NASA lies about space exploration - uses CGI, Green Screen, Zero Gravity Planes and Stage Props

Then where are all those rockets flying? To another edge of flat Earth?

originally posted by: usos90

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: usos90

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: usos90

too many risks, too many liabilities, too much of a hazardous job.

By this "logic" we wouldn't have planes, trains, cars, coal mines, nuclear power plants, electricity, running water, oil, modern medicine and just about anything because of "too many risks".

Risk takers and innovators are what get things done. Not people who sit there and go "Nope! Too risky."

You're right, those are definitely dangerous jobs and not too many people can handle them.

Just saying that space is not habitable. No oxygen, no water supply, no agriculture, VERY HIGH RISK POTENTIAL etc.

At least with the careers you posted their is oxygen and businesses available to the workers/clients. Not so much in space.

Would be worse than being stranded in the mountains.

OK.

Deep sea welding, shipwreck scavengers, any job under the sea.

Just because you wouldn't take the risk because you're too scared, doesn't mean others wouldn't to progress our knowledge.

Space is a totally different ball game.

nobody wants to actually go into space.

You said that before and got proven wrong.

Or do you just ignore that which contradicts what you type?

a reply to: KiwiNite

They're doing space launches but it doesn't necessarily mean anybody is piloting them.

There's plenty of failed rocket tests where the rockets literally exploded or fell back to Earth.

I still think a lot of the space footage is faked.

originally posted by: usos90

I'm not the same person who posted the youtube videos.

These are just videos I've been researching lately and I think the evidence is obvious.

Watching you tube videos is NOT research. Assuming this thread isn't simply an effort to increase ad revenue (BTW this is still what I think this thread is about) it would seem you have an inquiring mind. Use it.

Please take some science courses in pretty much any institution of higher education. Trust me, you will come to know what research is all too well!

a reply to: usos90

You don't have to pilot them. In fact most of them, if you did any research, are unmanned. Just about the only manned missions are crew swaps on the ISS. The rest are satellite and supply launches.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: usos90

Why do you think that they fly resupply missions every few months and fly tons of supplies to them? There was a mission last month that carried 6400 pounds of supplies. Everything from toilet paper to Mexican food. They keep several months of supplies on board, and every few months another mission goes up with more supplies.

The oxygen generator on the ISS uses wastewater to create oxygen. They can also use bottled oxygen that is carried up on the resupply missions.

That may be true and sounds reasonable but there is still a lot of footage that looks faked.

Yeah, there could be legitimate space expeditions but there is pretty hard evidence that they have also lied about other flights.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: usos90

You don't have to pilot them. In fact most of them, if you did any research, are unmanned. Just about the only manned missions are crew swaps on the ISS. The rest are satellite and supply launches.

Yeah, that's realistic. Unmanned air-craft is more logical than putting people at risk. Unmanned vehicles is actually the future and kind of ties in with automation but that's a whole other story.

Satellites, weather balloons, and drones, yes, they definitely exist and are out there.

Some limited space exploration by astronauts? Sure, but a lot of the footage was obviously faked.

a reply to: usos90

...but there is pretty hard evidence that they have also lied about other flights.

Not really, there is just a lot of misunderstanding of some pretty basic science and a lot of gullible people

a reply to: usos90

YouTube videos of things that someone doesn't understand or deliberately misrepresents isn't "pretty hard evidence" of anything.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: usos90

Date: November 10, 2017
Mission: Orbital ATK Resupply Mission to Space Station (Orbital ATK CRS-8)
Description: Orbital ATK's eighth contracted commercial resupply services mission, launching aboard an Antares rocket from Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, will deliver several tons of cargo including crew supplies and science experiments to the International Space Station.

launch schedule

Let me guess, they're not really going to the space station, they just shoot these off and drop them where no one can see them land?

Not really sure who to trust seeing that there are plenty of clips showing faked space exploration and flights.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: usos90

Sorry. Landings were not faked. Kind of hard to simulate the Moon's gravity...and no, it's not CGI back then. It's called physics. Learn some of it:

Oh yeah, where are the stars?

Why can we see stars on earth but can't see the stars in this alleged moon landing?


If anything the celestial body should be COMPLETELY visible since there is no light refraction from city lights.

I would know because I used to look at the stars on mountain tops and you can see a VERY exotic star system.

Where is this the star system and celestial bodies when there should be hardly any light refraction in space?

a reply to: usos90

Oh yeah, where are the stars?

You're new to this, aren't you.

originally posted by: usos90

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: usos90

Sorry. Landings were not faked. Kind of hard to simulate the Moon's gravity...and no, it's not CGI back then. It's called physics. Learn some of it:

Oh yeah, where are the stars?

Why can we see stars on earth but can't see the stars in this alleged moon landing?

For the same reason you can't see stars during the day on Earth.

Light pollution from the sun.

originally posted by: usos90

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: usos90

Sorry. Landings were not faked. Kind of hard to simulate the Moon's gravity...and no, it's not CGI back then. It's called physics. Learn some of it:

Oh yeah, where are the stars?

Why can we see stars on earth but can't see the stars in this alleged moon landing?

If anything the celestial body should be COMPLETELY visible since there is no light refraction from city lights.

Can you give reasons why you do not accept the widely-given explanation about camera exposure settings?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: usos90

Oh yeah, where are the stars?

You're new to this, aren't you.

No, the star system should be visible if you're in space.

There is less, basically none, light refraction from city lights since there's no lighting from electrical equipment in space.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: usos90

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: usos90

Sorry. Landings were not faked. Kind of hard to simulate the Moon's gravity...and no, it's not CGI back then. It's called physics. Learn some of it:

Oh yeah, where are the stars?

Why can we see stars on earth but can't see the stars in this alleged moon landing?

For the same reason you can't see stars during the day on Earth.

Light pollution from the sun.

We can't see the stars during the daytime because of the sun.

When it's night time we can clearly see stars even in a populated metropolitan area even with the refraction from city lights.

Go to rural areas and mountain tops and you can see an entire celestial body.

Astronauts on the moon and no visible star system?

Yeah, that's a red flag.

a reply to: usos90

The sun was in the lunar sky when the astronauts were on the surface of the Moon.

Yeah, that's a red flag.

No. It's one of the most ignorant arguments.

a reply to: usos90

The astronauts were on the bright side of the moon. That means they're in sunlight. That's the equivalent of daytime.

So no, they wouldn't be able to see stars because of the great big glowing light source called the Sun.

Oh good lord.We're at the STARS again!!!!

Ok, I'm out. I've got better things to do this afternoon. Y'all have fun!


Oh, BTW.....

Montana 56 - 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO GRIZ!

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: usos90

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: usos90

Sorry. Landings were not faked. Kind of hard to simulate the Moon's gravity...and no, it's not CGI back then. It's called physics. Learn some of it:

Oh yeah, where are the stars?

Why can we see stars on earth but can't see the stars in this alleged moon landing?


If anything the celestial body should be COMPLETELY visible since there is no light refraction from city lights.

Can you give reasons why you do not accept the widely-given explanation about camera exposure settings?

Because in other clips of the moon landing it shows:

(A) the United States flag waving around even though there is no oxygen or air in space

(B) Movement of the astronauts and vehicles are at the same speed and heft of weight of being on earth in terms of physics if ran at 2x speed. So basically the "moon landing footage" was just people on Earth being recorded at a slower frame rate to emulate movement in space.

(C) Why isn't the moon torched from the space landing? Shouldn't had the ship left some type of scorching mark on the moon's surface from the engines?

(d) In another clip there was a backstage cat walk and lighting fixture that accidentally fell down while recording the fake moon landing.