It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Lied. Plain. Simple. Proof.

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hey_amigo
i send my apologies, the weight of telescope owners, out weighs my theory of no planets. for the time being i shall rest my opinion of no planets. and i was unclear when i stated about the moon and the stars having "not a religious" but faithful relation to each other.

my main reason for thinking planets were fake are that when i look at a picture of what appears to be outer space or a planet, even earth. it appears fake.
it just coincides that i debunked their calculations about planets.


NASA has done recalculations fairly often, because we are always getting new and better information as towards the study of planets, and their mass and composition. Check some of the Nibiru threads for how their mistakes are exploited.
As for pictures, some are real, some are filtered, especially the highly colored version of planets. Studying the planets with high powered telescopes will reveal they are indeed planets, orbiting the sun, with their own moons orbiting them. This was studied and observed a very long time ago, well before NASA ever existed.
As for the moon and eclipses, the moon does block the sun, but not for the whole planet.
www.liveleak.com...
Video of one from an aircraft, showing that it only affects a limited area.




posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Um, hello?

Some folks are missing the post the OP made towards the top of page 5...........


Originally posted by hey_amigo
i send my apologies, the weight of telescope owners, out weighs my theory of no planets.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Misfit
 
Off topic but hey Misfit, I bought a kickin' scope thanks for your help. 10.5" reflector with extra eyepeices and camera mount&motor drive. AWESOME!!!!



[edit on 16-8-2008 by spookjr]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hey_amigo
 


And what do you have to say to the citizens who have their own personal telescopes??

Citizens like me??

Because those planets that you say don't exist, I stare at every night!

It must be Satan decieving me...



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hey_amigo
 


Oh, and by they way, it wasn't NASA who originally discovered the planets...

I do believe we used to think that the universe revolved around us?



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by hey_amigo
 


I see now that you only SAID half, I stand corrected.

But, try this site to calculate apparent size of objects.

www.1728.com...



When I use the numbers for size (2r) and distance I get
.53274 degress of arc for the sun and
.51796 degress for the moon, which means they sould appear to be the almost the same size in the sky just as we observe in real life.
I hope this convinces you.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaFreaky
 


Sweet tea, no less. You have just 'outed' yourself as a Southerner.

To the OP.... listen for a moment. There ARE planets. Those of us that watch the planets through magnifying devices (mine is a simple newtonian) SEE those planets turn on an axis. Granted, Venus -- due to cloud cover -- presents a homogenous picture and is difficult to see it spin. Others that have visible markings, such as Jupiter and Mars, are OBVIOUS that they rotate, thus they are spherical, else they would show an "edge".

Now, if you were here, in our backyard, using our telescope and looking at either Mars or Jupiter, over time you would see their markings 'turn' and reappear again, thus demonstrating that: 1) They exist. 2) They rotate and 3) they are spherical.

Your mathematics, while on the surface are discreet and elegant, demonstrate distances from the sun TO the planet, but not from the perspective of Earth viewers, which we all [presumably] are. Presentation decreases with distance. Several times a month, my Bride and I bask in the relative luxury of a cheap hot tub and watch various KNOWN satellites and the ISS pass overhead. The ISS is particularly beautiful and the distance from it to Earth can be calculated, and thus it's forward speed in relation to the Earth can be calculated. All of these objects, satellites, ISS, Irridium flares can and are accurately predicted to be visible in various areas with extreme precision. Visit www.heavens-above.com. Plug in your location, and check to see when various satellites will be visible. Watch for them, see them, verify that they cross the plane as outlined in the plots.

I have to give you props for your formulae, math, and computations -- they were well done, however you missed the mark when you postulated that the visual presentation FROM EARTH would be the same as from the Sun, Sol, our star. Our moon can eclipse our star due to the moon's near proximity to us -- it's exactly as simple as that. In the inverse manner, our shadow, the umbra, can eclipse the moon [from our perspective, firmly grounded on the planet Earth].

Bringing religious concepts into this only serve to cloud the scientific and verified precepts. Consider for a moment that religious ideals and science are NOT at odds with each other. No, don't turn away, just stay with me for a brief moment longer. Consider the idea that religious ideals and science use different languages to describe similar phenomenon. They are not at odds with one another, within many contexts. Science uses mathematics, physics to assign measureable quantities to objects that, perhaps, [IMO] God created.

Nobody looses, unless they sacrifice their objectivity and WONDER, and ability to question, THINK, and learn to dogma.

Cheers

[edit to change the positioning of that illusive "and"]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by argentus]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Well folks, let us debunk this;

distance from the earth to the moon: 384,405 km
distance from the earth to the sun: 149,600,000,000 km
the moon's diameter: 3,466.2

the sun's diameter: 1,392,000,000 km (let us assume this is the unknown variable X!)

i515.photobucket.com...

and now a small calculation:
i515.photobucket.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Copernicus, Keppler, Galileo, et al....

All, turning in their respective graves.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by THIseNdsnowoldKings
 


Perhaps there's a reason why their giving us miscalculations and false information if what you say about it being wrong, is true. The reason being something greater THAN th existence of the planets. What would that one thing be?



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hey_amigo
 


If there are no planets do you mean to tell me that all asrologers are liars ?

Bastards, al those women I dumpted because they were Librans !!!!!

I'm never going to believe anyone ever again in my life

But on the upside, I love cheese and your delusion gives more credibility to the moon being cheese theory !!!


May all the gods (those dots of white in the night sky?) bless you o great cheese bringer



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
AM I ON FRIGGEN GLOBAL IGNORE ?!?!?

As well as the OP's 2nd to last post?

At the top of page 6 I interjected with this, that the OP has already stated that he has refined his thinking on page 5, yet almost two pages later, folks are still flaming him for his ORIGINAL belief.


Originally posted by hey_amigo
i send my apologies, the weight of telescope owners, out weighs my theory of no planets.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Misfit
 


No, just saw the post.

My apologies, should have read throught everything before I replied.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 

I'M ALIVE !!!! lolol



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
You are correct--most images of extraterrestrial bodies indeed are enhanced. This is a standard practice that allows us see features more clearly. It doesn't mean that the images themselves faked, nor are the features represented within them figments of someone's nefarious imagination. Technology has allowed us to leverage our existing senses to see further and extrapolate details. It's not perfect and probably never will be, but that does not nullify the knowledge we gain from using it.

Also for the life of me, I cannot understand anyone--of faith or not of faith, who thinks that science and religion are mutually exclusive. They are not and never have been. God, or whomever/whatever is our higher power--or simply "bigger" than we are, has granted us incredible capacities and free will. We have been given an opportunity to create our world here on this earth. What happens in the end is anyone's guess. What you do to live up to your potential while alive is up to you. How you will be judged, or if your energy simply slips into the cosmos, is not up to you.

Don't be afraid. Live long and prosper!



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParaFreaky
reply to post by peacejet
 

These are the craziest claims I've ever heard! Space doesn't exist! Since when did religious folks have something against space! Don't they believe god created the stars and the galaxies? Sheesh...



Okay, ordinarily, I wouldn't bite, but darn! I can't resist!

Anyway, not all religious people are this crazy. Crazy, maybe, but not this crazy! Most people of the Christian faith, to my knowledge, DO believe that God created all things, including planets, the moon and the stars. I could give Bible book, chapter and verse that mentions this, but most other people consider the Bible to be a fable or fantasy, so why bother? At any rate, the OP is, IMHO, delusional. But then some think I am because of my faith in God. Oh well...



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Hey Amigo!

I have been an ATS serial lurker for almost five years now with no true reason to post; however, within a single claim you have personally managed to denounce thousands of years of astrological and astronomical discovery and research. Your theory falters in many aspects- the obvious ones I won’t even give the liberty of a response; however, I feel personally obligated to clear up some of your confusion.

The ‘Christian’ god that I assume you are referring to displays qualities of complete and utter ‘perfection’. Godlike perfection has three major attributes- Omniscience (All knowing), Omnipresence (Embodiment of everything) and Omnipotence (All powerful). These traits are shared amongst god-like figures and deities throughout human history; however, this contradicts itself in various forms and if intellectually considered, would not be able to exist.

First and foremost, regarding omnipresence – ‘God’ would exist everywhere; the earth, heaven and (now think about it) hell as well. When judging a claim of true omniscience, one must consider mathematics. Number and value are both infinite and therefore any finite knowledge of everything, clashes with our understanding any practice of modern mathematics. A prime example of an infinite calculation of is π. Pi (3.14) or π is a mathematic constant which represents the ratio of any circles circumference to its diameter in Euclidean geometry, which is the same as the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its radius. It is approximately equal to 3.14159. Pi is one of the most important mathematical constants. If, (π = ∞), then true omniscience cannot exist. To further prove my point here is a link to π to the million digits. Nevertheless, if god was ‘all knowing’ then he should have been able to predict the future, if so – then why did he bother to create Lucifer if he knew he was going to rebel; punishment by a forgiving, all knowing being? Sounds like a mistake to me. Lastly, Omnipotence is impossible when considered using a simple philosophical paradox:

“If God can create anything, then let’s suppose for a brief moment that you asked god to create a boulder that was so heavy he couldn't lift. If he makes a boulder that is so heavy he can't lift it up, then he cannot have the power to lift it. Thus, his strength isn't ‘all powerful.’ If he is able to lift it, he has failed to make a boulder that is so heavy he can't lift it up, thus, his powers of creation aren't all powerful.”

Perfection like this is impossible and self contradictory, and it shows that if perfection is impossible, a god is as well, impossible because perfection is attributed to him and thus, this god cannot exist.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
The bottom line is that all humans share a need of faith; Faith in god, faith in love, faith in hope, faith in our nat. I do not think it’s wrong to allow our faith to guide us and correct our daily lives, but do not let it blind you from the truth. After two thousand and nine years, not one shred of evidence supports the claim of Christianity- as it is a product of internal manifested faith. The bible itself, begins with the creation of the universe: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 NIV). This single verse describes the actual transformation of invisible energy into all of the fundamental physical matter (as summed up in Albert Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation) that would be formed into stars, planets and everything else - including us. Scientists now estimate that the great event took place approximately 15 billion years ago.

"The sun marked the day (sunset to sunset), the moon the month (new moon to new moon), and the stars the seasons (constellations are seen in particular seasons e.g. "Orion" is visible in winter in the northern hemisphere, which is summer in the southern hemisphere). (Genesis 1:14-19)

The bible references astronomical claims in various forms; please read it thoroughly. I needn’t remind you that it was a star that acted as reference for three Wiseman to discover the birthplace of your Christ.

I commend you on a solid argument regarding the overall honesty of NASA. Conflict between Russia and the United States during the cold war prompted mass propaganda from both sides- for example; some theorize that the moon landing took place on earth as opposed to the moon, but let’s be realistic here. I know people that are in NASA- trust me, space does exist. Can we not simply compromise that it was created by god then? There is no doubt in my mind that during the space race, our nation may have manipulated facts here and there, and it’s good that you are keen to observe such things; however, since then, we’ve spent billions on a space program. Technology could in theory, recreate images of space – but please reference some of the first video and photography taken by both Russian and American astronauts. Although CGI was around in the 1960s, true photorealism CG is still a decade off.


[edit on 16-8-2008 by ljusul]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParaFreaky
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 

Well in THAT case, I'm gonna make up my OWN perception of outer space. The Milky Way is a huge vanilla and chocolate swirl of endless ice cream goodness!


*drools*



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by malganis

Originally posted by ParaFreaky
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 

Well in THAT case, I'm gonna make up my OWN perception of outer space. The Milky Way is a huge vanilla and chocolate swirl of endless ice cream goodness!


*drools*


Does this mean the moon is still made of cheese?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join