WTF, NASA?!

[A4E]

 

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

 

Thanks. Most people think we need reflectors, but now you provided a link to a page which clearly states that we don't need any reflectors to measure distance to the moon.

[pretzelogik]

Chris Kendall from Hoaxbusters call has a very informative talk with Thomas W. Murphy, Ph. D., whose primary project is running the lunar laser ranging experiment at Apache Point Observatory.  The professor apologizes for the misdirection of Mythbusters and other mainstream "scientific" entertainers.

 

Speaking of lunar apparati,  we should not forget about our lunar neighbors the Chinese and the Russians. what with their Jade Rabbit and my favorite, the Lunokhod (pictured below), which is evidently also reflecting laser beams.  Or, it could be cooking up some tasty bipedal beaver stew.

 

 

[WorBlux]

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Bender.pdf

 

It improves reflectivity by 100x and allowed ranging experiments during the lunar day. 1ms pulse vs. 10ns pulse.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I got down-voted by people who want to distract from the truth about the moon-landing. Down-voters can't stop the truth. Show yourselves you cowards.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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.

You got Occam's razor wrong. It all things being equal the explanation with the least assumptions is the the most likely. 

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?

When I viewed your comment I instantaneously saw you were an employee of NASA sent here to make the real conspiracy seem really stupid. Prove me wrong.

[pretzelogik]

You got Occam's razor wrong. It all things being equal the explanation with the least assumptions is the the most likely. 

When I viewed your comment I instantaneously saw you were an employee of NASA sent here to make the real conspiracy seem really stupid. Prove me wrong.

 

What is the real conspiracy?

[A4E]

Let Terry W. Virts, a NASA astronaut tell you his perspective.

 

Here is the full version of the added part in the video above.

[A4E]

You got Occam's razor wrong. It all things being equal the explanation with the least assumptions is the the most likely. 

I looked at the wiki page, and I assume you are referring to this line: "among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.".

 

The result/prediction of each theory is a sequence of the same images, so I don't understand how my example was not applied correctly. I appreciate that you want to clarify how I am wrong, so could you please explain how my example was applied erroneously?

 

Edit: Perhaps you only ment the distinction between assumptions and complication, in which case, thanks. Being able to build and send a satellite to a specific location in space and be able to capture those images would still fall under assumptions though imo.

[shirgall]

http://m.space.com/30302-lagrange-points.html

A discussion of Lagrange points...

[Torero]

Why would you spread this disinfo from the perpetrators of the space hoaxes?

 

Have you read what I wrote about these fantasy "parking places" in "space"?

 

Can you answer in your own words?

[shirgall]

More Pluto (and Charon) pix: http://www.wired.com/2015/09/first-pluto-photos-new-horizons-massive-data-dump/

[trodas]

Micro-satellite to inspect if Americans did land on Moon

 

So, Russians are finally waking up and starting to have good questions.

However currently they are using wrong video. First footage "from the Moon" was this:

[AccuTron]

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?

The YouTube page clearly states it's an animation, and the only new goody is that they were able to use a moon image of it's far side, which I guess wasn't readily available before, maybe not that quality.  Really, this is quite trivial.  There is no attempt to present it as realtime viewing.

[A4E]

The YouTube page clearly states it's an animation, and the only new goody is that they were able to use a moon image of it's far side, which I guess wasn't readily available before, maybe not that quality.  Really, this is quite trivial.  There is no attempt to present it as realtime viewing.

It is supposed to be time lapse shot images of the real moon going in front of the real planet earth, put together as a playable low frame rate video.

 

I never thought or insinuated that it is presenting itself as being realtime.

 

I have not seen any update on this obvious divide and conquer hoax, but if they have finally come out and admitted that it was fake and that they are sorry for wasting everyones time and energy, then that is great!

[shirgall]

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/894

 

Apollo 16 booster rocket impact site found,

 

 

A decades old mystery is now solved! After many attempts searching through Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) images, the Apollo 16 S-IVB rocket booster impact site has been identified. The site is on Mare Insularum about 260 km southwest of Copernicus Crater.

 

During the Apollo exploration of the Moon, beginning with Apollo 13, the massive, upper stage (known as the S-IVB stage) that helped propel astronauts to the Moon, were directed to impact the Moon. The energy from these impacts was measured by seismometers left on the surface (by previous Apollo astronauts) to understand the internal structure of the Moon. The locations of the impact craters, a total of 5, were estimated from tracking data of the booster collected just before impact. The LROC team found the other four craters early in the mission, however the Apollo 16 crater remained elusive.

 

In the case of Apollo 16, radio contact with the booster was lost before the impact and thus the impact location was only poorly known. Now, with high-resolution LROC Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) images the impact site of the Apollo 16 S-IVB stage was precisely located (1.921°N, 335.377°E, -1104 m elevation).  In fact, the location differs by about 30 km from the Apollo-era tracking estimate. For comparison the other four S-IVB craters were all within 7 km of their estimated locations.

[rosencrantz]

People calling it fake coming in 3,2,1 ignition

[pretzelogik]

Surely, NASA would never fake anything.  Certainly not the photo (ahem) of Saturn published as image number 14 on their Space.com website here.

 

I guess cranking up the brightness and contrast in Gimp which yields the image at the right does not reveal anything that would raise an eyebrow.  That's right, nothing to see here.  Gimp is free, BTW.  This exercise can be duplicated by anyone so inclined.  Try it with an few dozen actual photos and see if you can get a result similar to this.  If it can be duplicated with an unadulterated photo, I would kindly request the image be shared with the public to illuminate  how inky black backgrounds can appear as a series of pasted squares sans manipulation.

 

[MrCapitalism]

Surely, NASA would never fake anything.  Certainly not the photo (ahem) of Saturn published as image number 14 on their Space.com website here.

Go scroll to the bottom of this supposed "NASA Website," which posts "NASA Pictures." Click on the "About The Site" and "Company Info" links.

 

Kinda weird a government agency would have a link titled "company info."

 

pretzelogik, come back and post your findings.

[rosencrantz]

Domain Name: SPACE.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 2
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS-1150.AWSDNS-15.ORG
Name Server: NS-2020.AWSDNS-60.CO.UK
Name Server: NS-380.AWSDNS-47.COM
Name Server: NS-755.AWSDNS-30.NE

It takes about 5 seconds to use who is and to verify what mrcapitalism's claims. But why do that when you can have a nice conspiracy theory?

[ribuck]

I tried this in GIMP and was able to easily replicate pretzelogik's observation of overlapping rectangles.

 

So I searched for the NASA source of the photo and found it here:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA01364

 

The caption clearly states that the picture was assembled from multiple Voyager 2 Saturn images. So it's not surprising that cranking the brightness up will show 1-bit differences in the background brightness of the different photo elements.

[Torero]

Surely, NASA would never fake anything.  Certainly not the photo (ahem) of Saturn published as image number 14 on their Space.com website here.

 

I guess cranking up the brightness and contrast in Gimp which yields the image at the right does not reveal anything that would raise an eyebrow.  That's right, nothing to see here.  Gimp is free, BTW.  This exercise can be duplicated by anyone so inclined.  Try it with an few dozen actual photos and see if you can get a result similar to this.  If it can be duplicated with an unadulterated photo, I would kindly request the image be shared with the public to illuminate  how inky black backgrounds can appear as a series of pasted squares sans manipulation.

 

 

Great effective post, pretzelogik.

 

Unbelievable that just libertarians/anarchists/freethinking critical people keep defending a governmental organization stealing billions of dollars from taxpayers without remorse for their CGI work.

 

I guess most people just want it to be true.

 

Just like a 7 year old who is disappointed Santa doesn't exist but keeps believing it, because of the presents and the nice story.

 

And for those who foolishly believe this is an actual photo (collage) of Saturn, look at the shadow created by the planet on her own rings. That is an impossible shadow we see there...

[pretzelogik]

I tried this in GIMP and was able to easily replicate pretzelogik's observation of overlapping rectangles.

 

So I searched for the NASA source of the photo and found it here:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA01364

 

The caption clearly states that the picture was assembled from multiple Voyager 2 Saturn images. So it's not surprising that cranking the brightness up will show 1-bit differences in the background brightness of the different photo elements.

I might buy that if there was a need to "assemble" an image captured from 13 million miles away.  Google earth assembles images to provide a panorama as the field of view is too small to encompass the entire image.  Even consumer cameras have this capability. 

 

Set aside the fact that we can all see what we want to see, the moon is 1/54th the distance from where these picture were taken.  Why is it that with a lens that has this capability of resolving images, can they not just point it at the moon and show us clear and unequivocal

photos of flags, buggies and such?  If the image referenced above taken by the LROC was taken from a distance of 30 to 120 miles, it's over 100,000,000 times closer to the moon than the Cassini was to Saturn.  We should be able to count the rivets on the booster

 

Domain Name: SPACE.COM

Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.

Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 2

Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com

Referral URL: http://networksolutions.com

Name Server: NS-1150.AWSDNS-15.ORG

Name Server: NS-2020.AWSDNS-60.CO.UK

Name Server: NS-380.AWSDNS-47.COM

Name Server: NS-755.AWSDNS-30.NE

 

It takes about 5 seconds to use who is and to verify what mrcapitalism's claims. But why do that when you can have a nice conspiracy theory?

5 seconds to verify that Space.com is registered to a registrar that manages over 6 million domain names?  Okay,...

 

Go scroll to the bottom of this supposed "NASA Website," which posts "NASA Pictures." Click on the "About The Site" and "Company Info" links.

 

Kinda weird a government agency would have a link titled "company info."

 

pretzelogik, come back and post your findings.

I should have lifted the image directly from NASA where the identical image is posted, instead of the Space.com fanboy site sponsored by Purch.  The content manager of Purch is Robert Roy Brit who also administers Live Science.  In his own words, when describing himself in response to an article he has this to say about himself being an internet hoax: "Interestingly, no mention of "science" or "space," which have defined my career the past two decades".  Make of that what you will.

[pretzelogik]

Great effective post, pretzelogik.

 

Unbelievable that just libertarians/anarchists/freethinking critical people keep defending a governmental organization stealing billions of dollars from taxpayers without remorse for their CGI work.

 

I guess most people just want it to be true.

 

Just like a 7 year old who is disappointed Santa doesn't exist but keeps believing it, because of the presents and the nice story.

 

And for those who foolishly believe this is an actual photo (collage) of Saturn, look at the shadow created by the planet on her own rings. That is an impossible shadow we see there...

I've brought this up before.  There is no institution that is as much an expression of the vagaries of the state as is NASA.  Aside from its genesis in the occult and image manipulation, the sheer volume of coerced resources flowing into its coffers should give any liberty minded person pause.  The inability to recognize this is likely related to an unexamined allegiance to the scientific community, which has been politicized as much, if not more than any other discipline co-opted by the state.  Just as there are no "rogue" elements corrupting politics (H20 diluting water) climate change hysteria is the state of science.  BTW, where do you think NASA stands on climate change?

[shirgall]

That popular space photos are stitched together from plates is well-known, especially poster-sized ones, or panoramas. The sensors on spacecraft are built for ruggedness first and other considerations come afterward. Also, transmission channels from spacecraft are notoriously slow.

[pretzelogik]

That popular space photos are stitched together from plates is well-known, especially poster-sized ones, or panoramas. The sensors on spacecraft are built for ruggedness first and other considerations come afterward. Also, transmission channels from spacecraft are notoriously slow.

So, are we to infer that the field of view from 13,000,000 miles is too narrow to encompass the entire planet, thus requiring the montage?

[shirgall]

So, are we to infer that the field of view from 13,000,000 miles is too narrow to encompass the entire planet, thus requiring the montage?

 

It's more likely that the moons, rings, and planet--if not parts of the planet--looked better individually in different pictures.

[Torero]

BTW, where do you think NASA stands on climate change?

 

One of the main perpetrators of course. The more people see the space lies presented to them, the more the perpetrators have to shift their budget allocations and thus viciously violent tax robbery of the people to "less dangerous" areas. Less dangerous for the brainwashed souls, that is...

 

The CO₂ scam I've confidently debunked before.

 

The space hoax is not less simple to explain:

 

- the only force that keeps us on Earth is gravity

- the only force that keeps the Moon in tidal orbit with the Earth is gravity

- the only force that keeps Moon and Earth in orbit with the Sun is gravity

 

So the only mechanism of transport to escape from that force is an amazingly huge antigravity propulsion mechanism. Even when escaping Earths gravity, we would be in graviational fields of the Moon and the amazingly strong Sun.

 

Current technology does not include antigravity, which makes space travel at this moment outright impossible.

[pretzelogik]

Does this give them credibility in terms of climate change?

 

Big fans of the IPCC, apparently.  There are a number of scientists who would dispute the facts listed on the NASA climate change evidence page.  Should they be dismissed because NASA?

[A4E]

I have a question for believers. What is it going to take for you to reevaluate your belief?

 

We know that...

 

45ish years passing without returning, is not enough.

 

No commercial tourism to the moon, is not enough.

 

No moon base, is not enough.

 

An astronaut saying in 2015 that "right now we can only stay in (low) earth orbit", is not enough.

 

Photographic experts criticizing the photos, is not enough.

 

The Apollo astronauts severe lack of aerobic capabilities on the moon, is not enough.

 

Photos of the lunar rover, with no tracks behind or in front, is not enough.

 

Featureless backgrounds on photos supposedly taken on the moon, is not enough.

 

Inescapable heat issues, quote:

"The astronauts could not have withstood the intense radiation on the surface of the moon whether it be infrared (heat) or other electromagnetic radiation.  Just considering the heat radiation alone, standing in the direct sunlight, the space suits would have been incapable of maintaining the immense temperature differential (with reference to body temperature) as the temperature in the sunlight would be far greater than what we experience here on Earth. The temperature on the sunlit surface of the moon is at least 250 degrees F. which is well above the boiling point of water. In short, there would be no effective means of stopping the build-up of heat.  Convection as a means of dissipating heat wouldn't work as there is no atmosphere on the moon."

 

...is not enough.

 

The very real dangers of the Van Allen radiation belt, is not enough.

 

Russian officials stating in July 2015 that they want to investigate if US really did go to the moon, is not enough.

 

Chineese rover allegedly finding completely different soil samples on the moon, is not enough.

 

A complete no show of stars in all photos, is not enough.

 

The rock marked C, is not enough.

 

The layered cross hairs:

 

 

Quote "The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. These are imprinted over the top of all photographs. Some of the images, however, clearly show the cross-hairs behind objects in the scene, implying that photographs may have been edited or doctored after being taken. The photograph shown above is not an isolated occurrence. Many objects are shown to be in front of the cross-hairs, including the American flag in one picture and the lunar rover in another."

 

...is not enough.

 

Duplicate backgrounds used for scenes that are said to be miles apart from each other, is not enough.

 

Photographic film showing no effects of space radiation, despite NASA themselves allegedly showing space radiation effects on photographic film in an experiment in 1994, concluding that photographic film is pretty much useless in space... is not enough.

 

Neil Armstrong and a multitude of other astronauts refusing to swear on the bible that they had been on the moon, is not enough.

 

Not sending monkeys or any other animal towards the moon before people, to see if it is safe, is not enough.

 

NASA losing the original moon landing film, is not enough.

 

All moon landers successfully landing on the moon, and lift off, and return the people to earth, even though Neil Armstrong was unable to land one on Earth, is not enough.

 

The first moon landing astronauts looking like they were being tried for a crime in the follow up press conference. Certainly not like they had just been to the moon... is not enough.

 

Everything else in this thread, is not enough.

 

Scores of people, with websites, and in threads like these, bringing up countless anomalies and issues that I did not... is not enough.

 

 

So what do you believers think it is going to take for you to reevaluate your belief? I really honestly would like to know.

[ribuck]

I have a question for believers. What is it going to take for you to reevaluate your belief?

 

That's a fair question.

 

There has been a lot of interesting material posted in this thread, and I have re-evaluated my belief every time one of these posts has caught my interest enough to me to invest the time. Every time, and sometimes after spending several hours, I find that the material posted here fails as evidence. Not yet have I found one "anomaly" that isn't straightforwardly understood.

 

For that Saturn photo, I installed GIMP and replicated pretzelogik's findings, then hunted for the original photo, only to discover that it was described as a composite therefore the "fraud" described by pretzelogik did not happen. So pretzelogik acknowledges that he "might" accept this, then immediately moves on to something else. My life is too important to spend investigating instance after instance of claimed frauds, when all of them so far have turned out to be straightforwardly understood.

 

I will reflect the question back towards A4E and pretzelogik: "What would it take for YOU to re-evaluate your belief?". I invite you to select your most powerful item of evidence, and state that you will re-evaluate your belief if it fails as a piece of evidence. I will do likewise if it succeeds.

 

For example, if you consider "layered cross hairs" to be powerful evidence, I am willing to look into that. I will investigate the origin of that photo. I will investigate the construction of the camera and the mechanism by which cross-hairs are overlayed. This should show whether the photo as presented is consistent or inconsistent with the official story. If you consider "wrong shadow on Saturn's rings" to be powerful evidence, I am willing to look into that. I will investigate the geometry of that photo. I will even make and photograph a model of a planet with rings, to test whether or not the photo depicts an impossible shadow.

 

If the evidence is inconsistent with the official story, I will reevaluate my belief. If the evidence is consistent with the official story, I will expect you to reevaluate your belief and to refrain from posting new evidence unless you have subjected it to a similar amount of investigative scrutiny (rather than just reposting some image from some website).

 

I do understand that governments have lied to the public many times. But that does not mean that every government communication is fraudulent.

[A4E]

That's a fair question.

 

There has been a lot of interesting material posted in this thread, and I have re-evaluated my belief every time one of these posts has caught my interest enough to me to invest the time. Every time, and sometimes after spending several hours, I find that the material posted here fails as evidence. Not yet have I found one "anomaly" that isn't straightforwardly understood.

Thanks for your post.

 

I am getting more and more sure that there is more psychology involved in debates like these in threads and offline, that perhaps no one understand yet. The backfire effect should be recognized and respected. I have seen and experienced my fair share of such an effect over the years, so I believe the backfire effect to be real.

 

So mine and other people's approach to attempt to reach out or 'convince' other people of alternate viewpoints, may be pointless and even counterproductive. If you are not a friend, or an authority, this method just does not work in at least 98% of all cases in my experience.

 

It has been my main method, but I have experimented with many other methods. For example, one time I assumed the role of a very rigid authoritarian humanitarian global warming alarmist, that was proclaiming and expecting most people to embrace a new invention. It is supposed to be a big facial mask that captures the Co2 you breath out, and then converts it into energy. Have no idea if it really works or not. The thread went on for around 50 posts, around 7 from me. It got the closet sceptics/deniers out laughing at the whole thing, but I doubt it had any effect on the believers who agreed with the seriousness of global warming, but was not ready to start using the mask.

 

I realize that it may be time to put the main failing method, and other methods, on the shelf, and instead try out street epistemology that was presented to us in a thread here recently. It looks promising. I am willing to accept that mine and others main method is not working, and that I have been wrong for thinking and hoping it would work.

 

I know that I cannot know 100% that humans were not on the moon, and that it may look arrogant when I call you believers. However, when someone is claiming that humans have been on the moon, and you accept that without seeing it for yourself by ie standing on the moon to watch them land, that makes you a believer, just like I accepted and believed it when the TV told me.

 

When they show a video of a pod with a parachute landing in the ocean, it is we ourselves who choose to believe it when they say that it came back from the moon.

 

 

 

For that Saturn photo, I installed GIMP and replicated pretzelogik's findings, then hunted for the original photo, only to discover that it was described as a composite therefore the "fraud" described by pretzelogik did not happen. So pretzelogik acknowledges that he "might" accept this, then immediately moves on to something else. My life is too important to spend investigating instance after instance of claimed frauds, when all of them so far have turned out to be straightforwardly understood.

In debate forms (like these in this thread) such things are completely mundane. There really is no way to avoid it. People (and myself) cannot stick on one item for too long as it will be boring and most people usually have like 100 other things to bring into the discussion. Also we automatically assume that other people are interested in more information. Again there might be a lot of different psychology going around.

 

 

 

I will reflect the question back towards A4E and pretzelogik: "What would it take for YOU to re-evaluate your belief?".

I know what you want to get at, but it is kind of non sticky, because I and others are the ones who were willing to reevaluate our belief in the moon landing to begin with.

 

I have had my moments of turmoil. For example; "Is it I who am crazy, and everyone else who are levels above me, and I just don't get it? Those webpages say that humans have 10 major problems to overcome, and 40 other unsolved problems, before it would be safe to go to the moon. What is going on?? Should I just accept the story and ignore everything I have read??"

 

 

 

I invite you to select your most powerful item of evidence, and state that you will re-evaluate your belief if it fails as a piece of evidence. I will do likewise if it succeeds.

This is why I made my previous post, even if some of the items was not posted in this thread before. Because I am pretty sure that it is not going to do it. Just is not going to work. Does not matter if it is crappy evidence or mind blowing evidence. I know from experience and threads like these that it is just not going to work, except building higher and higher pillars under the feet of everyone involved.

 

That is why I would rather start asking questions and listen/read.

 

 

 

For example, if you consider "layered cross hairs" to be powerful evidence, I am willing to look into that. I will investigate the origin of that photo. I will investigate the construction of the camera and the mechanism by which cross-hairs are overlayed. This should show whether the photo as presented is consistent or inconsistent with the official story. If you consider "wrong shadow on Saturn's rings" to be powerful evidence, I am willing to look into that. I will investigate the geometry of that photo. I will even make and photograph a model of a planet with rings, to test whether or not the photo depicts an impossible shadow.

I commend you for being motivated then. I have accepted for many years that if someone is really going to change their mind, they have to do it themselves, which also undermines debate forms.

 

 

 

If the evidence is inconsistent with the official story, I will reevaluate my belief. If the evidence is consistent with the official story, I will expect you to reevaluate your belief and to refrain from posting new evidence unless you have subjected it to a similar amount of investigative scrutiny (rather than just reposting some image from some website).

 

I do understand that governments have lied to the public many times. But that does not mean that every government communication is fraudulent.

I am just as guilty as anyone to jump from one thing to another, but it does have to do with time and willingness to share as much as possible. So I guess people in threads are working against each others comfort level and making it harder that way as well.

[pretzelogik]

That's a fair response, Ribuck. 

 

The Saturn photo struck me as something that could in no way whatsoever be a film capture of an actual object, thus the evidence of it being a composite (of something) was simply confirmation.  The experience of our senses is subjective and as it is admitted to being a composite, then it is proof of nothing if your sense data interprets it as an actual object.  If you do not find it questionable whether NASA has lenses available to resolve images such as that from 13,000,000 miles that is your prerogative.  I find it curious that NASA does not use the advanced technology at its disposal to provide real, or near real time pictures of earth or the discarded moon hardware, but perhaps it could be explained as a lack of priority.

 

The lack of priority also is evident in the fact that one would have to look long and hard to find any evidence of things that NASA does that provide observable benefits to humanity as opposed to things that advance the agenda of the state.  As it is a military institution, this is to be expected.

 

What it boils down to is authority and belief and we all choose what to believe or which authorities to trust.  Empiricism only extends to what we take in through our own senses, anything else amounts to trust in whoever is providing the narrative and whatever "evidence" is used to support it.  The quotations were not sarcastic, images are merely that, it is up to us to decide whether they are worthy of our trust.  The same goes for moon rocks and the rest, if I did not pick them up , they are just matter.  If a scientist tells me they do not contain enough water to have been formed on earth, well, that is what he told me.

 

I have come to the conclusion that the tax farm is largely managed through the manufacture of consent, to borrow from Chomsky (not a fan, BTW, but the phrase is appropriate), and consent is more easily and efficiently achieved through fraud and deception than direct force.  I see no particular reason to limit the discussion to NASA, as the deception has been going on for much longer than they have been around and is getting more prevalent by the day.  The sooner we become aware of the methods of control the sooner we can extricate ourselves. Exposing media manipulation at a site where critical thinkers congregate seemed like an opportunity to nudge things toward a tipping point, but we all do things in our own time.

 

Thanks for your due diligence and response.

 

 

[Will Torbald]

The amount of conspiracy broohaha in the anarchist movements gives everyone a bad reputation by association. It is indeed a sign that the worst condition of mankind is its frail mind that eases it into paranoia of ask sorts, and the slippery slope of platonism/mysticism/Donny Kruger effect where everyone thinks they are smarter than experts and scientists. Just reading the words "the senses deceive" from a conspiracy believer is enough to launch a red flag of neurosis.

[pretzelogik]

The amount of conspiracy broohaha in the anarchist movements gives everyone a bad reputation by association. It is indeed a sign that the worst condition of mankind is its frail mind that eases it into paranoia of ask sorts, and the slippery slope of platonism/mysticism/Donny Kruger effect where everyone thinks they are smarter than experts and scientists. Just reading the words "the senses deceive" from a conspiracy believer is enough to launch a red flag of neurosis.

 

Are you of the opinion that individuals tasked with confiscation of resources using whatever force is necessary up to and including murder and are exempt from the laws they create and use to control and coerce are above lying?

 

Also, were you referring to the guy below?

 

 

Or were you talking about the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

[shirgall]

Great article on the layout of mission control for the Apollo missions...

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/apollo-flight-controller-101-every-console-explained/