Our Entire Space Program Is A Hoax And A Massive Deception

reply to post by blocula

Now i know you are trolling sir.
The trolling trophy of the year goes to blocular...........

People can i add I am sometimes accused of treating hoax believers as if they are stupid. Let me say this here and now and clearly. I do NOT consider that ALL hoax believers are stupid, okay? Some, possibly, may be quite normal sensible people that have just got the facts wrong - they have been misinformed and do not happen to posses the knowledge or wit to realise it. This is perfectly understandable given the complex knowledge of physics sometimes required to understand what is really going on. Many hoax believers are ignorant of the facts, which is a different matter entirely to being stupid. However, when given the facts, a sensible person will see the logic of it, whatever the subject, and will either have the sense to accept the obvious, or perhaps have the wit to ask another more penetrating follow-up question in order to clarify a point. Fair enough. When the explanation then makes perfect sense and can no longer be challenged, when the evidence presented simply cannot be denied, the sensible person is left with no alternative but to accept that they were wrong.

If however, in this situation, they still insist that they are right, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence, then they shift from a position of being ignorant - they are no longer unaware of the facts - to a position of being stupid. I'm sorry if this offends but there is no other word for it. The dictionary says 'stupid - deficient or dull in understanding: showing lack of reason or judgement: foolish, dull, boring' So yes, many of the hoax believers that I deal with, the ones that send me very strange emails indeed, I do consider to be stupid, they perfectly fit the dictionary definition of the word. I do not consider them to be stupid because their questions may sometimes appear to be rather simplistic and show an alarming lack of even basic knowledge (that is often understandable as it depends on the level of education they have received) it is because they deny the answer and choose not to accept the logic of a given fact that is in reality inarguable.

If for example someone tells you that 2 +2 = 5, and you clearly and patiently show them by using four coins that 2+2 = 4, and they still argue that they are right, that you are an idiot, and that they have positive proof that you will be proven wrong, would it be unreasonable to assume that they must be stupid? It is an unfortunate fact of life that there are some people in the world that are undeniably stupid, we have all met them. I realise of course that this causes some people to call me arrogant - and many other highly descriptive phrases - so be it. If being unafraid to tell the truth, if knowing your subject well, if carrying out extensive independent research, if being able to reply to a question using facts and logic, all make a person 'arrogant', then fine, I am happy to accept - that by that definition - I am arrogant. I would rather be arrogant than stupid. But I repeat again, not all hoax believers are stupid - some are just ignorant of the facts but do have an open mind - but some hoax believers are undeniably incredibly stupid.. my two pounds worth

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by blocula

 

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint.

Why are the stars too faint? We see multitudes of stars from earth and we have to view them through a vision obstructing,disruptive atmosphere and so when looking through the supposedly no atmosphere sky from the surface of the moon,the astronauts should have seen and the films and photos should have shown hundreds,perhaps thousands of vibrantly flickering and clearly visible stars and we dont...

The real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare. You cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars. When standing on the lunar surface the astronauts could not visually observe the stars in the dark sky, because of the surface glare, they could only see them when standing in shadow. By the same token, if we take a photograph outdoors at night from a brightly illuminated surface, our photograph also would not show any stars in the sky.

It is not enough that the lunar sky is very dark, in order to see the stars you have to BE in a dark area yourself, and your camera. In 1967 Surveyor probes soft landed on the Moon and sent back amazing pictures of the surface. An image of the stars was required in order to learn the precise orientation of the probes. It took a three minute exposure before the stars became visible. The cameras used by the astronauts typically took images using an exposure time of 250th of a second. Not surprising is it that the stars did not register in the photos!

If it is so easy for hoax believers to spot this 'error' - and let's face it, to forget to put the stars in would have been an incredibly stupid mistake to make - do you honestly believe that not one single person involved in the 'hoax' wouldn't have noticed it either? Or is it just that hoax believers are all just so much smarter then all of them?

I have been 'informed' (now that's a joke) by hoax believers that NASA were unable to reproduce the stars in their correct positions as seen from the moon, (being much too complicated a task for stupid NASA to calculate) so rather than get it wrong and risk being found out decided to leave them out. Ho ho ho hohoho! This argument is soooo ignorant of the facts! The stars are much too far away for any difference to be visible over the tiny distance of 250,000 miles from the earth to the moon. Take a photograph of the stars from earth, then six months later take another photograph. In this time span the earth will have shifted the maximum distance from one side of its orbit around the sun to the other, around 186,000,000 miles. Only a couple of the very nearest stars will be seen to have shifted against the background stars (this apparent shift is due to parallax) and even then, the shift is very small and is only perceptible by comparing the two photos very carefully. (Parallax is the most accurate means available for measuring the distance to the stars, but is limited to those few stars that are very close to us). So, Nasa would only need to put up background photos of the stars as photographed from earth because that is exactly how the stars would look from the moon as well. This is known as research, and comes in very handy when attempting to argue a point.

Anyway, no need to take my word for it is there, I could be part of the conspiracy according to your way of thinking. (Wish I was, I would be getting paid for this.) Just pop outside one night and try to photograph the stars with a brightly illuminated person in the foreground. Try it, its easy enough to prove without the need of a massive conspiracy theory, just you and a camera is all that is required.

Case closed. Stop now with this drivel bloc .. R-E-A-D - T-H-E- P-O-S-T .........

Originally posted by blocula

 

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. Why are the stars too faint? We see multitudes of stars from earth and we have to view them through a vision obstructing,disruptive atmosphere and so when looking through the supposedly no atmosphere sky from the surface of the moon,the astronauts should have seen and the films and photos should have shown hundreds,perhaps thousands of vibrantly flickering and clearly visible stars and we dont...

I have a very simple experiment for you to conduct. Some morning around 8:00 am when the sky is clear of clouds, walk outside and look up and see if you can see the stars. What do you see? It will be difficult to see much of anything if you live where I do. And, you certainly will not be able to see the stars.

Our skies are blue (BLUE SKY) because the atmosphere refracts the Sun's light and the blue color is scattered. On the Moon, there isn't an atmosphere to refract the Sun's light. Therefore the sky looks black. Refraction does not negate the brilliance of the Sun's light that reaches our eyes. By the way, the stars will not twinkle when viewed from the Moon.

So, you CAN NOT see the stars on the Moon during its day time any more than you can see them during the day on Earth. Same principles at work. Earth's atmosphere does create some nuances in viewing the stars, such as putting the twinkle in the starlight, but it does not prevent us from seeing them.

Originally posted by blocula

 

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. Why are the stars too faint? We see multitudes of stars from earth and we have to view them through a vision obstructing,disruptive atmosphere and so when looking through the supposedly no atmosphere sky from the surface of the moon,the astronauts should have seen and the films and photos should have shown hundreds,perhaps thousands of vibrantly flickering and clearly visible stars and we dont...

Oh! Not this BS again stars will show IF the exposure settings are correct, the Moon only requires a FRACTION of a second of exposure but for the same aperture and film speed rating stars REQUIRE many seconds!

Plenty of sites on the net will give you the settings required for Moon and stars look them up then remove this from your list of BS

Originally posted by Gibborium

Originally posted by blocula

 

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. Why are the stars too faint? We see multitudes of stars from earth and we have to view them through a vision obstructing,disruptive atmosphere and so when looking through the supposedly no atmosphere sky from the surface of the moon,the astronauts should have seen and the films and photos should have shown hundreds,perhaps thousands of vibrantly flickering and clearly visible stars and we dont...

I have a very simple experiment for you to conduct. Some morning around 8:00 am when the sky is clear of clouds, walk outside and look up and see if you can see the stars. What do you see? It will be difficult to see much of anything if you live where I do. And, you certainly will not be able to see the stars.

Because we are trying to see stars through the vision distorting atmosphere of earth,but on the moon, there is supposedly no atmosphere and so there should be many hundreds,perhaps thousands of clearly visible stars seen within the nasa films and photos and there are not and that,imo,is yet another in a long line of glaringly obvious moon mission hoaxes and deceptions...

Originally posted by blocula
Because we are trying to see stars through the vision distorting atmosphere of earth,but on the moon, there is supposedly no atmosphere and so there should be many hundreds,perhaps thousands of clearly visible stars seen within the nasa films and photos and there are not and that,imo,is yet another in a long line of glaringly obvious moon mission hoaxes and deceptions...

Oh for.... read the cites!!!!!! Oh wait, they contradict your driv- your theories, I mean your theories!

Bloc face facts, you are D-E-B-U-N-K-E-D

reply to post by blocula

Go study about cameras.. As you are ignorant to how they work...

You have a search engine use it

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by Gibborium

Originally posted by blocula

 

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. Why are the stars too faint? We see multitudes of stars from earth and we have to view them through a vision obstructing,disruptive atmosphere and so when looking through the supposedly no atmosphere sky from the surface of the moon,the astronauts should have seen and the films and photos should have shown hundreds,perhaps thousands of vibrantly flickering and clearly visible stars and we dont...

I have a very simple experiment for you to conduct. Some morning around 8:00 am when the sky is clear of clouds, walk outside and look up and see if you can see the stars. What do you see? It will be difficult to see much of anything if you live where I do. And, you certainly will not be able to see the stars.

Because we are trying to see stars through the vision distorting atmosphere of earth,but on the moon, there is supposedly no atmosphere and so there should be many hundreds,perhaps thousands of clearly visible stars seen within the nasa films and photos and there are not and that,imo,is yet another in a long line of glaringly obvious moon mission hoaxes and deceptions...

Are you too stupid to read or something?

Originally posted by denver22

TO MR BLOCULAR.... THIS SUMS YOU UP READ....

If however, in this situation, they still insist that they are right, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence, then they shift from a position of being ignorant - they are no longer unaware of the facts - to a position of being stupid.

P.S since you like quotes and sayings etc , I wrote this just for you ..

Originally posted by blocula
Because we are trying to see stars through the vision distorting atmosphere of earth,but on the moon, there is supposedly no atmosphere and so there should be many hundreds,perhaps thousands of clearly visible stars seen within the nasa films and photos and there are not and that,imo,is yet another in a long line of glaringly obvious moon mission hoaxes and deceptions...

For the love of God, how many times do people have to point out EVERY APOLLO MISSION HAPPENED DURING THE LUNAR DAY how many stars can you see during the day? If you're still not convinced research the camera settings used on the EVA's and get a manual camera, set it to the same settings and go outside at night and try and take pictures of stars, tell us what happens.

I don't think it matters whether we actually went to the moon or not. My question is why we decided to go to the moon in the first place. Was it so necessary that every citizen had to work for a month or more to pay for this mission just for bragging rights. The cost of unnecessary programs throughout the world makes everyone's life harder. We could have an easy life on earth if it wasn't for these special interest groups. The cost of the nuclear arsenal is another thing that caused a lowering of quality of life for everyone in the world. Why do humans have to work hard all their lives so some become powerful or prestigious in our society. I question why we fund all this crap because the cost seems to keep escalating as the technology gets more dangerous. We are giving powers to certain individuals in all our societies that they shouldn't have. How can we have world peace with all the weapons we keep making. Then some in government want to take away our guns which could be used to protect ourselves and put food on the table.

reply to post by blocula

But it is the same Sun! The light is exactly the same. The only thing the Earth's atmosphere does, including pollutants, is to refract the light. Refraction = 1: deflection from a straight path undergone by a light ray or energy wave in passing obliquely from one medium (as air) into another (as glass) in which its velocity is different 2: the change in the apparent position of a celestial body due to bending of the light rays emanating from it as they pass through the atmosphere; also : the correction to be applied to the apparent position of a body because of this bending 3: the action of distorting an image by viewing through a medium; Webster's Online Dictionary

This refraction is minimal, even with smog and other pollutants in it. The atmosphere does not inhibit the light of the stars. It is the brilliance of the Sun shine that creates the problem. Your eyes and a camera must be adjusted to the brilliance during the day. Have you ever walked in from outside where the Sun is brightly shining into a dark building and could not see? To see the faint light from the stars, your eyes must be dark adapted, and the Sun light must be over come, as in removed.

If a camera were to be set as to be able to take a picture of the stars, the settings would be so wide open that if it was taken during the day, the negative would receive so much light that it would completely over be over exposed and show nothing but white on the photo.

Originally posted by rickymouse
The cost of unnecessary programs throughout the world makes everyone's life harder. We could have an easy life on earth if it wasn't for these special interest groups.

Look up NASA Spinoffs (Link 1, Link 2). Also, funding large programs like the Apollo program can have a positive economic impact.

Could you explain how that makes everyone's life harder?

reply to post by blocula

Because we are trying to see stars through the vision distorting atmosphere of earth

At 8:00 a.m.? That's not the problem.
After you read Gibborium's reply please update us with your amended position on this. I really am hoping that you misunderstood the question or something and don't really believe what you said.

Bloc listen the charlatans have programed you from a young age to believe their lies and deceit..
You cannot answer can you, because you will not understand basic knowledge of how it all works..
It too kept me in sheep mode until one day i grew out of it all and opened my eyes to the truth that is easily available by using a search engine , to study the facts against the hoaxes.. guess what your charlatans have deceived you and kept you asleep to the facts around you!

P.S go get a camera and do what others have said for you to do..Also if you are still confused and think we all lie, then look up photography and how the camera works .
Use your search engine buddy .... wake up man

reply to post by blocula


Bloc listen my friend


A Stargazing Lesson From Apollo 11: Just for you again...

“If there is no air on the Moon and the lunar sky is black even in daylight, why can’t we see any stars in the photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts?”

Please read bloc carefully...


Some take this lack of stars as a sign the moon landings were a hoax. But the real answer is fairly simple…

The astronauts landed on the moon in daylight. So they set their fancy Hasselblad cameras to expose images of bright, sunlit lunar panaromas and their fellow white-suited astronauts. The camera apertures and shutter speeds for daylight were too restrictive to let enough starlight into the camera to expose the film. So, no stars in the daylight images from the moon. It’s just like taking a picture in a bright sunlit desert here on Earth, then using the exact same camera settings to take pictures of stars at night. It won’t work.

Originally posted by rickymouse
I don't think it matters whether we actually went to the moon or not. My question is why we decided to go to the moon in the first place.

To sum it up for you.. "TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO OVER MAN HAS GONE BEFORE"

DENY IGNORANCE