Buzz Aldrin admits they did not go to moon?

Describe those stars, which you see in these videos....


You must be able to see that these stars are continually in a state of motion....


You do not think they are stationary objects, do you....

Details can also be clearly seen, as well..

originally posted by: turbonium1
Describe those stars, which you see in these videos....


You must be able to see that these stars are continually in a state of motion....


You do not think they are stationary objects, do you....

Details can also be clearly seen, as well..

Where's the video?

You brought it up, where is it?

Here you go...

www.youtube.com...


Many other examples, as well..

a reply to: turbonium1

Wow.

Just wow.

Some idiot zooming on something that may or not be a star (if it is a stellar object it's probably jupiter) through a window is your proof?

i'm not convinced that there are that many more examples because I find it difficult to believe that there are that many morons out there.

This is your proof? This? Of all the times you've been asked to provide evidence for your specious fabrications this is what you finally come up with? Awesome.

Go buy a telescope.

Or just get the same camera an go outside - this was in the list of recommended videos from the one you linked to:



Absolutely ridiculous that you have the gall to sit there and waste precious bandwith on this garbage as your proof that this is true:

The videos show stars in detail, which proves they are liars, because stars cannot be light years away when we see them in such details, with our own eyes.

Anyone with such a camera can film stars the same way, with the same results, only a moron insists on believing nonsense claims from his so-called experts, instead of looking at the real thing, with his own eyes ....


Anyone can prove this with a camera, something you cannot dispute, and so-called experts cannot save your little fantasy-world of stars being light-years away, for their lie is dead, for good.


We also see Saturn in reality now, spinning like a top, and wobbling, which shatters another of their many lies, once again.


You have been lied to so many times, you cannot even understand what is up, from down, without them telling you what to believe...

Sad, indeed.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Anyone with such a camera can film stars the same way, with the same results, only a moron insists on believing nonsense claims from his so-called experts, instead of looking at the real thing, with his own eyes ....

Absolutely, any incompetent with the shakes, an inability to focus a camera and a fear of going outside can reporoduce exactly the same shambles you are trying to pass off as proof of some ridiculous notion.

Anyone can prove this with a camera, something you cannot dispute, and so-called experts cannot save your little fantasy-world of stars being light-years away, for their lie is dead, for good.

You can do even better with a telescope. But that would require effort on your part, and that's something you don't seem prepared to do. Stars are light years away. What you are claiming are details on a star is nothing more than a complete and utter fail at focussing a camera through a sheet of glass. It's hilarious.

We also see Saturn in reality now, spinning like a top, and wobbling, which shatters another of their many lies, once again.

We do, through telescopes as well as probes. Saturn has been known to rotate ever since it was first observed telescopically, and its axial tilt has also been noted - BY SCIENTISTS WITH TELESCOPES, not incompetents who haven't read their camera's manual.

hubblesite.org...



www.newscientist.com...

www.skyandtelescope.com...

You have been lied to so many times, you cannot even understand what is up, from down, without them telling you what to believe...

Sad, indeed.

and you have disappeared so far up your own rabbit hole you can't even remember the point you're arguing any more. You were claiming that because some idiot can't operate a camera that proves no-one went to the moon. That's what's sad: you have no idea what reality is any more.

Buy a telescope. And some books.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
We do, through telescopes as well as probes. Saturn has been known to rotate ever since it was first observed telescopically, and its axial tilt has also been noted - BY SCIENTISTS WITH TELESCOPES, not incompetents who haven't read their camera's manual.

hubblesite.org...

www.newscientist.com...

www.skyandtelescope.com...

They show Saturn as a slow-moving object, which doesn't wobble at all.

Many people show Saturn is constantly spinning, and wobbling, much like a top does.


All of the independent source videos can either be confirmed valid, or not valid, by ANYONE, including yourself.

When you rely on the claim of those who REFUSE confirmation by the public, and you actually CAN confirm if our claim is true, or false, you are NOT seeking the truth. You are deliberately AVOIDING the truth.


If you were seeking the truth, you would get the same cameras, and film the stars yourself. Anyone can film the stars, with those same cameras, too.


Excuses are all you have, nothing else.

a reply to: turbonium1

Buy a telescope.

Read a book.

Learn how to focus a camera.

Your claims are beyond stupid.

a reply to: turbonium1

Anyone with such a camera can film stars the same way, with the same results, only a moron insists on believing nonsense claims from his so-called experts, instead of looking at the real thing, with his own eyes ....

This is true, anyone can indeed film stars the same way. Out of focus. Helps if you have the shakes and don't have a clue about how to use a camera, too.

Please, just stop it. It's not even funny anymore, just sad.

here is an " interesting idea "

if you beieve that cameras with digital zoom can resolve the details of stars

try using one to resolve the details of a light house , car headlight or streetligt at a range of 10km

a reply to: Slichter

Its called R A D I A T I O N

Heat flows from hot to cold Apollo had 2 radiators to dump the heat into space

A thermal control system using a mixture of water and ethylene glycol as coolant dumped waste heat from the CM cabin and electronics to outer space via two 30-square-foot (2.8 m2) radiators located on the lower section of the exterior walls, one covering sectors 2 and 3 and the other covering sectors 5 and 6.[15]

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: turbonium1

Anyone with such a camera can film stars the same way, with the same results, only a moron insists on believing nonsense claims from his so-called experts, instead of looking at the real thing, with his own eyes ....

This is true, anyone can indeed film stars the same way. Out of focus. Helps if you have the shakes and don't have a clue about how to use a camera, too.

The details and movement of stars is abundantly clear to see, and your excuses about being 'out of focus', and 'not using the camera properly', are nonsense.

You'll make up any excuse for the reality, you see with your own eyes.

In time, cameras will show us even more detail of stars, than they show us already. These age-old lies are only getting more and more absurd, in fact.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
here is an " interesting idea "

if you beieve that cameras with digital zoom can resolve the details of stars

try using one to resolve the details of a light house , car headlight or streetligt at a range of 10km

Why would we be able to see details of a plane at 30,000 feet altitude, with a digital zoom, but not details of an object which is on the ground, 30,000 feet away?

The atmosphere on Earth is denser at the surface than above the surface, and that's why a plane shows details at 30k distance ABOVE the surface, while objects at 30k distance ON the surface cannot show such details.


The reason we can see details of high-altitude planes, and we can see details of stars, using the same digital zoom camera, is - because planes and stars ARE close to Earth!

a reply to: turbonium1

The details and movement of stars is abundantly clear to see, and your excuses about being 'out of focus', and 'not using the camera properly', are nonsense.

What excuses? It is obvious that it is out of focus. Simple as that.

These age-old lies are only getting more and more absurd, in fact.

It's your posts on here that are getting more and more absurd.

a reply to: turbonium1

Are you going to do the experiment or not? Is a plane the same size as a streetlight do you think?

Seriously, I've spent my weekend at Glastonbury surrounded by people on mind altering drugs, they made far more sense than this nonsense.

Going back to my weekend, here's a photo I took of a bright object in the sky. I zoomed in on it.

Here's an even more zoomed in bit:

OMG!!!

Does this show:

a) Unprecedented details of the surface of a star

or

b) An out of focus image of Jupiter.

(Clue: it isn't option 'a')

Take an actual video of your object, and we'll see what it looks like, then....


I'm sure you won't do that, though. It would not help your case at all.


Look at all the video clips of stars, which show movement of them, and details of them. Your 'out of focus' excuse doesn't explain their movement, or the various details, we observe in all these clips. You have no excuse for this.

Stars are supposedly light years away from Earth, which is clearly a lie. We could NEVER see details and movement of stars if they were light years away. Not a chance.

But then again, you think a rocket passing by clouds, in the blue skies above, is in Earth orbit, so you'll never admit to anything like this, either.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Take an actual video of your object, and we'll see what it looks like, then....

I'm not wasting my life putting lipstick on this pig.

I'm sure you won't do that, though. It would not help your case at all.

I'll do it if I feel like it. If you felt strongly enough you'd do it yourself. You won't. Go buy a telescope, go read a book.

Look at all the video clips of stars, which show movement of them, and details of them.

No, they do not. The only video clips you will find of stars moving are time lapse ones showing the the effects of the Earth's rotation, and even then it is not the stars moving it is us. There are absolutely no videos, not one, that show details of stars. The video you presented as your laughable proof of this idiotic claim is by a moron who can't focus a camera and hasn't heard of a tripod, and doesn't realise that he's filming Jupiter. Badly.

Your 'out of focus' excuse doesn't explain their movement, or the various details, we observe in all these clips. You have no excuse for this.

It does explain it. Your explanation is utter garbage.The only thing you need to do to prove me wrong is provide a video that is in focus. Good luck with that. An in focus shot of Jupiter will show its moons and bands. Stars will still just be points of light. Your confirmation bias is so strong that you will latch onto any nonsense you find rather than critically exaMmine what it claims to see if it makes sense or not. It does not.

Stars are supposedly light years away from Earth, which is clearly a lie. We could NEVER see details and movement of stars if they were light years away. Not a chance.

We do not see details of stars, because they are far away. Your circular logic is failing you.

But then again, you think a rocket passing by clouds, in the blue skies above, is in Earth orbit, so you'll never admit to anything like this, either.

Yet again you come up with some ridiculous claim deciding what my opinion will be on something that you haven't actually shown me exists. Don't tell me what my opinion is on something without showing me what that something is.

Still waiting for your proof that the photographs from lunar orbit showing evidence of human activity on the moon aren't genuine. Your diverstionary tactics aren't working.

Two other things to bear in mind with the video you posted.

Firstly, the guy makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to back up his claim that you are seeing details of the surface of stars, and neither do you. He just waves his camera at it, says "this is a star, ooooh" and then provides nothing else to support that claim. No explanation as to what these details allegedly are, nothing.

Secondly, while the Nikkon P900 is an impressive camera, its maximum zoom of 166x is not all optical. Like any digital zoom the maximum extent is just holding a magnifying glass over the image.

A camera stuck in a telescope, however, is a different thing.

Here's a nice video using the Nikon P900. You can see exactly the effect that your video shows, except the person uses his ability to work the camera to actually focus it:



Here's another one of Jupiter, and also Sirius, which starts off looking like you claim is showing surface details - UNTIL HE FOCUSSES THE CAMERA:

Here are a few videos of Sirius, with movement, and details, which are from independent sources, who have nothing to hide, or lie about, unlike NASA, and it's toadies....

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


It's rather odd that all of these videos are able to zoom in on Sirius more than your one video, which supposedly is using a telescope, showing Sirius as no more than a little, obscure, roundish light, far in the distance...

You obviously don't understand how an object out of focus will appear blurry, without definition, and without any type of sharp details.


Take a look at the first video I've linked above. It shows details, and movement, that cannot be created by some absurd 'lack of focus'. The video even slows down the footage, to show these details are real. You cannot create such details with any 'out of focus' cameras, it is just the opposite. If it was out of focus, it would be a blurry, undefined blob of light, and that's not what is seen, obviously.

When the videos are out of focus, you see LESS details, because that's exactly how something DOES look, if it's out of focus. They still show some details, however, and movement. And they WOULD show the stars' movements, when out of focus, as we know, whether in less detail, or in much more sharpness, as shown in the first clip above.


Arguing these videos show stars 'out of focus', or is 'an effect caused by atmospheric distortion', is complete nonsense.

Just because you have no possible excuse for conclusive proof of stars being shown in detail, and movement, as they REALLY ARE, your absurd excuses are not going to wash here. No matter how you wish this would work for you, it will not. People are now seeing the truth about stars for the very first time, thanks to our advanced technologies in optics. In future, the technology is only going to be better, and the day will come where even you'll have no choice but to hide away, or admit the truth, so get ready to look more foolish than you do now, because you can't stop technology from advancing every day, every year, in future.


It's sad to keep trying to defend an obscene lie, that is being ripped to shreds, more and more every day.