REGISTER AN ACCOUNT
Who's Online - 0 members and 265 guests

First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ?

Users viewing topic: & 2 Guests

123456789

RickIcon...20-07-2019 @ 22:43 
Avatar
I am a bench-only guy
Member 3, 10032 posts
SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235
595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq
Administrator
As I wrote, "the blue marble" is the name of the 1972 photograph from the last Apollo mission. It is not the last photo of the whole earth, though there aren't many because you have to be a really long way away. It is the last human-taken one, because after Apollo we haven't sent people that far. It is also the name of the composite series you're referring to, which is named after the 1972 picture.

It's interesting that you've worked in space-adjacent industries, though evidently not in the relevant bits. Low earth orbit is typically between 300 and 600km up. Geostationary orbits are 35,786 km up, that's simple A level mechanics. The balloon altitude vrecord is 53km. Your theory seems to have gaps. (I was interested enough to search on balloon satellite launches; several companies are talking about it. They all seem to be in testing.)
RickIcon...20-07-2019 @ 23:02 
Avatar
I am a bench-only guy
Member 3, 10032 posts
SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235
595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq
Administrator
AMH_Power said:

As for geosynchronous; these are a bit of a misnomer. The idea from these came from a guy called Arthur C. Clarke (a masonic, science fiction writer). The idea was supposed to be for GPS type comms. Instead we used Loran/Gee positioning towers until we implemented GSM/Cell towers in place of these. Some older GPS systems do use the geostationary birds but need at least three and aren't very accurate. But again, it's all HA helium/hydrogen balloons. Some sit at about 30 mile up!


All modern systems use satellites. All consumer ones use the American GPS system, which uses 32 satellites. The accuracy currently sits at significantly better than a metre. They're not geostationary, they only sit about 20,000km up.

Unless you are suggesting that this is a conspiracy of lies colluded in by tens of thousands of engineers for no apparent reason, you are confused. (Actually, either way you're confused.)
ChrisMcCarthyIcon...21-07-2019 @ 08:16 
Lost his pen, then found his pen. #phew
Member 4899, 2956 posts
Clarke may have popularised the idea but it certainly wasn't his...he'd gone to Kings and got a Degree in Maths and Physics so he certainly was more than a Sci-Fi Writer, although that's certainly where he became popular...as for being a Mason, oh noes...
AMH_PowerIcon...21-07-2019 @ 09:27 
we ride at dawn
Member 4363, 1442 posts
SQ 310, BP 250, DL 320
880.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq
Rick said:
All modern systems use satellites. All consumer ones use the American GPS system, which uses 32 satellites. The accuracy currently sits at significantly better than a metre. They're not geostationary, they only sit about 20,000km up.
Unless you are suggesting that this is a conspiracy of lies colluded in by tens of thousands of engineers for no apparent reason, you are confused. (Actually, either way you're confused.)


Tens of thousands of engineers? Like myself? Working on actual satellites and seeing them go up and down annually not relevant to satellites? Ok...

Arthur C Clarke absolutely is mason, again I'm speaking from first hand knowledge.

As for the 'bluemarble', this is NOT the 1972 photo. This is the one created by Robert Simmons which made its way to the iPhone wallpaper. This is a modern composite.

Not sure why you think I'm confused. Not sure why when masonry gets mentioned you seem to trigger as if it's some tinhat conspiracy. Maybe you was blackballed at initiation? If you have any masonic friends just ask them, providing they have visited the grand lodge they will have seen his portrait... So I've heard.

In any case, the original debate was NASA going to the moon. The moon is much, much further than satbirds or HA balloons.
Second, NASA lie. There's enough videos proving this fact. A perfect example is the visibility of stars in space. Again, a different topic.
RickIcon...21-07-2019 @ 10:17 
Avatar
I am a bench-only guy
Member 3, 10032 posts
SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235
595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq
Administrator
My assumptions about your former work are based on your own statements about the science, which are basically all wrong. Unless, of course, you are asserting that every piece of widely-shared public knowledge about GPS, comsats, and for that matter satellite TV is faked and part of the masonic NASA conspiracy.

I'm not "triggered" by your allegations about masons, dear. I know a few, as most of us probably do, which makes your frothing pretty hard to take seriously. The idea that Clarke was a mason is both irrelevant and about the only thing you've said which isn't definitely factually wrong (as far as I know; I haven't investigated, because, irrelevant).

Blue Marble. Sigh. Google summary: "The Blue Marble is an image of Earth taken on December 7, 1972, from a distance of about 29,000 kilometers from the planet's surface. It was taken by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft on its way to the Moon, and is one of the most reproduced images in history". The composite is NAMED AFTER IT. I have now told you this, what, three times? "Confused" seems a fair word, yes.

Your last paragraph reads like an attempt to back away from your nonsense with a "but anyway!". Which is a start. And also, hopefully, an ending. I'm not triggered, I'm bored.
WILLSANIcon...21-07-2019 @ 10:35 
Avatar
Trump will get another four years
Member 126, 16707 posts
SQ 160, BP 110, DL 225
495.0 kgs @ 75kgs UnEq
when someone comes off as condescending in their posts or starts including ad homs in their arguments some people assume they are getting triggered. I know thats not true but some people dont.
AMH_PowerIcon...21-07-2019 @ 11:06 
we ride at dawn
Member 4363, 1442 posts
SQ 310, BP 250, DL 320
880.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq
Post Edited: 21.07.2019 @ 11:14 AM by AMH_Power
WILLSAN said:when someone comes off as condescending in their posts or starts including ad homs in their arguments some people assume they are getting triggered. I know thats not true but some people dont.


edit. I don't want to sound like a c**t so I'm jumping ship. If somebody wants to believe we landed on the moon in a washing machine of a craft and lost the technology to do so since (along with all telemetry data) and haven't repeated it 5 decades later... Is their choice.
RickIcon...21-07-2019 @ 11:17 
Avatar
I am a bench-only guy
Member 3, 10032 posts
SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235
595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq
Administrator
WILLSAN said:when someone comes off as condescending in their posts or starts including ad homs in their arguments some people assume they are getting triggered. I know thats not true but some people dont.


Ouch. Fair enough, I could have been more polite. It's also hard to point out that "everything you just wrote is simply not true" without potentially sounding condescending. The wilful disregard of evidence in favour of conspiracy theory does irritate me, I confess.

I would defend myself against the allegation of ad hominem, though. An ad hom would be "what you're saying is wrong because you're X". I'm saying "what you're saying is wrong because of fact Y, which makes you sound X." It's not ad hom, it's bonus free invective.
AMH_PowerIcon...21-07-2019 @ 11:25 
we ride at dawn
Member 4363, 1442 posts
SQ 310, BP 250, DL 320
880.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq
Post Edited: 21.07.2019 @ 11:25 AM by AMH_Power
Rick said:
Ouch. Fair enough, I could have been more polite. It's also hard to point out that "everything you just wrote is simply not true" without potentially sounding condescending. The wilful disregard of evidence in favour of conspiracy theory does irritate me, I confess.
I would defend myself against the allegation of ad hominem, though. An ad hom would be "what you're saying is wrong because you're X". I'm saying "what you're saying is wrong because of fact Y, which makes you sound X." It's not ad hom, it's bonus free invective.


This a solid post. But, when you have two astronauts claiming two seperate things, it's not conspiracy, it's outright lies.

ie the argument of star visibility in space. Have you seen this?
ChrisMcCarthyIcon...21-07-2019 @ 11:47 
Lost his pen, then found his pen. #phew
Member 4899, 2956 posts
AMH_Power said:
ie the argument of star visibility in space. Have you seen this?


That's more Photography than anything else. - now, I've never taken a photo on the Moon but the theory seems right to me...
AMH_PowerIcon...21-07-2019 @ 12:05 
we ride at dawn
Member 4363, 1442 posts
SQ 310, BP 250, DL 320
880.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq
ChrisMcCarthy said:
That's more Photography than anything else. - now, I've never taken a photo on the Moon but the theory seems right to me...


I was meaning where the accounts from different astronauts from the same Apollo mission under interview. One says you can't see any stars in space, just a black void. The other says they are the brightest things ever and so much clearer in space
ChrisMcCarthyIcon...21-07-2019 @ 12:45 
Lost his pen, then found his pen. #phew
Member 4899, 2956 posts
AMH_Power said:
I was meaning where the accounts from different astronauts from the same Apollo mission under interview. One says you can't see any stars in space, just a black void. The other says they are the brightest things ever and so much clearer in space


For confirmation which Astronauts from which Apollo Mission?

If you mean Armstrong and Aldrin there were contextual reasons why they answered the way they did.
..
slimsimIcon...21-07-2019 @ 13:09 
My asshole is not watertight.
Member 2926, 6050 posts
SQ 217.5, BP 107.5, DL 225
550.0 kgs @ 86kgs UnEq
ChrisMcCarthy said:
For confirmation which Astronauts from which Apollo Mission?
If you mean Armstrong and Aldrin there were contextual reasons why they answered the way they did.
..



Go on.....
AMH_PowerIcon...21-07-2019 @ 13:10 
we ride at dawn
Member 4363, 1442 posts
SQ 310, BP 250, DL 320
880.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq
ChrisMcCarthy said:
For confirmation which Astronauts from which Apollo Mission?
If you mean Armstrong and Aldrin there were contextual reasons why they answered the way they did.
..


Michael Collins & Neil Armstrong during the press conference following from the mission both state they couldn't see any stars at all during the entire mission without looking through the optics. This was following a question asking why none of the footage had stars:

Please see past the tinhat editing which isn't needed, but this video saves me finding the point in the full interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwPYl7a9Yuk

Michael Collins went on to write a book which contradicts this massively, stating how extravagant the stars are from both side of the moon (Carrying The Fire; 1974).

Tim Peake was asked, while aboard the ISS. He said you can't see any stars up there due to spectrogramy.

Sadly, Chris Hadfield was also asked while aboard the ISS. He said the stars are 'so beautiful' up here.

As a side note, there are videos of Tim Peake stood in front of a green screen too, playing with a physical ball. There's side by side footage of the same video that we was shown, only that it's not a greenscreen... it's the ISS, and the physical ball is now a water bubble. I digress...
AMH_PowerIcon...21-07-2019 @ 13:16 
we ride at dawn
Member 4363, 1442 posts
SQ 310, BP 250, DL 320
880.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq
Post Edited: 21.07.2019 @ 13:20 PM by AMH_Power
Thing is, one or two suspect things and you can see past it. But when there's 100's (literally) of CGI failures and contradictions...

If anybody has ever worked with 3D design (CAD, Maya, Blender etc) you'll know what the editing window vs. render window looks like. There's LIVE footage of the ISS where it accidentally drops to Maya (a 3D animation software, the exact same software used to make most of the animated movies you've seen) edit window from live view.

As it comes back to Live view, the render layers activate one by one as it loads, starting with the sphere, then the ozone layer, lighting effects and then the post processing like bloom and lensflare. You can't make it up (unless you are NASA).

Don't get me wrong, there's some absolute tripe that's posted. But CGI failures are CGI failures, there's no opinion about these. There's that many I don't even need to link!

Infact, this single one video, would absolutely in a court of law be ruled as CGI:

https://youtu.be/2_4jyfjSKGQ?t=89

Glitching and compression issues are normal, but for him to go transparent while glitching and leave the room behind him in full view is ridiculous. Unless video glitches give cameras x-ray vision???

Come on. Open your eyes mate!

123456789

© Sugden Barbell 2024 - Mobile Version - Privacy - Terms & Conditions