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

originally posted by: Montana
Oh good lord.We're at the STARS again!!!!

Of course we are.
He hasn't gotten to the shadows yet though. Stick around.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

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?

Space is NOT habitable for long periods of time.

It is not realistic or practical to even try to send astronauts into space.

It's a suicide mission.

a reply to: usos90

So you're back to "I'm too scared so they must be too" argument?

originally posted by: Montana

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 lot of the footage I linked is from NASA and ISS members themselves.

People made these clips exposing the inconsistencies to their claims.
And no, I'm not trying to get ad revnue or whatever.

I don't trust any online transactions. Most of it is nothing but scams.

a reply to: usos90


In the case of pictures not showing any stars, it has to do with the exposure settings on the cameras.

The surface of the moon was very bright because it was always sunlit. In order for the pictures taken by the astronauts to NOT be overexposed in this bright setting, the cameras' exposure settings were set low. Those exposure settings were similar to the exposure settings for a picture taken on Earth in daylight. This setting was too low for stars to be captured in the images.

Of you had a camera (one that was able to have the settings set manually), and set the exposure for "daylight" settings, and then tried to take a picture of a very starry night sky -- one in which stars are very visible to your eyes -- the images you end up with will most likely show no stars either.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Bot like.

Hmm.

Sort of reminiscent of cleverbot in a lot of ways.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: usos90


In the case of pictures not showing any stars, it has to do with the exposure settings on the cameras.

The surface of the moon was very bright because it was always sunlit. In order for the pictures taken by the astronauts to NOT be overexposed in this bright setting, the cameras' exposure settings were set low. Those exposure settings were similar to the exposure settings for a picture taken on Earth in daylight. This setting was too low for stars to be captured in the images.

Of you had a camera (one that was able to have the settings set manually), and set the exposure for "daylight" settings, and then tried to take a picture of a very starry night sky -- one in which stars are very visible to your eyes -- the images you end up with will most likely show no stars either.

Then why is there a waving United States flag during the moon landing?

The flag wouldn't be waiving around in space because there is no wind or air.

a reply to: Phage

Definitely seems like it. Everything they've said has been answered, but they go full circle and back to the start, as if it's a new argument.

originally posted by: Montana
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!

Entertainment is used to distract you.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Certainly not much indication of independent thought.

Oh, wait. That bit about submarines regularly surfacing for aire. That was a new one. So, maybe not a bot.

a reply to: Phage

Did you expect anything else from someone who relies purely on ignorance and other people's YouTube videos?

A bot with false information? Kind of like it's been programmed by an idiot.

a reply to: usos90

So, you're a distraction? Because you certainly are entertaining.

originally posted by: usos90

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: usos90


In the case of pictures not showing any stars, it has to do with the exposure settings on the cameras.

The surface of the moon was very bright because it was always sunlit. In order for the pictures taken by the astronauts to NOT be overexposed in this bright setting, the cameras' exposure settings were set low. Those exposure settings were similar to the exposure settings for a picture taken on Earth in daylight. This setting was too low for stars to be captured in the images.

Of you had a camera (one that was able to have the settings set manually), and set the exposure for "daylight" settings, and then tried to take a picture of a very starry night sky -- one in which stars are very visible to your eyes -- the images you end up with will most likely show no stars either.

Then why is there a waving United States flag during the moon landing?

The flag wouldn't be waiving around in space because there is no wind or air.

And what's up with all of those non-parallel shadows? It's gotta due to more than one light source! ammiright?


And the shadow side of the astronauts and the shadow side of LM (an LM which couldn't have possibly flown, but I digress) should have been completely black! I mean, what's up with THAT?!


And I won't even mention that they somehow managed to film the LM lifting off at the end when nobody should have been there. #whoranthecamera


EDIT TO ADD:
Van Allen Belts, dammit!

The difference in exposure times needed to expose for the stars way in the background and the VERY brightly lit surface of the moon at the same time is massive,the technical term for this is dynamic range.
Even on the surface of the moon with no atmosphere to reduce the level of all light reaching it,they'd still need at a guess 30 seconds exposure or more to get enough light through the lens for the stars to leave an image on the film.But of course they needed a perfectly exposed photo of what was happening on the surface of the moon,so because of the VERY high level of light they used as slow a film as possible (64 ASA-not very sensitive to light).Even with slow film they would still have had to use a very fast shutter speed,maybe as much as 1/10,000th second.Even today with the very best digital image sensors having a better dynamic range than the light sensitive film used back then (something like 11 F stops from memory),it's impossible to expose for correctly for both of them in a single photograph.
If they were to expose for the stars,the foreground (them,the surface of the moon etc) would be so chronically over exposed (or blown out) that there would be no detail at all in them,all you'd see would be a bright white blur.If they were to expose for the surface of the moon and other local features,the sky apart from the sun and the earth would be under exposed.
Go outside on a bright sunny day,find a scene with deep shadows in it and take a photo of it.Now look at the photo indoors on a decent monitor and compare it with how you remember seeing that scene with your own eyes.If the camera exposes for the highlights (which is normal) there will be very little detail visible in the shadows,but that detail was visible to your eyes.This is the difference in the dynamic range our eyes can see (both light and dark at the same time) which is about 14 F stops and what an imaging sensor that isn't our eyes can cope with.
Don't forget that our eyes (specifically our iris) works the same as the diaphragm of a camera as neither can handle the full range of light without controlling how much light actually enters it.
My last thoughts on this.If a photo is exposed correctly for the highlights but with no shadow detail,it is possible to increase the levels in it which will make the shadow details visible,but with some noise that wouldn't be there if it had been exposed for the shadows.If you expose for the shadows the highlights will be blown out,and no amount of messing around with Photoshop or Lightroom will be able to bring them back again because they're just not there any more.
Even modern HDR (High Dynamic Range) photos which involve three consecutive images being taken with different exposure settings,and then blended into one inside the camera would be able to correctly expose the surface of the moon and the stars in the same photo.

a reply to: Phage

You can't educate this type of person. People who have no experience with cameras other then the one in their phone cannot grasp the fundamentals of photography.

a reply to: roadgravel

I know.
Really. I do.

a reply to: Phage

One of the first things learned in photography is the relationship of film sensitivity, aperture and shutter speed which is used to control how light levels effect the film.

Of course, you know this. The good old film days.

a reply to: roadgravel
Yeah.

But my reply was specific to this part:

You can't educate this type of person.

[post]BenSisko[/post]


HURRY UP AND MAKE SEASON EIGHT!!!

a reply to: Phage

Well if that's the case then it should be easy to pan that out.


a reply to: usos90


If space is fake, then how do you explain the Astronaut on the Moon taking off his Helmut to light a cigarette? How could he do that if the Moon landing is fake? Explain this smoking Astronaut on the moon?