China Lands Spacecraft on Far Side of Moon

Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
To me it sounds like you are being against the basic concepts of most things just for the sake of it. Which, by any means is not productive view to hold nor does it spur actual discussion.
Nah. Sounds like you just want me banned because I’m a challenge to your world view. Show me one place in scripture where it mentions men lying about going to the moon. It doesn’t therefore it can’t be something I’m just taking from the book. I have to use my own brain and the knowledge I’m given to draw that conclusion on my own with discernment.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,466
1,960
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
Nah. Sounds like you just want me banned.
I want you to attempt an actual discussion instead of just reverting to the same conclusions that aren't arguments.

Show me one place in scripture where it mentions men lying about going to the moon.
What a weird translation of what i said. And even if it was an accurate translation: I don't have to, since you shrugged my attempts off, i have no incentive to continue considering your ire regarding that.

If you don't want a mature discussion where what your are claiming very definitely has to be backed up by something, then don't post on GAF. Its as simple as that.
 
Likes: ar0s
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
No, you want me to denounce my beliefs. Like I said many comments ago, not gonna happen. I’ve given more than enough reasoning on my side but because they don’t match what you’ve been given as evidence, you don’t accept it. That’s fine. Move on. I’m not trying to convert you so why are you trying to convert me? Kinda weird or again is it some strange dominance play?
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,466
1,960
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
No, you want me to denounce my beliefs.
Actually i don't but if that's what you are getting at from my post the more the merrier.

I’ve given more than enough reasoning on my side but because they don’t match what you’ve been given as evidence, you don’t accept it.
Indeed i don't expect people making ridicoulous claims and rebuttals amounting to ''Nah ah''. You know, which any average Joe would do if they were going to be in an actual discussion.

Your evidence is basically ''I don't agree''. You think that holds up anywhere?

''Anders Breivik killed dozens of people''

''Well, i don't agree.''


If that is the level of rebuttal and argument i need to factor into a discussion, then we aren't having a discussion to begin with.

I’m not trying to convert you so why are you trying to convert me?
You can be religious yet still believe science. Shocking, i know.

And no, i am not converting you.
 
Likes: ar0s
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
Not true at all. If someone kills someone here on earth and I’m having trouble believing it happened, I can go to the place where it happened on my own and gather my own evidence to prove it happened if it troubled me to do so. Who’s going to the moon to verify that there’s a lander there? You gonna go? Is Trump gonna go? Bill Gates? Carlos Slim? They surely have the cash to do so right? No. No ones going so there is no way to verify any of it for yourself so what are you left with? Faith. Faith in the corrupt. Wonder how far that’ll get you.

So really who are you to question my faith in my Creator when I can’t question your faith in man? How is forcing scientific doctrine any different than the so called Christians that came to the “Americas” and forced people to convert or die? It really isn’t much different now is it. Like it or not, your belief system is no different than any other religion. You don’t believe Christ walked the earth, I don’t believe man walked on the moon. That’s a funny parallel when you think about it.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
No need. I kinda get it now. What I’m doing would be no different than a Christian going into a mosque and talking about Christ while they’re focusing on Allah and Mohammad. It just doesn’t work. I’d never actually walk into the mosque and do that so it’s best to just stop coming into these threads. 👍🏽
 
Last edited:

Night.Ninja

One really creepy thing I do is just repeatedly shit on GAF while sarcastically calling it a "top tier gaming forum" so feel free to report me if I keep doing this.
Feb 21, 2016
1,334
152
425
I think this moon conspiracy theory talk should have its own thread so it wouldn't derail threads like this.

I’m down for that, Create a conspiracy theories thread

Let’s get our eddie bravo on!
 
Feb 22, 2018
1,088
1,032
300
What is all that? No one asked for any of that. He was talking about the lander and what it looks like.



You ask what proof we have and the proof is in common sense. If you look at that picture what does it look like? Sure doesn’t look like space age material. It looks super flimsy. Again, your argument basically asks us to turn our brains off and believe whatever garbage they tell us. If I see terry cloth, foil or crinkly paper I’m going to think it’s crinkly paper because it has crinkles in it therefore more than likely it isn’t all that sturdy. When people have seen the lander close up with their own eyes it’s the same conclusion. You have something that’s supposed to land and launch from the moon yet it’s constructed like an Eagle Scout project.
It looks flimsy because it was never designed to operate in earth gravity. Only in space and on the moon. So the structure does not need to be heavy or strong to be...strong for the task at hand. The gold foil is to help regulate heat.
 
Last edited:
Likes: ar0s

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,466
1,960
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
Not true at all. If someone kills someone here on earth and I’m having trouble believing it happened, I can go to the place where it happened on my own and gather my own evidence to prove it happened if it troubled me to do so. Who’s going to the moon to verify that there’s a lander there? You gonna go? Is Trump gonna go? Bill Gates? Carlos Slim? They surely have the cash to do so right? No. No ones going so there is no way to verify any of it for yourself so what are you left with? Faith. Faith in the corrupt. Wonder how far that’ll get you.
Hence the third party evidence link but it seems that the only thing accepted by you is your own observation.

So really who are you to question my faith in my Creator when I can’t question your faith in man? How is forcing scientific doctrine any different than the so called Christians that came to the “Americas” and forced people to convert or die? It really isn’t much different now is it. Like it or not, your belief system is no different than any other religion. You don’t believe Christ walked the earth, I don’t believe man walked on the moon. That’s a funny parallel when you think about it.
There you go assuming things again. I never told you.

And its not true by the way.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
Hence the third party evidence link but it seems that the only thing accepted by you is your osn observation.


There you go assuming things again. I never told you.

And its not true by the way.
Sorry for the assumption then. Just doesn’t make sense that you’d argue against me if you did. Then again believing is different than knowing.
 
Dec 20, 2018
13
6
75
a
Lets start with something simple then. Do you believe radiation hardened CPU's:
  • Exist?
  • Are done in redundancy in order to not have something like flipped bits occur?
  • If they do exist, why are they radiation-hardened for space then?

  • You know the materials on that lander?
  • Secondarily, do you think heat shields are needed when going in a re-entry to Earth?

I am talking about the Apollo Guidance Computer or AGC in specific when referring to high-tech.

That being said, can you prove that its paper mache? Can you prove your claim that these missions do not hold up?
But what do YOU think? Stop letting others think for you and listen to your own instincts. Look at this official NASA gif and tell me what YOU think about it. Not what you've read about it.

 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,466
1,960
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
Sorry for the assumption then. Just doesn’t make sense that you’d argue against me if you did. Then again believing is different than knowing.
Im a big fan of The Passion.

a


But what do YOU think? Stop letting others think for you and listen to your own instincts. Look at this official NASA gif and tell me what YOU think about it. Not what you've read about it.

Nobody is thinking for me, nice deflection you have there and nice deflection you have on the questionnaire. Feel free to make an attempt at answering it (or admitting its beyond your scope of knowledge)

What i think of that gif? I see our Planet Earth and our Moon passing along.

Correct?
 
Dec 20, 2018
13
6
75
Im a big fan of The Passion.


Nobody is thinking for me, nice deflection you have there and nice deflection you have on the questionnaire. Feel free to make an attempt at answering it (or admitting its beyond your scope of knowledge)

What i think of that gif? I see our Planet Earth and our Moon passing along.

Correct?
Okay, to answer your questions. I don't know if that CPU is radiation hardened and I have no knowledge how that works. And that AGC does look like a complex computer. But do I believe that thing guided the Apollo rocket to the moon? Nah...that's where I stop believing.

And the gif... I see a laughably bad animation of a static image of a moon with a shoddy rotating 3D model of an earth. Now for a series of rhetorical questions.
Where's the satellites?
Where are the stars?
Where's the space debris?
Where's the glow of the ozone layer?
Why is the earth/moon size difference much greater than on the apollo pictures?
Why is there a highlight in the center of the Earth?
Why are the clouds static?
Why is the Earth fully lit the entire length of this animation?
Why is the animation taken by a stationary camera? Shouldn't the DSCVR satellite be in orbit or moving through space and thus couldn't create a series of still images from the same spot?

I could go on and on, but I'm not fooled by this anymore.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,466
1,960
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
Okay, to answer your questions. I don't know if that CPU is radiation hardened and I have no knowledge how that works. And that AGC does look like a complex computer. But do I believe that thing guided the Apollo rocket to the moon? Nah...that's where I stop believing.

And the gif... I see a laughably bad animation of a static image of a moon with a shoddy rotating 3D model of an earth. Now for a series of rhetorical questions.
Where's the satellites?
Where are the stars?
Where's the space debris?
Where's the glow of the ozone layer?
Why is the earth/moon size difference much greater than on the apollo pictures?
Why is there a highlight in the center of the Earth?
Why are the clouds static?
Why is the Earth fully lit the entire length of this animation?
Why is the animation taken by a stationary camera? Shouldn't the DSCVR satellite be in orbit or moving through space and thus couldn't create a series of still images from the same spot?

I could go on and on, but I'm not fooled by this anymore.
So you dont know how it works, but you dismiss it anyway solely on the reason of... Not knowing?

Same with AGC, it looks complex, so obviously, it was not used to travel to the moon?

Is that really the kind of justification you want to go with?

A lot of this, but specifically the stars bit, can be found in the two big links of earlier. I dont have time now to answer much further.
 
Last edited:
Likes: ar0s
Jan 17, 2006
1,387
141
1,120
Nah. Sounds like you just want me banned because I’m a challenge to your world view. Show me one place in scripture where it mentions men lying about going to the moon. It doesn’t therefore it can’t be something I’m just taking from the book. I have to use my own brain and the knowledge I’m given to draw that conclusion on my own with discernment.
How can you believe in Jesus when you never even talked to him, shook his hand or drank his wine?
 

ar0s

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
388
149
215
LMAO just went back to the previous page and realised someone is in here arguing for the flat earth. Jesus Christ. :messenger_alien_monster::messenger_spock::messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:
Likes: JareBear
Jun 13, 2018
375
354
195
Brazil
The moon seems to be such a boring place. It's beautiful to watch it from the earth, but it's a huge ball of dirt and nothingness.

I think our oceans are much more fascinating to explore than the moon. A lot of alien shit is down there lol
 
Last edited:
Likes: iconmasterX

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,466
1,960
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
Now for a series of rhetorical questions.
Alright, ill give an answer to most of them that i know about.

Where's the satellites?
Where are the stars?
Where's the space debris?
Where's the glow of the ozone layer?
Why is the earth/moon size difference much greater than on the apollo pictures?
Why is there a highlight in the center of the Earth?
Why are the clouds static?
Why is the Earth fully lit the entire length of this animation?
Why is the animation taken by a stationary camera? Shouldn't the DSCVR satellite be in orbit or moving through space and thus couldn't create a series of still images from the same spot?
Where's the satellites? - Although there are several thousand sats in space, the vast majority are far too small to be picked up by a camera in space in bright-light conditions (Which is why the Earth is nearly always photographed in bright near light, that's the part of the sun shining on it. There are ofcourse exceptions, like the ISS, which is even visible from space right here on the ground. See also: https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/why-dont-we-see-any-satellites-in-the-pictures-of-earth.html

Where are the stars? - Wikipedia:
  • ''Stars are rarely seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, Earth observation photos, or even photos taken at sporting events held at night. The light from the Sun in outer space in the Earth-Moon system is at least as bright as the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface on a clear day at noon, so cameras used for imaging subjects illuminated by sunlight are set for a daylight exposure. The dim light of the stars simply does not provide enough exposure to record visible images. All manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the Moon's surface. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars.[90][91] The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon''.[92][93]
Photographic evidence:


(In this shot, there are no visible stars in sight.)


(This shot of Earth and the Russian Space Station Mir shows that sunlight can outshine the stars, thus making them ''invisible''.)


(This shot demonstrates stars. It does so by taking a picture with a long exposure (1.6 seconds at f/2.8, ISO 10000) from the ISS in July 2011 of Space Shuttle Atlantis re-entry in which some stars are visible. In this image, the Earth is lit by moonlight, not sunlight.)

Where's the space debris? - Same as with the satellites: too small to be captured on camera. I wager a telescope wouldn't be able to pick that up either.

Where's the glow of the ozone layer? - I am just doing this from memory, but ozone layers as i know it can be very thin and thus not appear on camera, same with fog. Only really dense fog is visible on space camera's. I can provide a more detailed answer but i think its this.

Why is the earth/moon size difference much greater than on the apollo pictures? - Its because the moon moved into view as the moon rotates around the Earth. The orbiter taking this obviously was some distance away, but since both Earth and Moon follow a circular pattern, eventually the moon will appear in view.

Why is there a highlight in the center of the Earth? - This is the reflection of the moon on the Earth's outer atmosphere, which ofcourse, subtly reflects back.

Why are the clouds static? - In this case the spinning Earth is a mosaic or a collection of pictures taken at various intervals to form an animation of pictures. In real-time video capture, the Earth moves fluently, as would the Moon.

Why is the Earth fully lit the entire length of this animation? - Its because the Earth is in bright-light conditions from the Sun. As it rotates it lights different parts of our planet. For an orbiter, this is irrelevant: It remains fixed on position and captures only the bright-light part of the Earth.

Why is the animation taken by a stationary camera? - Camera's on space probes can be programmed to look at a fixed position despite moving in circular motion. I remember this effect is called locking in or some sort, but space probes have the capability to keep in line of sight with what they are supposed to photograph.

Shouldn't the DSCVR satellite be in orbit or moving through space and thus couldn't create a series of still images from the same spot? - You can perfectly take a series of still images from the same spot if you are in the same orbit as Earth and thus rotating along with it.

Hope this clears up some of the questions.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
You’d think a long exposure would have more blur when capturing something spinning at 1000mph. And being lit by moonlight wouldn’t produce a blue sky on the night side of the planet. And who’s taking all of these perfectly clear ISS pics when none of the other cameras seem to be able to get good shots?

Did you know the Statue of Liberty stood on her head once during a hang glider convention?

photographic evidence
 
Last edited:
Mar 24, 2017
173
69
190
Why is there a highlight in the center of the Earth? - This is the reflection of the moon on the Earth's outer atmosphere, which ofcourse, subtly reflects back.
Actually the Deep Space Climate Observatory (which this gif is taken from) is orbiting around the L1 Lagrangian point of the earth-sun system. So it always sees a bright earth and a bright moon. And the moon cannot reflects into the earth (the earth sees a dark moon when it passes between the earth and the satellite.) But this Climate Observatory always sees the sun's reflection into the earth's atmosphere/oceans.
The fact that @AngularSaxophone did not take five minutes to look for the source of the gif, and where from it was taken (it explains half of his issues), does not give any incentive to continue any discussion. I admire your patience :)
 
Likes: Redneckerz
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
I’m not even the one who asked him the question. Isn’t it odd that when you complete the spheres of any of the pictures we’re given the size of earth isn’t consistent and makes absolutely no sense? What’s the point of fish eyeing literally every photograph?






 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,466
1,960
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
You’d think a long exposure would have more blur when capturing something spinning at 1000mph.
If the object you are in is spinning at the same speed and isn't bound by friction as there is no gravity, then no.

And being lit by moonlight wouldn’t produce a blue sky on the night side of the planet. And who’s taking all of these perfectly clear ISS pics when none of the other cameras seem to be able to get good shots?
Your default stance is to doubt and yet when provided with answers you wouldn't understand. Note that i am referring to a way older discussion here, and not the posts with Wisdom.

Did you know the Statue of Liberty stood on her head once during a hang glider convention?

photographic evidence
Thanks for mocking (with the photographic evidence part) my final geniune attempt to spur an actual conversation. Classy, my friend. @OnThePathToWisdom feel free to address the answers i have given.

As for your picture above, that's an obvious photsohop.

Actually the Deep Space Climate Observatory (which this gif is taken from) is orbiting around the L1 Lagrangian point of the earth-sun system. So it always sees a bright earth and a bright moon. And the moon cannot reflects into the earth (the earth sees a dark moon when it passes between the earth and the satellite.) But this Climate Observatory always sees the sun's reflection into the earth's atmosphere/oceans.
That makes sense. Admittely, like Angular, i didn't bother to check for the actual source but just went by with what i knew (Which is usually in the region of being half-correct and making shitty errors along the way). So i take it that DSCO is spinning along with the EArth or am i just thinking too simple here?

The fact that @AngularSaxophone did not take five minutes to look for the source of the gif, and where from it was taken (it explains half of his issues), does not give any incentive to continue any discussion.
Admittely, this guy never held any interest for any discussion really. The only thing that is somehow relevant is the tendency to revert back to the scriptures.

I admire your patience :)
Thank you :) I'd love to confer further with you in this thread if you want to aswell.

Oh wait i only see that Angular post now. I thought you were referring to OnThePathToWisdom, sorry!
 
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
I wasn’t mocking you. Like you said the picture is an obvious photoshop. As are the nasa ones. See above “photographic evidence” when completing the spheres.

If the object you are in is spinning at the same speed and isn't bound by friction as there is no gravity, then no.
Except the iss supposedly moves at SEVENTEEN THOUSAND MILES PER HOUR. 😒

The International Space Station travels in orbit around Earth at a speed of roughly 17,150 miles per hour (that's about 5 miles per second!). This means that the Space Station orbits Earth (and sees a sunrise) once every 92 minutes! You can see the ISS' location and speed at this link which also has a real-time video feed from cameras attached to the outside of the station.
Long exposure, eh?
 
Last edited:
Jan 9, 2018
492
385
230
Fun thread, but:

I’m not even the one who asked him the question. Isn’t it odd that when you complete the spheres of any of the pictures we’re given the size of earth isn’t consistent and makes absolutely no sense? What’s the point of fish eyeing literally every photograph?

The actual question should be why wouldn't you use ultra-wide angle and fisheye lenses in exploration?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
34,924
426
1,135
Best Coast
You’d think a long exposure would have more blur when capturing something spinning at 1000mph.
Go learn the difference between angular velocity and linear velocity, and understand how many degrees of rotation the Earth experiences in 1.6 seconds, and then you will understand how misinformed your question is.

And being lit by moonlight wouldn’t produce a blue sky on the night side of the planet.
Yes it would. You have a camera. Go take a picture of the ocean at night under the moon, and expose it so that the ocean is relatively bright. The ocean is blue.
http://myscienceacademy.org/2014/02/07/you-wont-believe-how-beautiful-the-night-sky-can-be/




And who’s taking all of these perfectly clear ISS pics when none of the other cameras seem to be able to get good shots?
The astronauts, with their $130,000 worth of professional Nikon camera gear. Who are you talking about who isn't able to get good shots?

https://petapixel.com/2017/08/25/nasa-just-ordered-53-nikon-d5-dslrs/

The astronauts onboard the International Space Station get new cameras delivered from time to time — 10 Nikon D5s arrived in late 2017 after NASA ordered 55 of them. But did you know that it’s extremely expensive to stock the ISS astronauts’ camera arsenal? That camera kit you see above cost at least $150,000 to send to the space station.

This past weekend, German ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst Tweeted photos of himself giving Russian cosmonaut Sergey Prokopyev a haircut in the Zvezda Service Module. That service module is where the station’s Nikon gear is mounted to the walls, so Gerst’s photos provide the latest look at what camera gear the astronauts are shooting with.






https://petapixel.com/2016/11/19/360-video-shows-dslr-wall-iss/


This is a 360 degree video. You can use your mouse to pan around anywhere in the video. It's neat.


https://petapixel.com/2017/04/19/time-lapses-earth-shot-nikon-dslrs-space/


Nikon Europe released this 3-minute video by SmugMug Films showing a compilation of time-lapse videos of Earth created using still photos shot by Nikon DSLRs onboard the International Space Station.

“Nikon’s history in Space began with the Nikon Photomic FTN, a modified Nikon F camera that was used aboard the Apollo 15 in 1971 and Nikon cameras have been aboard every manned space flight since,” Nikon says.


The video above was created as a promo leading up to Nikon’s 100th anniversary event on July 25th.
Your criticisms are coming from someone who is not that well versed in photography. Don't worry, lots of beginning photographers have similar questions and misunderstandings.
 
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
The astronauts, with their $130,000 worth of professional Nikon camera gear. Who are you talking about who isn't able to get good shots?
I was referring to the shots of the ISS from the outside.

Go learn the difference between angular velocity and linear velocity, and understand how many degrees of rotation the Earth experiences in 1.6 seconds, and then you will understand how misinformed your question is.
The International Space Station travels in orbit around Earth at a speed of roughly 17,150 miles per hour (that's about 5 miles per second!). This means that the Space Station orbits Earth (and sees a sunrise) once every 92 minutes! You can see the ISS' location and speed at this link which also has a real-time video feed from cameras attached to the outside of the station.
The actual question should be why wouldn't you use ultra-wide angle and fisheye lenses in exploration?
Wide angle yes but fish eye? It distorts the pictures. This is supposed to be “photographic evidence” of factual events. It wouldn’t make much sense for a news photographer documenting events to use instagram filters on all of their photography either.
 
Last edited:
Dec 20, 2018
13
6
75

Where's the satellites? - Although there are several thousand sats in space, the vast majority are far too small to be picked up by a camera in space in bright-light conditions (Which is why the Earth is nearly always photographed in bright near light, that's the part of the sun shining on it. There are ofcourse exceptions, like the ISS, which is even visible from space right here on the ground. See also: https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/why-dont-we-see-any-satellites-in-the-pictures-of-earth.html

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.

Where are the stars? - Wikipedia:
  • ''Stars are rarely seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, Earth observation photos, or even photos taken at sporting events held at night. The light from the Sun in outer space in the Earth-Moon system is at least as bright as the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface on a clear day at noon, so cameras used for imaging subjects illuminated by sunlight are set for a daylight exposure. The dim light of the stars simply does not provide enough exposure to record visible images. All manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the Moon's surface. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars.[90][91] The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon''.[92][93]
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...

Photographic evidence:

(In this shot, there are no visible stars in sight.)


(This shot of Earth and the Russian Space Station Mir shows that sunlight can outshine the stars, thus making them ''invisible''.)


(This shot demonstrates stars. It does so by taking a picture with a long exposure (1.6 seconds at f/2.8, ISO 10000) from the ISS in July 2011 of Space Shuttle Atlantis re-entry in which some stars are visible. In this image, the Earth is lit by moonlight, not sunlight.)

Photos like these are easily faked. Case in point:
Official NASA picture with levels adjusted. You can clearly see the cut/paste job on the Earth:

Another official NASA picture:


I put zero trust in anything released by them.

Where's the space debris? - Same as with the satellites: too small to be captured on camera. I wager a telescope wouldn't be able to pick that up either.

This is what wikipedia shows about space debris. NONE of that shows up in pictures. That seems highly unlikely.



Where's the glow of the ozone layer? - I am just doing this from memory, but ozone layers as i know it can be very thin and thus not appear on camera, same with fog. Only really dense fog is visible on space camera's. I can provide a more detailed answer but i think its this.

Can be thin? So it changes thickness as it pleases? Or just dissapear entirely? Sounds very unlikely.

Why is the earth/moon size difference much greater than on the apollo pictures? - Its because the moon moved into view as the moon rotates around the Earth. The orbiter taking this obviously was some distance away, but since both Earth and Moon follow a circular pattern, eventually the moon will appear in view.

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.

Why is there a highlight in the center of the Earth? - This is the reflection of the moon on the Earth's outer atmosphere, which ofcourse, subtly reflects back.

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.

Why are the clouds static? - In this case the spinning Earth is a mosaic or a collection of pictures taken at various intervals to form an animation of pictures. In real-time video capture, the Earth moves fluently, as would the Moon.

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?

Why is the Earth fully lit the entire length of this animation? - Its because the Earth is in bright-light conditions from the Sun. As it rotates it lights different parts of our planet. For an orbiter, this is irrelevant: It remains fixed on position and captures only the bright-light part of the Earth.

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?

Why is the animation taken by a stationary camera? - Camera's on space probes can be programmed to look at a fixed position despite moving in circular motion. I remember this effect is called locking in or some sort, but space probes have the capability to keep in line of sight with what they are supposed to photograph.

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?

Shouldn't the DSCVR satellite be in orbit or moving through space and thus couldn't create a series of still images from the same spot? - You can perfectly take a series of still images from the same spot if you are in the same orbit as Earth and thus rotating along with it.

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.
 
Last edited:
Jun 9, 2004
216
0
1,220
I want to hear news about discovery of alien bases on the far side of the moon. If none, I would be very disappointed.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
34,924
426
1,135
Best Coast
😳 at wisdom 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽😂📚📕📗📘📖🗂📂🗃🧐


I mean the ones from a distance. The ISS is moving at 17,000 mph.

You can't be serious. This was taken by another craft that is traveling at approximately the same speed. Read up on and understand the concept of relative velocities.
 
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
What other craft? A satellite? Another space station? Why doesn’t the ISS ever take pics of these other craft? Why doesn’t another craft ever take pics of the other craft if you need the earths glow instead of the darkness of space?
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,466
1,960
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
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.

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.
 
Sep 25, 2015
4,285
1,061
320
Somewhere in space
What a thread. You're a true NeoGAF hero @Redneckerz

What other craft? A satellite? Another space station? Why doesn’t the ISS ever take pics of these other craft? Why doesn’t another craft ever take pics of the other craft if you need the earths glow instead of the darkness of space?


That was the perfect soundtrack to read this to, quality pull :messenger_ok:
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
34,924
426
1,135
Best Coast
What other craft? A satellite? Another space station? Why doesn’t the ISS ever take pics of these other craft? Why doesn’t another craft ever take pics of the other craft if you need the earths glow instead of the darkness of space?
What other craft? Do you even know the source of the photo you posted?

The "other craft" is the space shuttle Atlantis, which docked with the Soviet space station Mir in 1995.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-71

was the third mission of the US/Russian Shuttle-Mir Program and the first Space Shuttle docking to Russian space station Mir. It started on 27 June 1995 with the launch of Space Shuttle Atlantis from launch pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The shuttle delivered a relief crew of two cosmonauts Anatoly Solovyev and Nikolai Budarin to the station and recovered Increment astronaut Norman Thagard. Atlantis returned to Earth on 7 July with a crew of eight. It was the first of seven straight missions to Mir flown by Atlantis.

For the five days the shuttle was docked to Mir they were the largest spacecraft in orbit at the time. STS-71 marked the first docking of a space shuttle to a space station, the first time a shuttle crew switched members with the crew of a station, and the 100th manned space launch by the United States. The mission carried Spacelab and included a logistical resupply of Mir. Together the shuttle and station crews conducted various on-orbit joint US/Russian life science investigations with Spacelab along with the Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment-II (SAREX-II) experiment.

Take pictures of the other craft? You mean like this?

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/sts71/photo/sts-71-photo-18.htm



This view of Russia's Mir Space Station following its undocking from the Space Shuttle Atlantis was photographed by the Mir-19 crew on July 4, 1995. Cosmonauts Anatoly Y. Solovyev and Nikolai M. Budarin, Mir-19 commander and flight engineer, respectively, temporarily unparked the Soyuz spacecraft from the cluster of Mir elements to perform a brief fly-around. They took pictures while the NASA STS-71 crew, with Mir-18's three crewmembers aboard, undocked Atlantis for the completion of this leg of the joint activities. Solovyev and Budarin had been taxied to Mir by the STS-71 ascent trip of Atlantis.

And I have no idea about what you're talking about needing a "glow" or what not. You need to learn more about the principles of photography, dude.
 
Mar 24, 2017
173
69
190
Oh wait i only see that Angular post now. I thought you were referring to OnThePathToWisdom, sorry!
My bad, I mixed the two. I meant OnThePathToWisdom's post with all the questions about the (legit) NASA gif.
Thank you :) I'd love to confer further with you in this thread if you want to aswell.
I love seeing new images taken from far away worlds by the probe we sent there. But this thread is derailing into something else. All this flat-eath thing non-sense has been debunked multiple times on the internet, some people are clearly outside basic science and logic, I don't see the point in discussing with them.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
34,924
426
1,135
Best Coast
So in that pic there are now 3 craft gliding around the planet at 17,000mph as if it were some sort of cosmic space ballet all taking photos of eachother. I mean I guess.
Yes.

You can even set up an experiment. You and a friend drive two cars really fast at the same speed, in the same direction. Have passengers on each car take photos of the other car. The cars shouldn't be very blurry with proper settings.

Are you aware how much you are moving the goalposts? In the rules of proper debate and discourse, you do realize what this means, yes?
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,466
1,960
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
What a thread. You're a true NeoGAF hero @Redneckerz
Its not a title i am wearing with much dignity though. I must be malfunctioning and be upset instead yet i am not.

They are not the govering body of all the space agencies in the world though which was i was referring to. If you don't want to believe NASA, then you ought to believe third parties.

If you don't want to believe that either, then you might want to question if doubting literally everything is going to help you out. Because by that stage, you have to doubt everything. Grocery shopping and groceries in general should be looked at in dismay and doubt.*

*And by that stage my friend you are what we call paranoid.

My bad, I mixed the two. I meant OnThePathToWisdom's post with all the questions about the (legit) NASA gif.

I love seeing new images taken from far away worlds by the probe we sent there.
There have been so many fascinating missions beyond the more common ones. We have mapped Jupiter, Mercury with the Cassini-Huygens (Hey a Dutchman!) and Dawn space craft. We have the MESSENGER probe, Deep Impact, Near-Shoemaker.. we have Asian probes catching up and generating momentum as a significant player in the space continuum.

Seeing what they set out to achieve, with technology developed all over the world, here.. Its mesmerizing. And yet we still know so very little about the garden from which we reside in.