← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · SummersDay
Thread ID: 12170 | Posts: 55 | Started: 2004-02-05
2004-02-05 23:22 | User Profile
[color=blue][size=4]NASA FAKES IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN............[/size][/color] The first photo below is of the aurora and was taken by Don Pettit from the International Space Station (somewhere over Canada early 2002).
[img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/view-apollo-17.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/view-moon.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/as11-40-5943-crop.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/view-earth.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg[/img]
The 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th pictures are from the NASA archives. They were cropped, shrunk, expanded and/or rotated to be similar to the photo taken by Don Pettit from the International Space Station.
They can be found at the following addresses:
[url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-148-22685.jpg]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-148-22685.jpg[/url] [url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/as12-51-7507.jpg]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/as12-51-7507.jpg[/url] [url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5943.jpg]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5943.jpg[/url] [url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-148-22726.jpg]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-148-22726.jpg[/url]
The second photo is a similar view (to that of Don Pettit) of the Earth taken from Apollo 17 before "heading to the moon". The forth photo is supposedly of the lunar lander descending to the moon (taken from the "orbiting" Apollo 12 command module). The sixth photo is supposedly a photo of an Apollo 11 astronaut "on the lunar surface". The eighth photo is another view of the Earth taken from Apollo 17 "on the way to the moon".
NASA gave the Don Pettit photo wide distribution, apparently unaware of its implications. However, the public soon pointed out that this photo provided evidence that quite clearly contradicted a well known piece of NASA propaganda.
In the first photo we have a photo of the Earth bathed in sunlight, we have the green glow of the aurora and hundreds of stars in the blackness of space. Since the photo was taken from the International Space Station there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of these stars.
In the second photo we have a photo of the Earth bathed in sunlight, and we have the blackness of space without a single star to be seen. Since the photo was taken from the Earth orbit there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of the stars.
In the forth photo we have a photo of the moon bathed in sunlight and we have the blackness of space without a single star to be seen. Since the photo was taken from "lunar orbit" there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of the stars.
In the sixth photo we have a photo of the moon bathed in sunlight and we have the blackness of space without a single star to be seen. Since the photo was taken from the "lunar surface" there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of the stars.
In the eighth photo we have a photo of the Earth bathed in sunlight, and we have the blackness of space without a single star to be seen. Since the photo was taken "on the way to the moon" there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of the stars.
[color=red]So why do we see stars in the first photo (the Don Pettit photo) but not in any of the Apollo photos?[/color]
The reason given by NASA for the absence of stars from all photos taken during the moon landings, is that the lunar surface was so bright that it drowned out the relatively dull starlight, much like the Earths atmosphere drowns out the stars during the day. If you don't give the matter much thought, you might buy into this explanation, but a moments reflection reveals that it has a fatal flaw. What if you directed your gaze, or your camera, away from the lunar surface and directly into the blackness of space (so that you, or your camera, can only see the blackness of space and nothing else). Now you have no light at all from the lunar surface to drown out the stars, in fact, since the moon has no atmosphere there is nothing obscuring your, or your cameras, view of the stars and NASA's explanation clearly fails.
On reflection it is clear that NASA's argument is silly, however, many people have accepted it. Now, if these same people were to be given a photo showing stars in a situation similar to that of the moon landings (just like the first photo above) they would be forced to question, and possibly reject, NASA's explanation.
This possibility sent shivers down many peoples spines and it was decided that the original photo of the aurora above, would have to be doctored to try and make its connection to the faked moon landings less obvious. What happened was that original photo was horizontally and vertically inverted (for some reason or other) and then blurred in order to fade out the hundreds of stars.
The new inverted and blurred version of the original can be found at [url=http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ESC/small/ISS006/ISS006-E-18372.JPG]http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ESC/small/ISS006/ISS006-E-18372.JPG[/url].
In order to compare the two I have horizontally and vertically inverted the original and placed it immediately below NASA's doctored version.
[img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006-e-18372.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/aurora-iss-invert.jpg[/img]
As you can see the blurring of the original has been quite successful in fading out the stars. NASA fakes it one more time.
Below is a photo of Don Pettit taking photos from the International Space Station
[img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/don-pettit.jpg[/img]
By the way, the reason that we cannot see the stars on Earth in the daytime is because the atmosphere reflects (mainly blue) light back into your eyes and this light drowns out the light from the stars. If the Earth had no atmosphere you would see stars both during the day and the night.
2004-02-06 01:12 | User Profile
The atmosphere absorbs blue light, it doesn't reflect it.[oops!]
The real proof the moon landings were faked is here:
[url]http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm[/url]
[IMG]http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/images/moonlanding05.jpg[/IMG] "Just way too many things wrong with this picture!
Notice the absence of stars again.
The arrows indicate the various directions in which shadows are falling, again showing evidence of inconsistent scene illumination. Yet there is something even more obviously wrong with this picture.
If the length of the lower support column of the lunar lander was 4 feet tall, this would indicate that the astronaut was over 8 feet tall, which none of the astronauts were.
Another careless mistake from NASA."
2004-02-06 01:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leveller]The atmosphere absorbs blue light, it doesn't reflect it.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. If the atmosphere absorbed blue light then it could not possibly appear blue. If the atmosphere absorbed blue light then the blue light could not possibly get to your eyes for you to see.
2004-02-06 08:17 | User Profile
Leveller,
Is that an armadillo poised to strike? I guess they did shoot that picture down at the Johnson Space Center here in Texas.
Only thing missing is a nearby empty bottle of Lone Star beer.
2004-02-06 12:31 | User Profile
SD, can I buy some drugs from you? You've obviously got some good hash, dude.
2004-02-06 13:26 | User Profile
Oh geeeeez.
Ruffin, Cape Canaveral, Fla.
2004-02-06 16:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SummersDay]Wrong. If the atmosphere absorbed blue light then it could not possibly appear blue. If the atmosphere absorbed blue light then the blue light could not possibly get to your eyes for you to see.[/QUOTE] Yeah sorry, I don't know where that came from.
2004-02-06 16:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Leveller,
Is that an armadillo poised to strike? I guess they did shoot that picture down at the Johnson Space Center here in Texas.
Only thing missing is a nearby empty bottle of Lone Star beer.[/QUOTE]
Tex, It's a [URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/tv/clangers/index.shtml]clanger[/URL], from an old but still repeated childrens TV show. I never noticed they look like armadillos before.
2004-02-06 23:42 | User Profile
[img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e28068.jpg[/img]
[color=blue]Stars, stars, stars, stars, stars, stars, stars,...
A shot of "black" space from the International Space Station taken by Don Pettit with a stock optical camera.[/color]
2004-02-07 05:21 | User Profile
Compare these.
[img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e32103.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e39746.jpg[/img]
Compare these photos taken from the International Space Station.
2004-02-07 06:45 | User Profile
A basic course in lighting and photography would clear up many of the questions and misunderstandings people have about photography, "blackness", shadows, space, etc. There are so many variables when it comes to f-stops, film speed, lenses and settings, it goes on and on, one doesn't know where to start. But the flat earthers keep going at it.
2004-02-08 05:31 | User Profile
Roy Batty -- [color=red]The two pictures below show an amazing discrepancy that must be adequately explained.
Instead of saying that you think there might possibly exist an explanation that you might be able to find if you read a book, why don't you give us YOUR EXPLANATION.
Don't be a flat-earther, give us YOUR EXPLANATION.
Give us your entire argument as to the reason there are no stars in the 2nd photo. Make it concise, yet make sure you make your argument.[/color]
2004-02-08 06:38 | User Profile
Roy (& anyone else curious about this):
A recent book called Dark Moon has a pretty comprehensive analysis of all sorts of anomalies in the NASA pics. The authors are Mary Bennett and David S. Percy.
I was convinced that NASA -- at the very least -- faked some of the pictures or at least sweetened them up for the public. It's a long (600+ pages) book, but lots of interesting stuff. The book does not deny that America got to the moon. It casts an awful lot of dirt on the official story and that's the main thing.
2004-02-08 07:20 | User Profile
Where's Arator when you need him?
2004-02-08 09:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]A recent book called Dark Moon has a pretty comprehensive analysis of all sorts of anomalies in the NASA pics. The authors are Mary Bennett and David S. Percy.[/QUOTE]
Following up on your mention of the book Dark Moon I came across a series of 12 webpages devoted to it. They begin at
[url]http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm[/url]
Looks like good/interesting stuff.
2004-02-09 01:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SummersDay]Roy Batty -- [color=red]The two pictures below show an amazing discrepancy that must be adequately explained.
Instead of saying that you think there might possibly exist an explanation that you might be able to find if you read a book, why don't you give us YOUR EXPLANATION.
Don't be a flat-earther, give us YOUR EXPLANATION.
Give us your entire argument as to the reason there are no stars in the 2nd photo. Make it concise, yet make sure you make your argument.[/color][/QUOTE]
Hehehehe. You need a lesson on photography? Could you not understand my earlier post? Are you a troll trying to work your way to linking WN's valid beliefs with this bizarre crap? What amazing discrepancies? Get out a camera and take some pictures - of the same subject - while adjusting the speed, stops, shutter/aperture settings, etc. for each shot. Don't forget to account for the atmosphere or lack of :tnguess: .The dishonest trick of occasionally comparing captured video images and still photos doesn't go unnoticed either. Your disingenous answering without answering belies another agenda. Same silly crap regarding the space program that was posted by an idiot here a few months ago who never posted again when it turned out he claimed he worked for a certain company - at the same time my father worked there. He never came back to post again. It's tiresome dealing with trolls working their roundabout routes to tie the space program, white nationalism, jewish conspiracies and malfeasance to things like the Piltdown man.
Anomalies exist in photos/video images of all manner of subjects. That's the nature of the science/art.
If you zhids are so jealous of the space program, develop your own. Please. Use it to leave the planet in a fleet of bagel shaped ships we can call Exodus II.
2004-02-09 01:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Roy Batty]If you zhids are so jealous of the space program, develop your own. Please. Use it to leave the planet in a fleet of bagel shaped ships we can call Exodus II.[/QUOTE]
Heading towards Jewpiter. But anti-semites on Europa must be waiting for them, already.
2004-02-09 04:03 | User Profile
Also see the thread
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=12220]PROOF OF THE NASA HOAX?[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=12220[/url]
2004-02-09 04:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Roy Batty]Your disingenous answering without answering belies,...[/QUOTE] [color=red]Your disingenous answering without answering belies, your total inability to think logically, or the poorness of you position.
Why don't you give us YOUR EXPLANATION (as requested) then dork.
I realize this site is run by Jews, but hey, I don't care.[/color]
2004-02-09 07:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SummersDay][color=red]I realize this site is run by Jews, but hey, I don't care.[/color][/QUOTE]
That's more interesting than your stuff about NASA. How is OD part of the Zionist Conspiracy? Inquiring minds want to know. :glare:
2004-02-09 07:51 | User Profile
O.D. is run by Jews? Well nothing would surprise me.. If you think that why post here? You can be parnoid all you want about this, like they are collecting names etc.. So just run along and hide in your closet, and turn the lights off. Mean while, if you want NASA and UFO STUFF,get over to [url]www.rense.com[/url] or Freak Republic.. We are in a fight for our existence and what are you giving U.S. to inspire a people who built this country with their creativity, and the sweat of our worked and broken bodies with hard labor. If we do no awaken a core of our people, I mean the best we are surely headed for a NKVD, Marshall Tito and perhaps much worse could evolve for U.S. See World Net Daily on S.A. at [url]www.newnation.org[/url] If this would happen in S.A. what would happend here?
2004-02-09 09:39 | User Profile
I realize this site is run by Jews, but hey, I don't care.
You couldn't be more off base with that. Like the others, I'd like to know how you come up with that.
2004-02-09 11:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]You couldn't be more off base with that. Like the others, I'd like to know how you come up with that.[/QUOTE] Well, as some know, I spent a lot of time at liberty forum. Liberty forum is definitely run by Jews and friends.
This was easy to tell because even though they harped on endlessly about Israel and Jewish matters, they totally ignored most and in the end all of my posts about Israel. The so-called Arabs and anti-semites were not interested, the Jews were not interested.
To try and silence my voice, the administration organized a run on my so-called fame points. I lost enough points in one day to become invisible to most users.
On fairly regular occasions the system administrators hit my firewall with weird IP packets. I'm not sure what they were designed to do. My firewall records such packets and where they come from. But for some reason they did not want to ban me.
To become visible again I registered a new user name and continued.
Anyway, it had become apparent that some of the "Arabs" and "anti-semites" were actually parts being played by people who were not Arabs or anti-semites. In my view they had to be Jews.
When I told them this to their face, and explained it to those who were not part of the game they though up various reasons to ban me.
On attempt was to ban me because I had two user names. In the end I was allowed to post under my original user name, JamesBond. For some reason they still did not ban me.
When I persisted in pointing out the slip-ups of those playing Arabs, etc, many got quite angry, but they still did not ban me.
One day I accidently found out how to flag people under a different user name, I tried it a couple more times to see if it really worked, apparently that was enough for those who wanted me banned, to effect a banning.
This site smells like liberty forum, and not just because lots of user names are the same as at liberty forum. And they stated they were not Jews/Jewish masons, but they were.
There were many give-aways, but the ones I liked were when Jews pretended to be Arabs, because they often tripped up.
Anyway, the great majority of forums have been set up by Jews in order to subtly influence everyone.
If you have posted at enough sites you will have seen this (its very obvious to me).
It is the similarity to liberty forum, and the fact that so many sites are run by Jews that led me to say what I did.
And, if you didn't want to know, you should not of asked.
2004-02-09 14:07 | User Profile
Just think...we get to go through this all over again [and soon!] when "we" "land" on "Mars"! (The beauty of conspiracy theories is that they keep the quotation key as busy as any letter or numeral on one's keyboard.)
2004-02-09 16:01 | User Profile
Lithium anyone?
:unsure:
For what it's worth, my grandfather didn't believe we landed on the moon.
2004-02-09 17:07 | User Profile
And, if you didn't want to know, you should not of asked.
Summerday,
Oh, no, to the contrary. I always am curious about the strange beliefs that some people have and how they arrive at them. We have been accused of a lot of things in the past, but being a cryto-semitic one is a new one.
2004-02-09 19:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Summerday,
Oh, no, to the contrary. I always am curious about the strange beliefs that some people have and how they arrive at them. We have been accused of a lot of things in the past, but being a cryto-semitic one is a new one.[/QUOTE] Sometimes I have difficulty differentiating between masons and Jews.
This is because there are so many Jews in the masons, particularly the US masons.
As far as I can figure the masons are a seperate more powerful organization with many Jews at the highest levels.
Jews are powerful because they have their own organizations (which are closed to non Jews including non-Jewish masons) and also have tremendous influence in the masons.
Jews themselves are usually easy to spot.
They are brainless parrots that adhere to some party line that is handed down from above.
Jews from all over the world parrot the same lines and show very little creativity.
2004-02-10 00:04 | User Profile
I do agree with the statement that jews aren't very creative. Smart, but not creative. Good at stealing the work of others and taking credit. Or just taking credit.
Your rants about faked moon landings and bizarre anomalies in photographs are amusing to me for a couple of reasons. My father worked on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs for one thing - besides other weapons related projects. More importantly, I work in the SFX/Visual FX biz - that's why I find the reasoning (or lack of) behind your conclusions so funny. It literally would take several pages to explain the basics of photography and imaging just to get you started on the right track.
Buy yourself a copy of Photoshop or something similar, and start working on photos you think are faked - once you gain some basic knowledge. You might find that while most of the anomalies in NASA photos are easily explained, artifacts of common problems, etc., you will also be able to look at even copies of the famous "Oswald holding a rifle" pictures and see where they were in fact altered. Despite all the noise and "proof" in the media to the contrary. This will give you something to do while undergoing treatment for whatever malady is causing you to accuse the folks behind OD of being zhidsters.
The jews were always jealous and frightened of the space program. Many knowledgable men such as Ivor Benson have written about this. Killing the space program was/is one of the goals of the zionists. Most of them have neither the interest nor courage for seeing anything like this through. The West, whites, must never be allowed any grand triumphs. Any conquests. All praise must go to ... well, you know. We here at OD keep in mind that the West is dealing with an intelligent group of people who have NEVER created their own civilization, much less anything else beyond misery for the peoples that have allowed them into their midst. Take your medication, and come back in 6 weeks when it has taken effect.
2004-02-10 00:21 | User Profile
Roy,
This is true enough for those who remember the Jew led campaign to disown the efforts of the German scientists lead by v. Braum brought over at the end of WW II. I remember the Jews raising hell about them at Huntsville, accusing them of being "war criminals", ect.
2004-02-10 01:46 | User Profile
Roy Batty is real good at saying nothing and pretending he actually knows something.
Roy Batty is useless at providing any real information at all.
Please Roy Batty. Answer at least one of the questions raised in this thread.
Remember these two photos:
[img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e32103.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e39746.jpg[/img]
Don't be a flat-earther Roy Batty, give us YOUR EXPLANATION.
Why are there stars in one and not in the other.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station visible in both pictures.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station in shadow.
Stop avoiding the questions and answer them since you know so much.
[color=red]I find your ability to rant, and yet say nothing of any importance, quite amusing. How long did it take you to develop this skill?[/color]
2004-02-10 02:50 | User Profile
Thorazine might be the answer for ya'.
Film speed. Exposure settings. Lenses used. Where do we start? Well, where do we start when dealing with an idiot? Or with a zhidster playing both sides? As stated much earlier: The aperture settings could be different in each photo - as could the speed and type of film used. Hence the pickup of background elements will differ. Light also bounces/reflects off of objects, but that is beyond you I suppose. You aren't smart enough to hold off on the "lighting" question until you have an idea of the shape of the rest of the structure, etc. as it is in relation to the camera? Moron. You will pick up more or less bg depending on these factors among others. But I suspect you probably know this. Your focus settings of course affect the depth of field in each image. Gee, what types of cameras and lenses were used in the pics? Think that doesn't make a difference? Oooops, we're also dealing with images that don't have do deal with atmospheric interference - which can make a difference even in photographing a subject fairly close to the camera. Borrow a camera from your Uncle Abe and do what I said earlier - get different types of film and take pics of the same subject. Change the settings on the camera. Take pics of the night sky, if you aren't afraid to go outside of your aluminum foil lined digs when the sun goes down. Why don't you try this - OR - have an answer for these suggestions?
Sertorius - that's true. Yidsters like Summersday (the heat must have given him hallucinations and delusions) raised Hell over Von Braun and others. That's one reason Werner doesn't get the credit he should in the history books. The jews stepped up their campaigns for welfare spending, social programs, etc. in direct correlation and proportion to the successes of the space program. The program was effectively killed in the early 70's, hence we see such backward programs like the shuttle, etc.
Is Summersday faking it? :D
2004-02-10 03:13 | User Profile
[color=red]Well, where do we start when dealing with the idiot Roy Batty?[/color]
Please Roy Batty, calm down and take your medicine.
[color=red]Now that you have had another rant, you probably feel better and are now up to answering the questions (try to answer at least one Roy Batty).[/color]
Why are there stars in one and not in the other.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station visible in both pictures.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station in shadow.
[color=blue]Stop avoiding the questions and answer them since you know so much.[/color]
2004-02-10 05:56 | User Profile
Yep, you're a zhid. Ignore answers and go right on screaming. Then again, maybe you have piss poor reading comprehension. Read my post again. Better yet, try some of the suggestions. I will admit that Mad Russian's explanation of your presence here is accurate.
2004-02-10 08:04 | User Profile
Boy what a grump.
Look, all I am requesting is simple answers to these questions.
[color=blue]Why are there stars in one and not in the other.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station visible in both pictures.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station in shadow.[/color]
If you don't know the answers, then just say so.
This won't prove that you are ignorant, just that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to nasa photographs.
2004-02-10 23:31 | User Profile
[color=red]Posted to wrong forum[/color]
2004-02-10 23:55 | User Profile
Olivery Cromwell is a suspect in my book too, as a potential Judeo-"Christian" or a zhid.
Hates the Orthodox.
Spells antiSemite and acknowledges the term as valid.
Hostile to "holocaust deniers".
Overall crankiness.
2004-02-11 00:02 | User Profile
Did we get a thread crossed up or something? Why is a post concerning Cromwell and revisionist history on the NASA thread?
2004-02-11 00:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SummersDay]Boy what a grump.
Look, all I am requesting is simple answers to these questions.
[color=blue]Why are there stars in one and not in the other.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station visible in both pictures.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station in shadow.[/color]
If you don't know the answers, then just say so.
This won't prove that you are ignorant, just that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to nasa photographs.[/QUOTE]
Here you go, from an earlier post. I just want to see you ignore it and dance your dance again!
Film speed. Exposure settings. Lenses used. Where do we start? Well, where do we start when dealing with an idiot? Or with a zhidster playing both sides? As stated much earlier: The aperture settings could be different in each photo - as could the speed and type of film used. Hence the pickup of background elements will differ. Light also bounces/reflects off of objects, but that is beyond you I suppose. You aren't smart enough to hold off on the "lighting" question until you have an idea of the shape of the rest of the structure, etc. as it is in relation to the camera? Moron. You will pick up more or less bg depending on these factors among others. But I suspect you probably know this. Your focus settings of course affect the depth of field in each image. Gee, what types of cameras and lenses were used in the pics? Think that doesn't make a difference?
2004-02-11 02:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Roy Batty]Here you go, from an earlier post. I just want to see you ignore it and dance your dance again![/QUOTE]
Roy Batty, are you all there? Are you totally stupid.
Try answering the questions :
[color=red]Why are there stars in one and not in the other.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station visible in both pictures.
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station in shadow.[/color]
[color=blue]Stop avoiding the questions and answer them since you know so much.[/color]
2004-02-11 03:12 | User Profile
Also see -- THE NASA SATURN V HOAX -- which can be found here
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=12257[/url]
2004-02-11 03:27 | User Profile
If this is going to be a UFO's and NASA debate forum, then I will no longer recommend it, till it stops. This is the mission of Summer's douche. The SOB's who gave U.S. social up heavel, and constant war since at least 1913, and race war with their proxy army of non-whites and all the Marxist Law's of 1965 un civil hiring for government hire's did not fight fair, and it was done illegally too, that is a fact, just allot chutzpah it was. They were deterimined to undermine U.S. and demoralize, and rob U.S. this has been down. ONE anti American group spends 60 million a year to screw U.S., and train our police. This board should flush, as fast the Freak Republic board does and SO MANY OTHER'S. I am not for being fair.. I posted Kevin MacDonald's facts on the source of our immigration laws of who did it and the hows and why's, and I was banned pronto, at an anti-immigration board that was really a JDL front a year ago. Let's get real, we are up against and some powerful and murderous people.. What they did in Russia was an epoch in the history of race war. Machine Gunning Wounded U.S. Sailor's in Yellow Life Raft's from the U.S.S. Liberty... Read it.. [url]www.ussliberty.org[/url]. Then look at Edwin R. Wrights oral inteview at [url]www.trumanlibrary.org[/url] we are up against dangerous powerful, crazie's...At least confine it to the science thread. That's my opinion
2004-02-11 03:48 | User Profile
I'm starting to think you oughta change your name to SummersEve instead.
2004-02-11 03:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]If this is going to be a UFO's and NASA debate forum[/QUOTE]
[color=red]Since you do not like the content, and you have contributed nothing of value to this thread, maybe you should leave it and find a UFO thread more to your tastes.
In the meantime, maybe you can answer the questions that Roy Batty is unable to answer.[/color]
Remember these two photos:
[img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e32103.jpg[/img] [img]http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e39746.jpg[/img]
[color=blue]Why are there stars in one and not in the other?
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station visible in both pictures?
What is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station in shadow?[/color]
2004-02-11 04:14 | User Profile
Summerday,
I remember these photos too well. From now on kindly link to the intitial ones you posted in the first place instead of constantly reposting them. Your question has been answer upteen times already. We have a limit on the number of photos allowed on one thread by a poster.
2004-02-11 04:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Your question has been answer upteen times already. We have a limit on the number of photos allowed on one thread by a poster.[/QUOTE]
[color=red]If you feel that the questions (note the S) have been adequately answered and that you understand the answers, than please repeat the answers in your own words for me.
I do not see a single answer, that amounts to more than -- "BECAUSE."
I am sure the great Sertorius, will be able to explain the answers that have apparently been given, so that even I might understand them.
Thank you Sertorius. Thank you Sertorius. Thank you Sertorius. [/color]
2004-02-11 04:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SummersDay]I do not see a single answer, that amounts to more than -- "BECAUSE." [/QUOTE]
That's not true, I told you when you first posted them. Let's repeat in baby talk:
An object in space reflects light depending on its color, attitude and distance from the primary light source.
The primary light source in the second photo is clearly the sun, and the color of the craft is starkly white. This will give off a high level of reflection - a bright albedo. So you have to close the lens or you will fog your film. Closing it kills the background stars, which are not as bright as either the sun or the craft's albedo.
In the picture that shows the stars the primary light source very well might be the stars. And the craft has more muted coloring. It has a low albedo. So to take advantage of the useful light, we must open our lens nearly all the way. Having done so we can take a picture. And we'll see the stars.
The two photos cannot be more different and simple optical physics is all you need here.
2004-02-11 05:09 | User Profile
At last, some partial (not very good) answers.
I know the answers to these questions -- it is you (apparently not too bright Jews) who do not.
[QUOTE=Ragnar]An object in space reflects light depending on its color, attitude and distance from the primary light source.[/QUOTE]
[color=red]This says nothing -- its like saying -- an object on Earth reflects light depending on its color, attitude and distance from the primary light source.
A big SO WHAT turkey?[/color]
[QUOTE=Ragnar]The primary light source in the second photo is clearly the sun.[/QUOTE]
[color=red]Correct -- Now, what is illuminating the portion of the International Space Station in shadow (in the second photo)?[/color]
[QUOTE=Ragnar]shows the stars the primary light source very well might be the stars[/QUOTE]
[color=red]Good boy. This may well be true, but it is not. Do you know why?[/color]
2004-02-11 05:28 | User Profile
Sumerday,
Don't get on to me for something of your own making. You cooked this broth, the others are making you eat it and if you can't take that there are plenty of other forums that cater to your (bizzare, IMO) tastes.
I won't answer your question for this reason. I don't give a damn about this crap. For that matter, I am not interested in who shot JFK or the skull and bones, nor the illuminati or whether the moon is made up of green cheese.
While there may be some grounds for claims in some of the things I listed above I confine myself to things that are based more in fact than conspiracy theories, specifically, the Council on Foreign Relations and Organized Jewry. Those things more often than not can be documented and therefore it is easier to bring folks to conclude on their own that the latter are the problem than to bring in all this other stuff. That only causes more confusion where the K.I.S.S. prinicple should reign supreme, IMO.
Maybe Batty is correct about you. I believe garbage like you have posted above serves only to cause needless dissention while at the same time making the rest of us look like lunatics. I will even go so far as to write that some of the nuttier studies originate from the groups that bear a good hard look.
The only redeeming thing about this thread have been the outrageously funny things the other member have written to you.
Now, if you get your butt off your shoulders you'll get along with folks better here.
2004-02-11 06:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar] In the picture that shows the stars the primary light source very well might be the stars[/QUOTE]
I would list them in the order of decreasing importance:
Light sources from the station.
Light from the earth surface.
Moon light.
Stars.
2004-02-11 06:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]I would list them in the order of decreasing importance:
Light sources from the station.
Light from the earth surface.
Moon light.
Stars.[/QUOTE] [color=red]Surely you meant
In the order of decreasing importance:
Light from the Sun (Sunlight)
Light from the Earth (Earthlight)
Light from the Moon (Moonlight)
Light from the Stars (Starlight)
Light sources from the station (next to irrelevant light)[/color]
2004-02-11 18:38 | User Profile
For what it is worth, I'll toss my two cents in here.
I believe we did land on the Moon. I also believe it was the zenith of Western achievements, led by European Whites. No other race in the history of the world can lay claim to such an achievement (or any of the others that we have stamped on History), which was roughly the equivalant of throwing a dart 50 miles and hitting a bullseye. Not only did we land men on the Moon, we actually brought them home, alive, to tell the tale.
In today's environment, such a thing may seem like small potatos, but in the context of the history of the world, such a thing is a titanic achievement. Conspiracy theorists abound, attempting to discredit or diminish the moon landing for whatever reason, most likely out of jealousy. Their pitiful societies cannot even hope to begin to comprehend [I]HOW[/I] to attempt such a thing, and so they try to discredit those who made it happen. It the same the world over with small-minded, envious little people. Tear at the great however they can to make the small and insignificant look better than what they actually are.
Ausonius
2004-02-12 04:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]I would list them in the order of decreasing importance:
Light sources from the station.
Light from the earth surface.
Moon light.
Stars.[/QUOTE]
I actually asked about this at a local NASA affiliate, the Glenn (formerly Lewis) Space Center near Cleveland. They told me that for star-gazing & photography it's best to view when they're on the night side of the earth.
This seems logical enough since getting the earth to block the sun would give you the best view of the stars you can get without packing up and leaving the galaxy. But I didn't ask about the station's lights or how much they would interfere.
As a former sailor I can only assume it would be like standing a night watch at sea. Even with running lights it's really dark. Imagine your car on a dark night with nothing but the light from the dashboard.
I'd love to stand a night watch in space and see the stars without an atmosphere. Now that's gotta be a show!
2004-02-13 15:53 | User Profile
The Government could even plant anthrax in Iraq and you think they could fake a moon landing?
Did you know that Russia monitored the radio transmissions and verified that they were coming from the moon.
If America faked the moon landing, the Russians would have been screaming fraud.
2004-02-13 19:25 | User Profile
Weren't you guys listening? Summersday has already covered this.
The Russians were willing partners in the fake moon landings because, really, the US and the Soviets ---despite both blowing billions in a illusory "competition"--- were actually two squads playing for the same zionist team.
2004-07-03 15:57 | User Profile
Something can be true, even if not actual... we can manipulate fire was once true, but not actual... Then wow, lo'and behold... FIRE. Back you Lions, back... Important to believe... Perception and reality are intertwined in this world in a dynamic relationship, which not only affects, but also even creates new realities. That's what NASA and the politicos KNOW... I believe we went to the Moon... But I'm all growed-up... if we didn't cool too... I still don't know what materials were used to save the astronauts from the radiation out there... Even if you jet around the country and the world, it's like a dose of a dozen Xrays per flight. I hate flying. I always wondered why I didn't feel good in those damnable jets... Good move at the time, though, if we didn't go to the Moon... to say we did. Like Regan and his Star Wars... "Mr. Gorba- tear down that Wall?" You always have to weigh "shit", and have "spidey-sense?" It's the next best thing to intelligence. I wish I was smarter. Sorry.
P.S. weren't our Japanese lovely friends, (I like most of'em I've met...Hi, hi, hi!) sending a satellite close enough themselves to the moon, to among other things, see if the USA flag, was still there? I haven't read all the posts above, but weren't the photos due in about now? Wait... Saturday Night Live... Photos show it's a Japanese Flag... ohh, my gosh, who would'of thunk it????
Teach it in school, and that's what the next generation will believe...