited grasp om the mathematics required to understand all the calculations may fall somewhat short.

 

So, let's just cut to the chase and give me your best explanation about how the clouds on the latest moon transit video remain static.

[Torero]

Anybody with highschool knowledge in physics can do that.

 

Which is what L1 and L2 do.

 

Did you read the links I posted? L1 and L2 do not "do" something, they are theoretical "points" which are supposed to be the result of gravitational forces. Yet they are presented isolated; two different systems (Earth-Moon & Earth-Sun), where these systems do not exist. There is only 1 gravitational system; an Earth-Moon-Sun system.

 

Too bad there are satellites in these places.

 

Now you are reversing the point: You take the claim that there are "satellites" in these places (which are not places; they are not fixed) for granted and argument that therefore these points (and satellites) are/must be real.

 

Based on my research satellites do and can not exist. Rockets do not work in "space" at all. It's exactly the point; for the many many many stolen tax dollars NASA is presenting the world CGI and fantasy, yet seem to still have somehow "authority". That authority is destroyed by physical laws.

 

Your position seems to be: NASA is right, so everyone who says they're not is wrong.

My position is: physical laws are right, so what NASA tells the world cannot be right.

 

And yes, it was a big shock to me too that all these beautiful images and technology only can be false.

 

This only strengthens the argument against the authenticity of these photos.  No, in fact I don't expect their cameras to be anything close to what would be required to photograph stable images from those distances.  That is why the authenticity should be questioned.

 

Exactly this.

 

It's more of a suspicion, but earth bound camera resolution seems to me a bit more detailed than what I would expect for an object 234 or 237 thousand miles away.  In fact, we can see some details of the moon with the naked eye which seems unlikely at those distances, although I understand atmospheric conditions provide less interference when looking up.

 

Ok, I understand your suspicion. And it may be true what you say, but it also may be that these details can be seen due to the high apparent albedo of the Moon.

 

The problem is that one would have to come up with completely new calculations when the distance is not right; the size of the Moon, the orbital characteristics, solar and lunar eclipses, etc. If your starting point is "I have the feeling the distances are not right" then the other factors also are not right.

 

Do you know if anyone has made such calculations which support your intuition?

 

I am not in any way attacking your intuition, I see where you're coming from and you have a good point. It may be interesting to see or find out new calculations and thus distances, size/diameter, etc. such that it fits the observations and can predict (predictability is crucial for natural scientific models) phenomena (like solar and lunar eclipses).

 

The second stage is ignited in space. There you don't have drag. And to explain it quite simple: the drag becomes stronger by the square, relative to the speed. To get from Mach 2,5 to 5 you need four times the energy.

 

There is no ignition in space, not even of the kind NASA tells the world. Rockets do not work in space. They work in atmospheric conditions where temperature and pressure are not (near) zero. According to the stories, those crucial factors in space are near zero (both pressure - vacuum and temperature - NASA claims space T is a mindblowing low 3 K). Rockets cannot work the same way in both regimes as they are so different, both physically and chemically. At vacuum pressures (rather the lack of them) and at near zero temperatures everything becomes a solid, or in the case of the lowest atom number elements a super fluid, see these phase diagrams for Helium (He) and Water (H2O):

 

 

Too many people still take the NASA version of science for granted. Yet, it's the unspoiled science (physics and chemistry) that discards the stories NASA tells the world. There is no propulsion of rockets in space, as there's no gas.

 

Not to forget that all the material properties (e.g. rigidity/hardness, conductivity, and so many more - mechanical, chemical, electrical and magnetic) of the rocket and the "gases" (which do not exist) leaving the nozzle get completely crazy at these unimaginably low pressures and temperatures. My suspicion is that everything would break down in near-static (hardly moving) single molecules or even atoms in space.

 

Of course we don't know if space (everything above what we call "atmosphere") is a vacuum as all the "knowledge" comes from the same NASA crooks, but both P and T are drastically lowered when moving away from Earth, so it makes sense to assume this goes on farther from Earth/more into "space" until finally ending up in a near vacuum and near zero Temperatures.

[A4E]

More fascinating video content from NASA's remarkable million mile lenses featuring static clouds:

 

 

When I clicked on the video, without knowing what it was ment to be, I instantaneously saw that it was made on a computer. I've worked with heaps of software and made tons of computer graphics, so I automatically recognize this one as computer made.

 

Then I see that it is supposed to be real. OMG!! LOOOOL!! There is an enormous reason to disable comments on the video then yes!  Is that video really from nasa????  Seriously?

[WasatchMan]

I am simply using the figures that NASA puts out as far as the "speed" required to escape the earth's gravitational field.  When an auto manufacturer says a car will take x seconds to go form 0 to 60, what is reference frame to which they are referring?  How do we consider speed in common parlance when we are moving through space at x MPH?  Does the rocket ever leave the reference frame of the earth?  Is the earth's rotation in a particular direction added/subtracted to the speed of the rocket?  Are the relative trajectories of the moon's rotation around the earth and the rotation around the sun considered in the escape velocity speed?  I imagine my limited grasp om the mathematics required to understand all the calculations may fall somewhat short.

 

So, let's just cut to the chase and give me your best explanation about how the clouds on the latest moon transit video remain static.

 

Escape velocities are relative to the body you are escaping from.  You need to understand that velocity means nothing as far as force is concerned, so your issues around not being able to imagine things moving very fast is null.  The only issue is acceleration.  Acceleration (and deceleration) are the only things that people need to worry about (that is where the concept of "G"s come from).

 

I really wasn't referring to the visual lack of cloud moving in my original post.  It does seem counter intuitive to watch a 5 hour clip where it appears to our eyes that the clouds change little, but I will accept this has to do with the distance we are viewing the images.  This is one case where I will follow Occam's Razor and choose to accept that the image I see, even if counter intuitive, reflects what is seen in reality as opposed to the idea that NASA would decide to hoax this whole this thing for very little gain and tons of risk.  That image being what reality recorded is far more probable.

[A4E]

This is one case where I will follow Occam's Razor and choose to accept that the image I see, even if counter intuitive, reflects what is seen in reality as opposed to the idea that NASA would decide to hoax this whole this thing for very little gain and tons of risk.  That image being what reality recorded is far more probable.

 

Ok, remember that you accept Occam's Razor.

 

2 theories on how those images were made:

 

Theory nr 1 - One guy spent 2 hours rotating a 3D object purporting to be earth in any 3D gfx program, then rendering out those images. The next 2 hours he carefully pasted/drew an image purporting to be the backside of the moon on top of each rendered image.

 

Theory nr 2 - X amount of people, working X amount of time to build a satellite, then spending more time with other people to be able to launch it into space, and then have it go and stay and orbit in a specific 'position' in space, and then have a camera on the satellite be able to capture the earth and the moon very crisply without any distortions.

 

You accept Occam's Razor, so from now on I expect you to accept the least complicated theory of how the images were made, which involves that the animation does not represent anything real.

 

 

I implore everyone to stay away from this Occam's Razor nonsense, because it can be molded to fit any opinion.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Yes, it is the truth. It is the truth about perspective.

The camera changes angle. The "rock" is actually a very large stone formation but far away so a small change in camera angle up close translates to a large change in angle far away. The large stone in the background is behind the large stone in the foreground.

 

Got to bed.

So you have to assume that within 3 pixels the distance/pixel raito is massive. Right after a rock. I don't see the cliff.

Also, if it was a a setup, how could this happen.

I understand the difference between a digital zoom and a lens zoom.

 

The appearance of the rock must result from a change in angle( the perspective turns or moves to the side, from a far distance, it requires a massive displacement of the point of capture. The image makes no sense if the camera was on the moon. I see no reason for this to be made on the moon. I'm not invested in this, but I must say that all moon footage that I've seen ( very little) is very dissapointing.

 

The latest WTF moment courtesy of NASA by way of Time Magazine online July 20, 2015:

 

http://time.com/3964653/nasa-earth-photo/

What's wrong?

[green banana]

There is no ignition in space, not even of the kind NASA tells the world. Rockets do not work in space.

 

Rockets carry both the fuel and the oxidizing agent with them. Put those together, generate heat or a spark and you have ignition.

 

According to the stories, those crucial factors in space are near zero 

 

The ignition does not happen in space, but within the rocket. Then, it's propelled outward through muzzles. Also, there is insulation for the fuel. 

 

Based on my research satellites do and can not exist. 

 

 

Too bad they can be seen from earth. I would do some more research.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Trodas is in on the moon landing hoax. Why else is he here? To distract us. Trodas is shill. Stop covering up the truth trodas. The moon landing is fake and you know it but you put this stuff here to make moon landing truthers look like unbelievably retarded cretins. 

[WorBlux]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

 

And that's all I have to say about this.