18 Aug 2017 13:06:50
HSF,

Sure mate, the reason I believe nasa pump us out guff is because they admit themselves that all the pics are cgi.

Every pic we have of Hubble in orbit is a cgi image imo, unless u think they have a camera satellite taking all these pics of it orienting is.
We are meant to believe we have this huge metal thing in space that never breaks, can survive the extreme conditions, manages to stay clear of all the other satellites and space debris floating out there.
It all seems a fairytale to me.

The galelao satellite got all the way to Jupiter and managed to line up the perfect shot of it and we are again given proof by a picture. where are these amazing camera satellites we build to go the 100's of thousand of miles along with these other billion dollar satellites to take these pics.

As for the moon landings they couldn't of been more fake imo. We are meant to believe there was a huge space race between Russia and America and once America made it Russia just stopped? Come on lol. Logic would tell you even if they deemed it unimportant at that time after they would of gone back there at some point.

We are told about the Van Allen radiation belts that no human can pass through yet it seems America's idea of 'just going really fast' through them negated thousands of miles of severe radiation. Sorry I don't buy that.

Obviously I'm no astrophysicist, but we have to take the word on faith of people that themselves have never been to the place they tell us the answers to?

The question really is, if after 500 years of telling you, you were nothing but a result of coincidence and they finally got an instrument of flight to prove it to you and they found they were wrong would they tell you?

 
18 Aug 2017 14:49:55
Sorry to make this a new thread I thought I replied to my previous.

I don't wanna clog up this page with my ramblings lol.

{Ed033's Note - i made it a new thread as i thought it contained a new topic.

 
18 Aug 2017 15:11:51
Nasa themselves tell u in the little print on there website
That there cgi
Look at the billionaires in there on private space expedition attempts space x elon musk, virgin galactic Branson.
Don't seem to be going anywhere
Not heard about Bob Bigelow and his Aerospace venture.

And the navy I mean nasa lol and other government connected agencies are the only ones that can do it.!
There's is a reason for this money and propaganda in my opinion.
I don't doubt they can fire things into space but I don't believe they control anything from earth.
Pre programmed at best even then to do this on earth we have to map the planet to do so.
How would u pre program some you don't know about.
And a lot does say they advance tech or it's lies.

 
18 Aug 2017 15:14:04
Nasa in Hebrew
Means deceive.

 
18 Aug 2017 18:27:19
People get this misconception on what CGI means when NASA are referring to it. The abbreviation is "Computer Generated Image" and given that most telescopes these days are "digital" telescopes, all images will be computer generated.
I think that should also cover the Galileo satellite too.

The telescope will take around 20,000 images of a single piece of sky, the data is sent to the computer and the computer reconstructs the image from the coding used by the telescope.

As for saying that Hubble or any other satellite telescope has never broken is just an outright lie who ever told you that. There have been several "repair missions" since it's launch in 1991. One thing to mention about space, is you don't need any tools to put two bits of metal together. Because space is a vacuum, there is no air buffer between two said bits of metal. Therefore you get a cold fusion reaction which makes the metal stick.

There is a website which tracks all of the space debris and has an almost real time update sequence.

Here is an image:


Yes, it's bloody disgusting to see all that waste out in space!
But this is why you have "launch windows" for space flights, it's not only about the optimal conditions, but it's about where the space debris is also.

The Van Allen belt is a tough thing to get through without issues. But it's not about the amount of radiation, it's about the length of time you spend in said radiation.
Take Chernobyl for example, you can go right up to power station itself in a hazmat suit for around 15 minutes before you start to get sick, or suffer any long term issue's. After that, you'll probably have to spend a lot of time in recovery, as the radiation levels are comparable to an extinction event.

I'm not an astrophysicist either, I just have a very keen curiosity for all things space. I've read multiple theories and multiple scientific journals on lots of different subjects, through this I come to my own conclusion using my own logic and reason.

And by the way, the reason people get mad at the Flat Earth theory is because in their eyes (and mine too) when confronted with evidence such as constellations and time zones (which would be VERY different if the Earth was flat) the theory becomes preposterous.

For example:
Get a flat surface that you can lift up and rotate a torch around it, you'll see that the face of the paper lights up all at once. If the Earth was flat and it takes 7 minutes (approx) for the light to travel 93 million miles to Earth, then why does it take 8 hours for light from the sun to get from the UK to California?

And why do we see different constellations in the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern? This 100% could not happen if the Earth was flat. Those are the two biggest holes in the Flat Earth theory in my opinion.

I would like to say that I don't mean to come across as rude, arrogant or up myself with these statements. I am of the opinion that you are more than entitled to believe what you feel is right, that's total cool. It's just nice to have a counter argument, just in case. As many smart men have said, curiosity is a sign of intelligence.

 
18 Aug 2017 18:47:41
I think the Russians would have been there at some point in the last 48 years if it was possible, but I agree the Van Allen radiation belt is the elephant in the room when it comes to lunar expeditions.

And I agree that there is something very secretive going on in Antarctica.

 
19 Aug 2017 00:29:03
HSF,
It has everything to do with the radiation. Nasa themselves tell us we need to conquer the Van Allen radiation belts before we can send humans outside of earth's orbit and that does beg the question "didn't u already have 6 moon missions over 40 years ago? " Certainly seems a bigger problem than u think to me mate.

We figured out very quick how to get there in 69 it seems, yet after all the data on it was lost (how clumsy hey lol) we can't 40 years later.

I'm pretty sure most people that have really looked into it are not confused about the pictures they are putting out.
They add stuff to the pictures such as cloud formations, lights etc the computer wasn't told to do that the artists they employ do. Rob Simmons the nasa artist I believe his name is admits it himself.

We have all these rovers on the moon and mars yet we have no concrete proof they are there. We get what a computer they program, chucks out. The pictures on Mars in black and white are laughable. I'm sure my son has the exact crane they showed taking samples.

Don't you think in this day and age with the crap put on tv they wouldn't have a space channel by now? It doesn't even have to be live, just real.

The space station if u believe it is a great feature of human engineering yet there are no videos of them putting it together in space, they were speaking about it one day then poof there it is a few years later.

Remember if it's real, they are flying around at over 2000mph, one mistake or problem could cause catastrophic consequences yet every feed you see of them they don't seem bothered in the slightest.

Spacex is very exciting because musk has said he will fly 2 people round the moon and back by the end of 2018. Let's wait and see because I remember Branson saying the same thing.

I just want to see a real film of the earth rotating on its axis. They get 18 billion a year, have satellites all over the place it shouldn't be to much to ask in 2017 surely.

Show me Australia upside down (yes I understand gravity and relativity before I open that can of worms lol)

Nasa for me are struggling now, before they could pretty much say anything and hardly anyone took notice but now in this modern age of social networks and higher understanding people are looking and it's getting harder for them to fool us that's for me why they can't launch another mission outside of earth orbit because it's to hard to fake.

While u are talking vacuums have u ever known such a large vacuum that hasn't sucked in air near it such as space and the earth's atmosphere?
If I suck out 75% of the air in a bottle then pierce a hole in it, it will fill straight back to 100% again wouldn't it? Genuine question that as it's just a thought I had lol and if right how does that work?

{Ed033's Note - They only way musk will get anyone to the moon in back is with fake video.

This is how NASA fakes everything nowadays

 
19 Aug 2017 03:27:00
The "artists" you speak of are just computer nerds that put groups of images together and then renders them. It just so happens that they use software called "Photoshop" which is 10/10 in terms of performance for this kind of thing. People see the word Photoshop and assume it's fake.
Yes you can add things and change things with Photoshop, but all they are doing is stitching images together to create the full photo.

Some photo's will have anomalies on them, such as black squares or smudges or even massive lines across them. This is called an "artifact" and they happen in video games all the time (video games are just high fps slide shows with each frame being rendered individually) and other graphic rendering situations.

goo.gl/iABUi

This link will explain the quotes taken from Van Allen himself, plus I'm fairly sure this covers everything about the Van Allen Belts theory. It goes into very very high detail surrounding the radiation, including breaking down all the equations.

Space debris and Orbits
goo.gl/amhE6


I remember reading somewhere (maybe wikipedia I'm not sure) that the ISS can withstand impacts from debris of up to 3cm in diameter, so they track the stuff over that size and if they can track and predict the orbits of stars and planets, I'm fairly sure they can predicts space debris orbits and satellite orbits - then adjust the position of the space station accordingly to avoid said collisions, right?

And you say it's harder for NASA to fool us, but it works the other way around too.
There are so many different ways to communicate media or data that almost anyone can start a movement. People like Alex Jones for example, he's lying through his teeth, spouting useless information that is never backed up

"I spoke to a guy high up on the commission of NASA and he was telling me about inter-dimensional beings waging war on the dark side of the moon"

All he's doing, is preying on the people who are curious to know what's going on. These people like myself and yourself are vulnerable to this kind of thing because we want it to be like that. I'm sure he's saying some stuff that is correct, but he goes so overboard that it's almost theatrical, like one of those doomsday messages you see on news clips in movies.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you're talking about Vacuum but I'll give it a go.
I think the best way to explain it would be bubbles in water. They don't pop in water, they absorb the impacts of the water around it, if something penetrates the bubble, it doesn't pop it, a little bit breaks off and the hole is closed. A bottle is a bad example as it has a solid shape and a physical barrier. The bubbles do not, they just have the force of the air inside the water, much like the Earth in the vacuum of space.

In the Theia theory, a Mars sized rogue planet hit the earth twice, smashing debris into orbit around what was left of the Earth and formed rings (which we still have a very, very thin ring around us) gravity then played a part and clumped the mass of the debris together and allegedly formed the moon. It's just a theory, but it's similar to the bubble situation. Another thing is that Astronauts train in swimming pools with full space gear on to help simulate the feeling of being weightless.

An enjoyable discussion indeed! :)

{Ed033's Note - It is pretty bizarre that if Apollo got to the moon, there isn't a full image of the Earth from space in the public domain.

If you look at enough ISS video, you can see they are faking at least some of the video and you have to ask why they feel the need to do this if it's all real.

Some of the video NASA put out as space walks seems to be Astronauts training in swimming pools.

 
19 Aug 2017 11:48:36
HSF
They copy and paste cloud patterns lol. That is enhancing an image mate.
Have you seen the pic of Antarctica from space? It's a joke.

You say they use photoshop that's fine, but there must be some real images out there you would think surely?

The lovely blue marble nasa put out is perfectly round yet we are now told it's actually and oblate spheroid kind of like pear shaped.
Well that is not like any of the 6 or 7 images put out is it?

Have you ever seen the 'live' footage of a space walk where the astronauts helmet fills up with water?

 
19 Aug 2017 11:55:53
Sorry mate what I'm getting at with my question was there is nothing I know of that exists that won't be absorbed by a vacuum if next to it.

We are lead to think a huge vacuum is above us and its not pulling our air into it. What's stopping it I'm asking mate.

 
19 Aug 2017 12:20:40
This is exactly it Ed033, If you have to fake even one thing it should bring into question everything they put out?

I'm not claiming everyone in nasa is aware of this fake because they can't be.
In order to believe all of of what they say you have to agree to take a load of coincidence as proof such as, in a eclipse the moon and sun even though 100's of thousands of miles apart align perfectly.

It's also not explained how they tell us day and night can't be in the same place but in Russia (I think) there is many footage of it being day time in the same area day in one place and they turn the camera and it's a full moon the other way.

We used to be told when u see a boat disappear that is it going over the curve yet that has been totally disproved now, it just goes out of our perspective. Whip out your camera and u can bring it straight back and so on.

The math behind the curve is 8 inches per mile squared yet there are frozen lakes over 100 miles long that show no signs of the thousands of feet curvature that should be there.
The longest bridge on China in 120 miles long and yes it was built as if the ground was flat underneath it.

Eventually they should be able to proved it without me having to work out the math. If I tell u I have invented a flying car and u ask me to prove it would you accept me saying "get your calculator out" and never showing u the car and saying trust me?

My point is we take everything on faith from people that have never even been to see if they are right and now that is being passed off as a fact that doesn't warrant question.

Science is great but simply throwing out math and saying trust me, doesn't work for me.

{Ed033's Note - This is where the theory that the Moon was formed from bits blown off from Earth is ridiculous when it is in a perfect size/position for the eclipse.

Their 'Red Shift' math doesn't work for another example.

 
19 Aug 2017 13:41:25
Yes I think the old theory of (dark bodies) in and around the sun and moon could be more sense. Then there is the theory the moon was placed into orbit.
Being that the moon is too big to be a satellite for our planet unless it is hollow.

CTR, curve of the planet is that wrong like you said NDT had to even change the shape of the planet. and 8 inch to every mile squared is unprovable.
people have proven this to be a lie on youtube with high power lasers.

There is a physicist on youtube that agrees with everything listed. He even talks about how the ISS couldn't be where they say it is With there own math. Then he even talks on planes flying with the spin against the spin and across the spin.

And the problems that the arises from trying to land at these angles and speed.
I agree fully they cannot keep giving math and cgi for proof. And I do know the man that used to paint the images. blond hair man cannot find his video or name?
Strange because he was one of the first about 3-4 years ago I listened to him.

 
19 Aug 2017 13:45:05
Hsf,
Not taking the piss in anyway. Respect for the knowledge in what you talk of.

But how much of what you say, do you know from proving and doing yourself.
Like when you say Proxima Centauri is so far, and how much is from the text book?

 
19 Aug 2017 16:21:08
Southampton that is the math we are given mate.

The globe is 25000 miles approx in circumference which equates to that formula.

Balloons have been sent up 40 miles and higher yet the horizon rises.

Even if you make the math wider how high should we have to go up to see it.

It just isn't there.

I totally agree ed33, not just that but we are told we can't see the backside of the moon because it spins exactly the same speed as us so we always see one side.

We are told it's a sandy/ dusty type of surface on the moon yet it reflects the sun very well. Although I'm sure not done to a professional level people have actually measured the moonlight is colder in direct moonlight than it is in the shade of the moon meaning it omits it's own light.

Something doesn't add up here and I honestly think Nasa are struggling to fob us off anymore.
Ppl are waking up to the faith u have to take without real proof from Nasa.

After all its just another arm of the DOD.

 
19 Aug 2017 16:28:14
Southampton, his name is Mat Boylen he is a high realist artist that said he used to work for Nasa and says once at a party hosted by Nasa he asked about Antarctica and was told,
"If u go there you won't come back"
When he asked why, the Nasa bloke replied "because it's flat. "

Now u have to take that on faith that he's talking the truth but he makes some great points.

 
19 Aug 2017 18:23:32
Matthew Boylan was the nasa painter that first got my attention he was employed to drum up the actual image we see and know as the planets quite funny dude to watch as well in my opinion.
Then a few years later Eric dubay caught my attention.
He has a different way of giving what he calls his evidence.

 
19 Aug 2017 18:33:30
Honestly guys, you're looking at a lot of this with complete simplicity and something as complex as geometry, astronomy and physics can not be looked at in a simple manner. As an example, Football isn't just 22 men kicking a ball around, there are set patterns in the play, tactics and consistent readjustments made.

The Moon may well be a massive celestial body, too massive to be a real moon, but that's only because we've seen no evidence yet of other planets our size, with moons like ours. As technology progresses, telescopes get better and we can see further and in more detail. The observably universe is 90 billion light years each way I think - I don't even know what that is in miles, it probably can't even be calculated.

The planet being spherical isn't a new ideology either. Graham Hancock explained that if you take the measurements of the Great Pyramid of Giza, multiply it by 43,000 (a multiple of 72) you get the EXACT dimensions of the planet we're on, plus the exact alignment with the constellation of Orion. How old are the Pyramids? And we credit Columbus for saying the Earth was round.
My point being that somewhere in all of that, there may well be a planet our size with a moon bigger than ours. In fact, I will be willing to put my house up for a bet I'm that confident about it.

Additionally, there is a Japanese weather satellite that takes a photo of Earth every 10 minutes. It's called Himawari 8

Now with all due respect, let's see someone make a photoshop picture of Earth every 10 minutes - not possible. I know a guy who's a graphics designer (very successful one) and even he couldn't do this in an hour, let a lone 10 minutes.
So to say there are no images of Earth have been taken from space, is 100% wrong (I may have misinterpreted what you said, I'm really, really high! :D)

Southampton87, Of course the majority of my information came from reading websites, scientific papers and watching videos on said topics. I'm not even remotely smart enough to work it all out myself, some of it I can - a very small amount.

 
19 Aug 2017 22:01:01
HSF
Isn't it more about believing it's heliocentric than geocentric? I may be confused or prob totally wrong as I'm sure u can tell I'm not a physics teacher.

I look at it simple because I'm not a physics teacher and I can only go off what my point of view tells me.
If u tell me there's a curve to the earth I would expect to see clear proof then my simple brain will get it lol. If u tell me water can curve well prove to me it can be done.
If you tell me we can go to space show me a video of us leaving earth's orbit.

Surley that's just normal to want to see things proven.
My grandmother tells me god is real but once I got old enough to question it is realised she couldn't prove it so I stopped believing.

Science has replaced religion to an extent but the faith element is still the same when it comes to space and Earth.

{Ed033's Note - You only need to be simple to see fake stuff in videos, but if you don't look at the videos, you don't see the fakery.

 
19 Aug 2017 22:28:06
CTR i was agreeing with ya mate about curve.
But if u think the planet is just twice the size, you would have to go twice as high.
Same with 3 or 4 times
And 40,000 feet isn't that high you would probably need to be at least 90.000-130.000 feet up to start seeing curve or flatness .
August piccard back in 1930 or something when't up to around 90.000 I may be wrong .
I knew Boylan was the one u was speaking of and his view is quite interesting.
But there has been a load of miss info and what not put up about it now.

HSF it was Stephen hawkings website u visit was it mate lol jokes.

{Ed033's Note - And the person they now say is Stephen Hawking is highly likely to be not Stephen Hawking, so anything the fake Hawking has said in the last decade or so is a conspiracy.

 
19 Aug 2017 23:11:54
That would be my opinion too ed33.

 
20 Aug 2017 00:43:42
Ed033, my post seems to have come out in a completely random order, I know I was really high when typing that but I'm pretty sure I didn't type it out like that, as sort of proof read after typing it all.

I'm just wondering if maybe when you hyperlinked "Himawari 8" it may have misplaced something? Or maybe I was just really high, i don't know D: lol.

{Ed033's Note - Your post appears as it was received, except for me hyperlinking "Himawari 8".

 
21 Aug 2017 10:32:33
Ok no worries Ed, maybe I was too high after all! lol.