The Debate NASA Manipulation Thread.

Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:18 pm » by **Deuem**

I feel this is still a fair question that might never be answered but should be,

deuem wrote:
So the question is to Mr Fruit. edit "Now the Third time".

Why would NASA post a photo of an Astronaut in space with out a visor? This would be like committing NASA suicide on line. If you do think it is a real photo. Can you please explain to us how one can survive in space with no visor. On a follow up, if you don't need a visor then it is obvious that you don't need a space suit. So would you confirm that a suit is not needed also. Is NASA is pulling our leg that Space is a vacuum.

Adding to the list, If you do think it is a real photo then why is he not roasted like a burnt chicken on the grill as you have stated before.

Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:33 pm » by **Gbrown**

What reason for "New spy drone has 1.8 gigapixel camera", if i have a high altitude spy satellite? :headscratch:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1108 ... xel-camera

Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:17 pm » by **Frutty**

Rover spirit on husband Hill

I cannot see any spirit, but an arrow drawn on a crappy picture claiming to point at the location where spirit was then, and a plastic model portraying said mars rover :yell:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sol ... mages.html

Ok NASA (and henchmen) is at it again!

Now the shown above scale model of the spirit rover (dusty version) is passed off as opportunity rover taken Dec. 21 to 24, 2011.

Here

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... he-picture

Rotated 180 degs.

Mars' reddish dust covers the Opportunity rover's solar panels in this downward-looking view, assembled from images taken by the NASA probe's panoramic camera from Dec. 21 to 24, 2011. The mosaic was put together in such a way as to omit the mast on which the camera is mounted.

But the spirit rover version of the scale model was taken Oct. 26-29, 2007 according to

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA10128

The deck of NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Spirit is so dusty that the rover almost blends into the dusty background in this image assembled from frames taken by the panoramic camera (Pancam) during the period from Spirit's Sol 1,355 through Sol 1,358 (Oct. 26-29, 2007).

Dust on the solar panels reduces the amount of electrical power the rover can generate from sunlight each sol. Earlier self-portraits by Spirit, such as one taken on Sol 586 (PIA03272), offer a comparison view of cleaner solar panels.

The vertical projection used here produces the best view of the rover deck, though it distorts the ground and antennas somewhat. The eight-pointed star shape near the front of the rover (bottom of the image) marks the location of the camera mast, which is out of view of the Pancam atop the mast.

This mosaic view in approximate true color is a composite of frames taken through the Pancam's filters centered on wavelengths of 600 nanometers, 530 nanometers and 480 nanometers.

:alien51:

Shopped here and there but the scam is evident. :hell:

Wake up

Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:15 am » by **Deuem**

The answer to the dust on the rover was given to you in very good detail on another post by another member and how it is removed. Instead of looking into reality ( sorry maybe you have to look up that word ) And finding out how they do it, you just keep posting the same old photo series again and again and again. I think this is about the tenth time for this series.

If you did not like the answer, prove it wrong. Don't fight it with another 9 postings of the same old same old. Use your brains ( sorry, I will wait while you look that up ) to see if it is possible and then report your findings. Your findings, not J.Whites findings. What can you do to raise the bar of the intellectual thought process. I will sign off now, it will take you all day to figure out ( intellectual thought process )

Fruit, stop being arrogant and use your talents to further mankind instead of trying to turn us into your sheep..........bhaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:39 am » by **Will69ease**

It is perhaps the most iconic image of the 20th century: man landing on the moon, planting an American flag and saying those famous words: "…one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind."

It was an incredible feat. So incredible that many found it hard to believe at the time.

Val Germann, president of the Central Missouri Astronomical Association, said his own grandmother was a skeptic.

"It didn't resonate with her or mean that much to her. She said, 'I don't think that really happened."

"I said, 'Oh they did [walk on the moon]. I know it's hard to believe but they did.'"

Germann, 59, has spent a lifetime studying space: He taught astronomy for more than 20 years at Missouri's Columbia College before retiring. For years he has fielded questions about moon landing conspiracies from curious students, but an online poll conducted earlier this month by Britain's Engineering and Technology magazine was the last straw.

"That is what really made me angry. I'm going, 'This stuff is still going around?'"

The poll claimed that 25 percent of British people "don't believe the Apollo 11 moon landing." Germann decided to prepare a PowerPoint presentation debunking the theories of the moonwalk naysayers and present it on Monday, the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. He's expecting more than 100 people to show up.

"What's going to seal it is the new lunar reconnaissance mission," Germann said. Click HERE to learn more about the images Apollo left behind.

How Many Truly Believe the Moon Landing Was a Hoax?

For the majority of people in the U.S., there's no doubt that the moon landing happened. Just six percent of Americans think the government staged the Apollo moon landings according to a 1999 Gallup poll, the most recent data available. A similar poll by Time/CNN, conducted in 1995, also revealed that six percent believe the moon landings were faked.

Moonwalk conspiracy theories still live on, in large part thanks to the Internet. As the 40th anniversary of the moon landing approaches, the phrase "apollo moon landing hoax" is one of the top 10 hottest searches on Google, perhaps aided by NASA's recent announcement that they accidentally erased the original moon landing footage.

NASA's mistake also caught the attention of Nashville filmmaker Bart Sibrel, one of today's most vocal skeptics decrying government-sponsored moon fakery. He claims the tapes weren't accidentally erased because "they long ago disassembled the machine that could play or record them" and is currently working on a book based on his 2002 documentary, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon."

Sibrel is perhaps best known for a 2002 incident where Buzz Aldrin punched him on camera after Sibrel called Aldrin a thief and a liar during an interview for Sibrel's film. At the time Sibrel had asked Aldrin to swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon.

Several years ago NASA responded to the public's conspiracy fascination by asking Jim Oberg, a former space engineer and the author of 10 books about space flight, to write a book for teachers, challenging the "evidence" presented by moonwalk skeptics who claim NASA faked all six manned lunar landings. But the project was cancelled in 2002 due to political pressure. Opponents suggested the money spent to hire Oberg would be a waste, and the project would end up acknowledging, and therefore lending some degree of credibility, to a small group of conspiracy theorists.

That didn't stop Oberg from writing about various moon hoax claims elsewhere, stating in a 2003 Skeptical Inquirer magazine article that "The popularity of this particular myth is a heaven-sent (or actually, an 'outer-space-sent') opportunity to address fundamental issues of public understanding of technological controversies."

In that vein, let's address some of the most popular claims conspiracy theorists have made about the validity of the moon landing.

The Claim: If We Had Really Visited the Moon, We Would Be Able to Return. Why Haven't We Gone Back?

Going to the moon is expensive.

Between 1961 and 1972, the Apollo program cost $25 billion, according to the NASA Web site. The benefits of landing on the moon are still being questioned to this day, and it's been suggested that another trip to the moon simply isn't necessary.

Germann says "There's no reason to go back."

In 1970, "they canceled three [missions scheduled to fly to the moon] because of budget problems. Quite frankly the moon is giant parking lot, there's just not much there. Space is dangerous place. There's a lot of radiation. And humans become ill in low gravity. It's not comfortable -- it's not someplace you want to live," he added.

The Claim: On the Tape, the Shadows Look Translucent -- That Wouldn't Happen on the Moon. Was This Taped in a Studio with a Floodlight?

The shadows you see in NASA's film footage do seem odd, but Germann says there are several reasons why: the surface of the moon is uneven, and there's "lots of light kicking back from surface of moon."

"If they were faking the thing they would arrange it so that the shadows would look right," he said. "If it was a floodlight the shadows are wrong. The astronaut closer to the [supposed] floodlight would have a longer shadow."

The Claim: There Aren't Any Stars in the Pictures: How Can They Be in Space?

"I have taken thousands of astronomical pictures and I have to work to get pictures of stars," Germann said. "If you expose for the moon or sun then you will not get any stars."

NASA's Web site makes another point about the lighting conditions on the moon: "Astronauts striding across the bright lunar soil in their sunlit spacesuits were literally dazzling. Setting a camera with the proper exposure for a glaring spacesuit would naturally render background stars too faint to see."

The Claim: There Isn't Any Wind on the Moon. The Flag Shouldn't be Rippling

Yes, it is true that there is no air or wind on the moon. Germann explained that the flag moved because the astronauts touched it, creating ripples in the fabric. The flag is attached to a metal pole. If someone were to touch the metal it would vibrate, and so would the flag.

According to the moon hoax rebuttal on the NASA Web site, "Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!"

The Claim: If the Apollo Landed on the Moon, Why Wasn't There a Giant Blast Crater?

Germann explained that the moon is a rock that has been compacted for millions of years. On the top it is "powdery and fluffy" but a half an inch down it's hard.

"The lower layer isn't going to blow," he said.

In addition, the moon's low gravity would have eased the impact of the shuttle.

The Claim: If the Hubble Telescope Is Up There, Why Doesn't It Take a Picture?

The moon is about 240,000 miles away from the earth, whereas the Hubble Telescope orbits approximately 380 miles above the earth.

"This I don't fault people for, it's a technical question," Germann said. "Because of the way the Hubble is operated it can't resolve an object that small.

"In one sense I guess it's good that people are interested enough to doubt [the moon landing]. It's an iconic event, it stands for a whole era. And for that reason it's important to people," Germann said.

But he has little patience for the skeptics. "To say it's a fake is an insult to the many people who worked on this and risked their lives to make it happen. That's what gives it an edge for me."

I will continue this tomorrow. If you have any specific questions, ask me now.

Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:10 am » by **Deuem**

Under many of the LM nozzle photos , I see there is almost no dust and what looks like striations in the rock, yet at the same time I see him coring a sample by hand in the lunar soil. If the surface is rock just a few inches below, this would be hard to do. If it were a very soft rock, maybe. I guess what I am saying is the rock theory does not float my boat all the way but the low pressure across the nozzle at hovering speed seems to be more practical.

For now I am waiting on Mr Fruit to expand on the fuel used and what it should look like in the moon environment. It is quite possible that there was so much turbulence and dust floating around that they could not see as good as claimed, but that should have been on their backside, like a wake on a boat. They flew forward with the sun to their back right up until they landed. All Apollo missions show this with the main hatch always in the dark.

Deuem :cheers:

Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:06 am » by **Frutty**

From Jarrah WHite's MoonFaker SERIES

You've been shopped out :nails:

Upload to Disclose.tv

Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:17 am » by **Frutty**

Propagandists busted cold

Upload to Disclose.tv

The LRO was bestowed a laser gadget called LOLA. The same name as the Moon Plaster Model at Langley Research Center where most of the missions were faked in the 60's.

:peep:

Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:31 am » by **Frutty**

MoonFaker: LRO, Tracking The Tracks. PART 1

Of all the images the Apollo 12 photo and the two Apollo 14 photos, released by NASA purportedly showing the landing site of the fictitious missions, have excited propagandists the most, because they supposedly show the threads left by the astronots bootprints .. let's have a look ...

Upload to Disclose.tv

Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:48 pm » by **Deuem**

Ah Jarred White, my hero.

In one of the J White videos attached above, Mr White brags about all of the You Tube comments he has and then he scrolls through them so fast you can't read them.

If you want some fun, go and look at the comments people left him.
Please take care; they are Not suitable for work or children. Some of them very R-ratted.

I do like the fact that he thinks he is James Bond. He should have been in Moonraker.