So these satellites, with their super-reflective surfaces, don't show up in pictures because they are too small? Absolute nonsense. Especially because there's supposed to be THOUSANDS of them. You should see bright flashes all over these photos.
You don't explain
why it is nonsense, whilst i provided an actual explanation. The light of stars is not strong enough to appear on shots, especially when they are in bright light. That you can still be able to view them is due to using long-exposure shots.
We're supposed to believe that starlight travels billions of lightyears through the cosmos, but their light magically and conviniently gets obscured by the dim light of Earth in space photography. Makes sense...
Light is still there, obviously, but for a camera eye, it is
invisible. Its also dimmed by sunlight most importantly, which shines the brightest at the location where these pictures are taken. The fact that we can see very bright stars from lightyears away does not mean that from our position, they are the
brightest. They simply appear as an apparent white dot.
Photos like these are easily faked.
If that's your counter rebuttal then i don't have to make a proper discussion with you. Unsurprisingly, dismissal of photographs is the first and formost argument used anti-moon believer.
Case in point:
Official NASA picture with levels adjusted. You can clearly see the cut/paste job on the Earth.
I put zero trust in anything released by them.
Good thing there is actual third party evidence for the Apollo landers that does not include NASA or even the USA so we can still verify that they went there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Ofcourse, unless you are going to claim all these agencies are part of the issue, in which case,
like i said, you are looking at a multinational worldwide conspiracy spanning generations. Seems unlikely. You cleverly ignored this bit the last time though, or did you happen to miss it?
This is what wikipedia shows about space debris. NONE of that shows up in pictures. That seems highly unlikely.
Ofcourse that does not show up in a picture since its a
computer generated graph. It shows the locations of where the space debris is, not what actually shows up on pictures.
Are you seriously arguing that because this graph shows the debris, the pictures therefore are unlikely, when its a computer generated graph to begin with, merely showing the location of where things are?
Can be thin? So it changes thickness as it pleases? Or just dissapear entirely? Sounds very unlikely.
Atmospheric layers can change in density much like fog, so yes.
Shouldn't the moon size differ throughout this picture? If it's moving in a circular orbit around the Earth, it would be further away from the camera at the edges and closer in the middle. Yet its stays exactly the same size.
No.
Reflection of the moon...the highlight is there before the moon is in the picture. It also stays in the same spot. If it was a reflection of the moon, it would move with the moon. It also looks really fake, as if it's a photoshop filter.
Was answered already elsewhere.
Even if it was a collection of picture, the clouds should change shape drastically. Clouds change shape as you look at them in realtime. Am I supposed to believe the entire cloud cover of the planet stayed the same during the entirety of this timelapse?
It actually just changes subtly, but since its a mosaic, you aren't seeing the intermediate frames that real-time would give you.
Where is the sun though? This gif shows zero evidence of a giant ball of fire. Not the sun itself, nor its beams are visible in this gif. Probably too far away right?
The sun is vastly bigger, its existence is purely in the light that is shown here. If you also wanted the sun in that gif then an orbiter would need to do a vastly bigger orbit going around the sun and back to capture everything entirely.
I see no evidence of any orbiting movement in the gif. Looks just a like still shot of some balls moving in space. Does it look like the camera is moving at thousands of miles per hour to you or does it look stationary?
Space probes are literally in orbit moving. They simply appear still as in space and the further objects are the perception of speed becomes relative. This is what relative velocities are about.
If that's the case, why don't we see any of the other planets and orbiting the sun? Where's the sun itself? Jupiter is supposed to be atleast ten times the size of the earth, yet it's nowhere to be found in space footage.
Jupiter is kind of far away + Luminosity from the planet can and will be obscured in bright-light. The Pale Blue Dot picture however showed Earth as a speck on the photo.
lmao what the fuck
I kinda expected this would be the outcome: This thread became a new platform for the
Borg i mean people who believe everything is fake.
Yet at the same time something like radiation-hardening is something that Wisdom admits having no knowledge off, so obviously it is part of the scheme. Same with the AGC: Its complex, so obviously it did not partake in anything space related.
So basically, the mathematical equation is
''Its X, with X being a response to whatever part of evidence, therefore it is fake.''
But there is unbiased evidence for the Apollo landings, to start with.
at wisdom
🗂
🗃
Redneckerz
i’d Like a side of critical thinking along with this logic soup.