NASA and Facebook tricked you

[Stravinsk]

I wanted to post the following video to address two points made earlier, either in text or video.

Those two points are:

1) Sun rays showing distance to a near sun are an optics issue that don't really show the real sun known as "Crepuscular Rays". The evidence in the video destroys the so called "science" that is said to explain away the phenomenon.

2) The Sun moving off into the distance and getting smaller, or moving closer and getting larger - both of which indicate a sun that is close, not 93 million miles away.

The author of the video gives a little of his story at the beginning, but the issues themselves can be found starting at the 5:10 mark if you want to skip over that:

Excuse the pic if you're offended, there is no (or very little) foul language in the video that I remember.

 

[Lamb]

The issue isn't really whether it's old - but whether it's believable. NASA didn't respond with a worried "Hey! That's not us...that's not the real footage - don't believe it" - no - instead they merely said it was old footage.

So again, the questions raised in the video about the authenticity of the footage are valid. No one from any official space agency is crying foul about the content of the footage.

NASA stated that if people wanted to see THEIR live feeds that they would need to go to the NASA sites. You chose to view something from a site other than NASA that was experimenting with a live feed according to the article I posted and expect NASA to refute it. NASA gave a proper statement. There is no trickery as you claim but misunderstandings.

 

[Stravinsk]

NASA stated that if people wanted to see THEIR live feeds that they would need to go to the NASA sites. You chose to view something from a site other than NASA that was experimenting with a live feed according to the article I posted and expect NASA to refute it. NASA gave a proper statement. There is no trickery as you claim but misunderstandings.

Yeah, their "proper statement" acknowledged it was real "space footage" - just old.

So start from there. That's the main issue. Whether it's real or not.

 

[Lamb]

Strav, who is the originator of the video(s) in your OP? Do you know the answer? The video title states that it's from NASA but then goes on to say it's a video from Russian cosmonauts.

One video is not going to give proof of some of the questions that are asked in the videos. Like, where are the stars?

Stars CAN be seen from space and there are photos proving it as well as astronauts stating that they've done stargazing.

 

[Rens]

nm

 

[Rens]

It's interesting this flat earth stuff and I used to be very interested in conspiracies. What if flat earth is a conspiracy?

David Livingstone said (February 6, 2016):

No, the Flat Earth Myth was promoted by Skull and Bones as an attack on Christianity.

They invented the whole story about Columbus. It has been known since the time of the Egyptians that the earth was round.

The myth was created as part of a campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. The myth gained currency in the nineteenth century due to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science" (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" (1896). Dicksen was member of Skull and Bones at Yale and co-founder of Cornell University. Draper and White were the most influential exponents of the Conflict Thesis, the proposition that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to public hostility. Draper's book received worldwide recognition and was translated into several languages, but was banned by the Catholic Church.

 

[Stravinsk]

It's interesting this flat earth stuff and I used to be very interested in conspiracies. What if flat earth is a conspiracy?

David Livingstone said (February 6, 2016):

No, the Flat Earth Myth was promoted by Skull and Bones as an attack on Christianity.

They invented the whole story about Columbus. It has been known since the time of the Egyptians that the earth was round.

The myth was created as part of a campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. The myth gained currency in the nineteenth century due to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science" (1874) and Andrew Dickson White’s "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" (1896). Dicksen was member of Skull and Bones at Yale and co-founder of Cornell University. Draper and White were the most influential exponents of the Conflict Thesis, the proposition that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to public hostility. Draper's book received worldwide recognition and was translated into several languages, but was banned by the Catholic Church.

The earth is round - and flat. East/West are circular around magnetic north. Columbus doesn't prove globe or flat. If our history is correct then all it proves is that he did a circuit around the earth.

But I do understand why people see it as an attack. Flat earth is considered an archaic and primitive way of looking at the world that has been superseded by much smarter ape men, is ridiculed, laughed at and the holders of such beliefs are considered stupid morons. Yeah, we understand. But what isn't taught in our government indoctrination centers (public schools) is that many great minds rejected Einstein and Newton - among them is Nicola Tesla - who's achievements and inventions literally kick Einstein's out of the water. He affirmed a Creator, didn't believe in gravity or relativity, and referenced the Firmament (which is bogus according to the Heliocentric model).

But people don't want to touch it (especially if they have an alternative opinion to majority such as 911) because of "guilt by association". In other words - "I believe 911 was an inside job" - ok, maybe consider but if it's also asserted "the earth is flat" - then it's "this person is a total crackpot". LOL. Yes, we understand.

 

[Rens]

The earth is round - and flat. East/West are circular around magnetic north. Columbus doesn't prove globe or flat. If our history is correct then all it proves is that he did a circuit around the earth.

But I do understand why people see it as an attack. Flat earth is considered an archaic and primitive way of looking at the world that has been superseded by much smarter ape men, is ridiculed, laughed at and the holders of such beliefs are considered stupid morons. Yeah, we understand. But what isn't taught in our government indoctrination centers (public schools) is that many great minds rejected Einstein and Newton - among them is Nicola Tesla - who's achievements and inventions literally kick Einstein's out of the water. He affirmed a Creator, didn't believe in gravity or relativity, and referenced the Firmament (which is bogus according to the Heliocentric model).

But people don't want to touch it (especially if they have an alternative opinion to majority such as 911) because of "guilt by association". In other words - "I believe 911 was an inside job" - ok, maybe consider but if it's also asserted "the earth is flat" - then it's "this person is a total crackpot". LOL. Yes, we understand.

That is why I thought the flat earth could be a conspiracy or something to sidetrack, because who cares if the earth is flat or round, noone dies if it's flat, but if another conspiracy is real and you believe flat earth noone is gonna believe the other thing either if you tell them. But I'll delve into it a bit more. I didn't know so many people believed it. I knew of one person, a girl in my elementary school from a very conservative reformed church.
Never heard of Tesla. I looked him up yesterday on google and all I got was Tesla motors.

 

[Rens]

Hey interesting. I found the egg from Columbus.

View attachment 632

Well they can't say flat earthers are dumb. Einstein said he was smarter than him.

 

[Stravinsk]

That is why I thought the flat earth could be a conspiracy or something to sidetrack, because who cares if the earth is flat or round, noone dies if it's flat,

It actually matters a lot - but one doesn't really know this until one becomes a flat -earther.

but if another conspiracy is real and you believe flat earth noone is gonna believe the other thing either if you tell them.

I don't expect them to. If they know me they'll think I'm deceived by a grand delusion. If they don't, they'll assume I'm an idiot. If they are religious and pay their religion any credence at all, then they will have to live with cognitive dissonance over many many passages in their holy books. Including Jews and Christians, of course - because the bible says in numerous places (or hints at it) that the earth is stationary and the luminaries revolve around us.

But I'll delve into it a bit more. I didn't know so many people believed it. I knew of one person, a girl in my elementary school from a very conservative reformed church.
Never heard of Tesla. I looked him up yesterday on google and all I got was Tesla motors.

Nikola Tesla is the name you need to search. Achievements put Einstein's to shame. And yet - in our government controlled schools he barely (if at all) gets a mention...there is a reason for that. He also didn't believe in Gravity and lived at the same time as Einstein. So he is someone we can point to when someone says "Gravity? What are you stupid" - "Uh - no - you know that Alternating Current you enjoy? That came from Nikola Tesla, who made many contributions you enjoy - and he didn't believe in Gravity either. In fact, he mentioned a firmament - something "modern science" dismisses as something non-existent."

 

[Stravinsk]

Strav, who is the originator of the video(s) in your OP? Do you know the answer? The video title states that it's from NASA but then goes on to say it's a video from Russian cosmonauts.

One video is not going to give proof of some of the questions that are asked in the videos. Like, where are the stars?

Stars CAN be seen from space and there are photos proving it as well as astronauts stating that they've done stargazing.

Lam, tell me the following is real. From Nasa's own website.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth

No stars.
Clouds don't move.

Nasa claims this is actual footage from a satellite.

Compare the animation in the above link to:

(Also from Nasa's website)

Picture yourself on the moon from the first link, looking at the earth. Now examine the photo directly above. Can you honestly tell me you don't see a problem?

 

[Lamb]

Strav, your link has an animation that NASA created using real satellite images (for demonstration purposes) but is not an actual video or full photo. Hence, no stars. Hence, clouds won't move.

 

[Stravinsk]

Strav, your link has an animation that NASA created using real satellite images (for demonstration purposes) but is not an actual video or full photo. Hence, no stars. Hence, clouds won't move.

That's an interesting statement. So um...how do you imagine this was done with *real* photos? Did they:

1. Edit out the stars that should be present?
2. Take shots of the earth that just *coincidentally* happen to have the exact same cloud formations that don't move on a spinning ball? The animation gives the impression that the images that comprise it were from the same day. Are you arguing something else here or?
3. Did they *edit out* all the supposed satellites?

How about that moon? If you read the article, it's supposed to be the "dark side of the moon" (you know - the side that cannot be seen - ever - looking up at the night sky) - but caught by our space heroes at NASA. So cool huh?

Edit: Does the moon EVER look that color to you? Is it a washed out gray color from a satellite supposedly closer to it, but a much brighter color when you view it from earth?

Did you um...notice that the Earth is in full light - so the Sun (on the Heliocentric model) must be in a position behind the supposed satellite that took the photo - but somehow bend it's rays AROUND the moon so that we see a fully lit earth, but the DARK side of the moon that is in front of it? Or is this really how the moon looks? Does this "lighting" of the moon match what your own eyes see when you look up into the night sky?

Lam, they are lying. But your programming is preventing you from seeing it. You know the images must be false on your senses and your artistic knowledge - but your programing is preventing it.

 

[tango]

That's an interesting statement. So um...how do you imagine this was done with *real* photos? Did they:

1. Edit out the stars that should be present?
2. Take shots of the earth that just *coincidentally* happen to have the exact same cloud formations that don't move on a spinning ball? The animation gives the impression that the images that comprise it were from the same day. Are you arguing something else here or?
3. Did they *edit out* all the supposed satellites?

How about that moon? If you read the article, it's supposed to be the "dark side of the moon" (you know - the side that cannot be seen - ever - looking up at the night sky) - but caught by our space heroes at NASA. So cool huh?

Edit: Does the moon EVER look that color to you? Is it a washed out gray color from a satellite supposedly closer to it, but a much brighter color when you view it from earth?

Did you um...notice that the Earth is in full light - so the Sun (on the Heliocentric model) must be in a position behind the supposed satellite that took the photo - but somehow bend it's rays AROUND the moon so that we see a fully lit earth, but the DARK side of the moon that is in front of it? Or is this really how the moon looks? Does this "lighting" of the moon match what your own eyes see when you look up into the night sky?

Lam, they are lying. But your programming is preventing you from seeing it. You know the images must be false on your senses and your artistic knowledge - but your programing is preventing it.

I'm not sure just what problems you're describing here, Strav.

The video looks like it covers a time period of approximately 4-6 hours (based on the extent of the earth's rotation) which is consistent with the description of a time period covering 350pm-845pm. The clouds don't show a whole lot of movement but at the very highest level of cloud I honestly don't know what movement to expect in a relatively short time. Certainly I've seen clouds that blow away completely within an hour or two, and I've seen clouds that don't seem to move for several hours.

The lighting of the moon can be nothing more than an issue of photographic exposure. I don't know if you've tried night photography but it can be remarkably difficult to get everything how you want it. We see with eyes that are permanently open but the camera records an image for a specific length of time. So the fact something looks darker than we might expect doesn't necessarily mean it was darker.

The camera described as a four-megapixel CCD. There are a few blips of light that could be stars or could be CCD aberrations on the video. If it truly is a succession of photographs strung together you wouldn't necessarily expect to find stars shining brightly in every single one for reasons of exposure like I just mentioned.

The moon passing in front of the earth like that might be expected to cast a shadow but given we don't know the precise positions of the sun and the satellite relative to the moon and the earth it isn't entirely unbelievable that the time period isn't enough to see the moon move from a "full moon" to a partial moon, or that any shadow cast doesn't actually land on the earth.

The moon doesn't look like this to us on earth, because it's the side of the moon we don't see from earth. Since the moon orbits the earth in approximately 29 days and always presents the same face to the earth, it follows it rotates on its axis every 29 days. Therefore in the five hours of the video we'd expect it to rotate 360/29 * 5/24 = approximately 2.6 degrees. So although it looks like the moon slides across the picture more like a hockey puck than a rotating sphere, we wouldn't actually expect much rotation in the time it is visible. By my count there were 19 frames in the video so we'd expect a rotation of the moon of approximately 0.14 degrees per frame, which is too small to be able to register it. On that basis I must admit I'm not convinced.

 

[Stravinsk]

"The video looks like it covers a time period of approximately 4-6 hours (based on the extent of the earth's rotation) which is consistent with the description of a time period covering 350pm-845pm. The clouds don't show a whole lot of movement but at the very highest level of cloud I honestly don't know what movement to expect in a relatively short time. Certainly I've seen clouds that blow away completely within an hour or two, and I've seen clouds that don't seem to move for several hours."

And you would expect to see uniform clouds that move exactly in line with the earth's supposed rotation over a vast area with no divergence at all? Sorry, this just isn't what we see or experience in reality. Clouds may stay uniform to some degree across a 6 hour period - but not perfectly across half a sphere for that time in line with the supposed motion of the earth.

"The lighting of the moon can be nothing more than an issue of photographic exposure. I don't know if you've tried night photography but it can be remarkably difficult to get everything how you want it. We see with eyes that are permanently open but the camera records an image for a specific length of time. So the fact something looks darker than we might expect doesn't necessarily mean it was darker."

I see. So when I look at the moon with my naked eye I should expect to see something represented by the image in the animation but don't? Tell me Tango - are my own eyes lying to me about the moon's light because people bow down to the authority of Nasa's bs imagery? Re-examine your god. It tells you you must believe in dogma that your created eyes lie to you about. The moon doesn't appear that color when looked at in reality, only in bs cgi created images by government agencies like NASA.

" The camera described as a four-megapixel CCD. There are a few blips of light that could be stars or could be CCD aberrations on the video. If it truly is a succession of photographs strung together you wouldn't necessarily expect to find stars shining brightly in every single one for reasons of exposure like I just mentioned."

BS. If I take a photo of the night sky (assuming it's clear) I will see stars, just as I see them on a clear night. They don't disappear on any trick of light or photography just because it's alleged.

"The moon passing in front of the earth like that might be expected to cast a shadow but given we don't know the precise positions of the sun and the satellite relative to the moon and the earth it isn't entirely unbelievable that the time period isn't enough to see the moon move from a "full moon" to a partial moon, or that any shadow cast doesn't actually land on the earth."

Huh? The earth is in full light in the animation, and the moon is a shade of gray - when it should be fully lit. It doesn't matter the "presice locations" - it matters the relative locations - which are obvious. The earth is fully lit in the animations - and the moon is a light shade of gray - being in the light of the sun but somehow not being illuminated by it.
Have you ever seen the moon this shade in the light of the sun Tango? I mean with your God given eyes. No? Neither have I. But if the Nasa says it is so, it must me right?
That is your programming. Agencies like NASA say that your eyes lie. You must not believe them. God gave you eyes that lie, but "science" (in their defintion) will lead you to all truth.
Argument from authority. All the contradictory shadows from the supposed moon landings are also just - your eyes lying to you. Your Government masters know better. Worship them. They are the ultimate truth.

 

[Stravinsk]

The lighting of the moon can be nothing more than an issue of photographic exposure. I don't know if you've tried night photography but it can be remarkably difficult to get everything how you want it. We see with eyes that are permanently open but the camera records an image for a specific length of time. So the fact something looks darker than we might expect doesn't necessarily mean it was darker.

I knew I should have waited to respond when I was fully sober.

I would like to draw your attention to your own words and the basics. The earth in the animation is illuminated by sunlight , from a position BEHIND the camera/satellite - and you call this night photography? What you are saying (what your mind is trying to say because you believe a lie) is that somehow it's NIGHTTIME but also DAYTIME and because it's NIGHTTIME the view of the moon is "dark" (when it is never "darkly lit" in real life when showing it's light - AT NIGHT) - but because in your own mind it is ALSO DAYTIME - the earth behind is exactly how it's supposed to be in terms of lighting.

Just wanted to point this out.

Globe programming from birth must hurt your mind. So brainwashed that one doesn't even understand their own horribly obvious contradictions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Occam's razor and the optics of photos containing one large bright object washing out the faint light of other objects make me think that both NASA abd Facebook didn't lie on the matter of a globe shaped Earth.

 

[Stravinsk]

Occam's razor and the optics of photos containing one large bright object washing out the faint light of other objects make me think that both NASA abd Facebook didn't lie on the matter of a globe shaped Earth.

Then you should test it for yourself before coming to such a conclusion. Place a small sphere in front of a much larger sphere, and place the light source between a small camera position set to take a photo after a timed interval (so you don't cast a shadow that would ruin the shot).

I can guarantee you that the "optics of photos" will not show a darkly illuminated small sphere and a brightly illuminated large sphere.

The "photography" in NASA'S so called satellite is fake. You are being lied to.

 

[tango]

And you would expect to see uniform clouds that move exactly in line with the earth's supposed rotation over a vast area with no divergence at all? Sorry, this just isn't what we see or experience in reality. Clouds may stay uniform to some degree across a 6 hour period - but not perfectly across half a sphere for that time in line with the supposed motion of the earth.

I don't know enough to know what to expect when viewing clouds from above.

Looking at the clouds in the bottom right of the earth (I think it corresponds to Antarctica) it looked as if there was some variation but that could have been down to the rotation of the earth.

Here's a question for you. Given NASA has a fairly large budget, if they were going to try and produce a fake video don't you think they'd have fiddled with the clouds a bit as well? Seriously, you're talking about a couple of dozen images versus the combined resources of a major national agency and untold levels of expertise in Photoshop. If they were pulling a fast one, as you suggest, don't you think they'd have tweaked that to make it more convincing?

I see. So when I look at the moon with my naked eye I should expect to see something represented by the image in the animation but don't? Tell me Tango - are my own eyes lying to me about the moon's light because people bow down to the authority of Nasa's bs imagery? Re-examine your god. It tells you you must believe in dogma that your created eyes lie to you about. The moon doesn't appear that color when looked at in reality, only in bs cgi created images by government agencies like NASA.

You're missing my point entirely. If you take a photo of something that looks bright the photo may look dim, natural, bright, or totally washed out depending on the exposure settings. The point is that your eyes receive a continuous stream of light while a photograph receives a stream of light for the time the shutter is open. Try taking a picture of a field covered in snow with a camera in fully automatic mode and you'll see it comes out looking gray. Likewise if you try and take a night shot with fully automatic settings it comes out looking a rather nasty shade of gray.

You don't need to make comments about examining my god, if you've got a case to make it needs to stand on its own merits without backhanded comments like that.

BS. If I take a photo of the night sky (assuming it's clear) I will see stars, just as I see them on a clear night. They don't disappear on any trick of light or photography just because it's alleged.

Except sometimes they do, depending on the exposure settings. I've taken quite a lot of night pictures - everything from landscapes at twilight to using super-telephoto lenses to photograph the moon. Sometimes stars are visible in them, other times they are not. Again, if you want to make a case about photography you need to come from a place of demonstrable truth.

Huh? The earth is in full light in the animation, and the moon is a shade of gray - when it should be fully lit. It doesn't matter the "presice locations" - it matters the relative locations - which are obvious. The earth is fully lit in the animations - and the moon is a light shade of gray - being in the light of the sun but somehow not being illuminated by it.

I covered this in the part about photographic exposure.

Have you ever seen the moon this shade in the light of the sun Tango? I mean with your God given eyes. No? Neither have I. But if the Nasa says it is so, it must me right?

I don't care who says it's so, if you take a picture of the moon with the exposure turned down it will come out gray. That's a simple fact. Feel free to test it with an SLR if you don't believe me.

That is your programming. Agencies like NASA say that your eyes lie. You must not believe them. God gave you eyes that lie, but "science" (in their defintion) will lead you to all truth.
Argument from authority. All the contradictory shadows from the supposed moon landings are also just - your eyes lying to you. Your Government masters know better. Worship them. They are the ultimate truth.

This really does nothing to bolster your case. If the case is there you can make it without references to "my programming" and general backhanded insults. Feel free to make a case but when your posts show a lack of understanding of photography and rely as much on backhanded insults and comments about "the establishment" it starts to look like little more than "the mainstream media won't report this, but you must believe it because it's true" without at least attempting to cover the possibility that the mainstream media isn't reporting it because it simply isn't true.

For what it's worth I find alternative theories interesting to explore, especially if they at least appear to have a little meat on the bones. If you're going to do little more than make vague comments about "my programming" and "appeals to authority" and "government masters" your post immediately comes across as little more than an outlandish conspiracy theory that relies on blind acceptance that Government Is Evil and therefore automatic rejection of anything the government says.

 

[tango]

I knew I should have waited to respond when I was fully sober.

I would like to draw your attention to your own words and the basics. The earth in the animation is illuminated by sunlight , from a position BEHIND the camera/satellite - and you call this night photography? What you are saying (what your mind is trying to say because you believe a lie) is that somehow it's NIGHTTIME but also DAYTIME and because it's NIGHTTIME the view of the moon is "dark" (when it is never "darkly lit" in real life when showing it's light - AT NIGHT) - but because in your own mind it is ALSO DAYTIME - the earth behind is exactly how it's supposed to be in terms of lighting.

Just wanted to point this out.

Globe programming from birth must hurt your mind. So brainwashed that one doesn't even understand their own horribly obvious contradictions.

With respect Strav, if you want to make a case that challenges just about everything that's widely believed you really ought to post sober as a matter of routine. There's not much point discussing something of any substance with someone who may or may not even be coherent.

As far as the photo is concerned, space is dark. You can see that if you look up into the sky in the night time when the sun isn't illuminating everything. So whether it was day or night at any given point on the earth isn't really the issue, the point is that taking a picture in darkness is functionally the same as taking a picture at night. And if one item is large and bright and another item is small and less bright, automatic exposure will adjust for the larger item (and in a photo like this it wouldn't be surprising for the camera to be adjusted for the earth) which means a smaller, less bright item will appear duller.

There is potentially a case to answer that the moon might be expected to be brighter but I'd just ask again, if NASA is pulling a hugely orchestrated conspiracy don't you think they'd have taken a few moments in Photoshop to brighten the moon up a little? The idea that they are pulling this huge cover-up but leaving subtle clues for those in the know does make the theory vastly harder to believe.