I'm just wondering, how many GLPers believe the SPACE SHUTTLE Program is another HOAX like the Apollo-11 HOAX Program?

Ever heard of the Van Allen Belt? Its a band of radiation that encircles the Earth at an altitude of 1000 miles and higher. The radiation gets stronger at higher altitudes and at 350 miles up astronauts were experiencing flashes of light when they closed their eyes, the radiation was penetrating the shuttle, spacesuits, and then the eyelids.

[link to www.youtube.com]

That's because the shuttle passes through part of the van allen belt where it dips down and forms the south atlantic anomaly. I've quantified for myself the amount of radiation the apollo astronauts would have received when passing through the van allen belt during a geomagnetic storm as a kind of "worst case scenario" shy of experiencing a large solar flare and found that the dose was far from dangerous.
[link to i319.photobucket.com]

I said that on my very first post here. You might go back and read first instead of talking out of your ass.

I have changed no argument here. You wanted to say they can't see out the windows cause some interior lights are on.
Yet, if the shuttle takes pictures of the streetlights on Earth, then suddenly, interior lights are not a problem.

They are only a problem if we are talking about stars.
You made that argument when I asked the first time.
You compared it to being in a car with the interior light on, not me.

Show me any mission, Space Shuttle, ISS, the Apollos, either one where NASA has ever taken pictures of the stars or the universe in the past 45 years from their craft.

Again, there's a reason streetlight drown out starlight, even miles away from where they are... Is it really that hard to comprehend? By the way, some of the very same photos showing street lights you allude to do show stars as well as they're taken with long exposures and without stray light, something I mentioned was doable before I even started talking to you. It's just not the condition you find most of the time while on the flight deck. Unlike a car, the interior lights ARE on most of the time.

I already did, are you even reading what I'm writing? It's becoming clear that you're not.
[link to i.dailymail.co.uk]
Note how much brighter the lights of Cairo are compared to the dim little stars visible where the edge of earth meets space:
[link to s3.amazonaws.com]
More stars (and again, the city lights are brighter):
[link to farm5.static.flickr.com]
More stars:
[link to farm5.static.flickr.com]
It can be done, but it's a lot more complicated than just pointing and shooting and there are limits to just how long you can expose for before you start to get star trails (as happened in the first photo).

Last Edited by Astromut on 04/27/2011 01:08 AM

Anybody else find it odd that NASA, a SPACE agency never seems to have the right camera equipment or settings to take pictures of anything except the Earth or the Moon (although any pictures of the Moon from the ISS or Shuttle are few and far between even), in all of it's 45 year history?!

Seriously, are you even reading my posts? Yes or no?

Worst case scenario they all would of died from the field of radiation they went through. Pretty much every mission to space(USA and USSR)has been well below the Van Allen Belt, Apollo being the exception. At 350 miles the radiation was severe. I highly doubt the radiation levels would not be dangerous. Just my 2 cents.

OT question to Astronut,
If Elenin orbits around our Sun, what other object does it orbit to make it swing back to our Sun?

Glad to see it's being pointed out that the "space" shuttle is really just an expensive aircraft, or an updated Gemini, orbiting the earth perpetually for no fathomable reason. The sheeple are clueless about this; they actually refer to it as a "space station," as if it ever get anywhere near outer space.

The point about the absence of stars in photographs is important. The same lame excuses are being made to dismiss this observation, as have been used to explain the lack of stars in all the photos allegedly taken on the moon. Either modern science is correct, and our atmosphere limits our view of the universe, in which case we should logically expect to have seen a fantastic sight in the lunar sky in those Apollo photos, and should be seeing them now in photos taken from the space shuttle, or science is wrong and knows nothing about our atmosphere or our universe.

The arguments made by NASA shills to explain these anomalies are ridiculous. I don't really think the space shuttle is a "hoax" in the way that the Apollo flights were, because it clearly takes off and goes into orbit. I think its purpose up there is debatable. If we accept the conventional view, that it's performing "experiments" that may someday, somehow benefit us, while doing lots of cool acrobat stuff on camera, then at the very least it's yet another huge waste of taxpayer money.

If it's actually doing something else, for the typical nefarious purposes, then it's just another conspiracy.

Astronut says it's just really, really hard for NASA, they just aren't smart enough to figure out how to take pictures of actual space.

It's easier to just go around and around a few thousand times taking picturs of the Earth because our cities streetlights are so bright. See they are only a SPACE AGENCY that takes pictures of Earth.

That's OK right? We wouldn't want to put them out or anything. And 45 years really isn't that long to try to figure out what kind of telescopic lens or aperture setting you would need and all.

It wasn't dangerous. It's only dangerous if you remain in the belts for a long period of time. If you actually bother to quantify what the dose should have been you'll see that I'm right. I know because I've quantified it myself rather than just trusting how I 'felt' about it.

The sun. It's on a highly eccentric orbit, as all long period comets are. There's no other object making it "swing back" to the sun, orbits are all ellipses, and the sun is at the focus. Some are just more eccentric than others.
[link to www.windows2universe.org]

It's a smokesceen fosho!

got it thnx

It's not a "lame excuse." It's a reason, a very real reason. Anyone who knows the basics of astrophotography knows this. Here's a photo of the moon, now where are the stars?
[link to farm3.static.flickr.com]
They're too dim to see when taking pictures designed to properly expose the daylit surface of the moon.

I'm sorry to say but it is you who simply does not understand in what way our atmosphere limits our view of the universe. It has to do with atmospheric blurring called "seeing." The gain in brightness by getting beyond the atmosphere is minimal and applies equally to the brightness of the sun itself.

You are so right. This is a well put sumation of the sorry state of affairs that is NASA.

Now that nitwit nasa shill is trying to tell us that the Van Allen belts aren't really dangerous.

Why does NASA hire these slow-witted people to shill for them? Wonder what answer he would give for the reason ISS and Shuttles aren't out there really being SPACE STATIONS AND SPACE SHUTTLES out in the 100,000 mile range where that name would be more honest and applicable if the Van Allen's are not a problem?

1 hoax 911 the false flag + man never walked on the moon = 2 hoaxes. The federal reserve bank is own by the government = 3 hoaxes. Rothchild's satanic Israelhell is of God = 4 hoaxes. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - 5 hoaxes.

The space shuttle is real. No man has used it to walk on the moon. If the gov comes out and claims that they used the shuttle for man to walk on the moon, then we will know that it is a hoax.

Man has NEVER walked on the moon..

I can't recall the exact quote from that cia satanic goon, but it went something like, When everything the sheep believe is a lie, our job will be done.

Global warming caused by fossil fuels as a reason to introduce a carbon tax is but one that comes to mind.

Cool. Thanks, Astronut. Here goes...

I'm sure you've been through the Lunar Landing Hoax discussion...probably many times, I would guess. I've been reading threads on GLP for a couple of months but this is the first thread to which I've posted. Kinda sorry I did but...eh...

I've been involved in the space program in some form or fashion since I was in Jr. High school.... NASA science contests, blah blah blah.... Right up to becoming a GC for a Gov't contractor. But, for whatever reason, life just kept throwing the space ball in my direction.

Anyway, after reading several arguments suggesting that that the Lunar Landing did NOT happen, I find myself scratching my head and questioning what I always believed of that story. My specialty was comm's and contact so these questions are beyond my trivial pursuit level of knowledge about the Apollo Missions.

Particularly, I find question with:

~ The material of the space suits (temperature regulation and combustion between Sun and dark sides)

~ The metal connectors on the suits for oxygen and carbon dioxide. It always looked like painted (blue and red) aluminum to me when I've seen the suits but I would think that that would melt in the Sun.

~ The lack of dust on the foot plates of the lander seemed odd to me.

~ The Van Allen Radiation Belt and how much radiation the Astronauts would have taken in during the trip.

In general, I question if we truly had the technology back then to send the Apollo guys to the moon.

So...my question for you is, can you shed any light on these issues for me, please? If you've answered them before, can you cut and past the answers or shoot me to a direct link where I can find them for myself? I don't mind doing the research and reading myself and I don't want to take up your time with what must seem like trivialities. Please only credible sources/links though? I've ended up on so many conspiracy hack sites out there that...well, now MY head is spinning! Hahahaahaha.....

Would sure appreciate your knowledge and/or guidance.

This is a pretty good discussion of the problems with the Apollo Missions. It's thorough and somewhere he you will probably find the answers you seek.

[link to www.apfn.org]

this is GLP we've researched to come to the conclusion that posters who think that the Apollo Programs and the Shuttle Programs were a hoax,are a hoax.

duh,they were building the ISS,and releasing satellites.

A quote from Michael Collins, Astronaut,in his book 'Carrying the Fire'(pg.221)on peering out of Gemini 10 before his attempted EVA: "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me, on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to the obscure horizon."

"The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course, I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different; this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human has ever had."

"My only complaint is that the protective coatings on my visor do not allow an even more spectacular look at the stars. I crank my head around to the left, toward the left, toward the north, and seek out the familiar "seven sisters," the Pleiades."

"Venus appears so bright that I have to convince myself that it really is Venus, not by its appearance, but by its position in the sky, a the spot where Venus should be."

Now what were you all saying about the dim stars?

Last Edited by johnlear on 04/27/2011 02:07 AM

Who's we?

There was a group of GLPers that schooled the NASAtard shills on another thread about daring to try to pass off their trite lies circa 1969-1972.

This the the 21st Century now and the hoax is thoroughly and completely exposed for what it was.

We aren't sitting around waiting for Walter Cronkite to tell us we what to believe anymore, so step off, TARD.

Hahahaha... Understood, Pauldamo. These are just issues that made me scratch my head an go, "Hmmmm..." If Astronut can shoot me in a direction, I'd like to prove it to myself and get it out of my system. Been bugging me for a couple of months now.

The camera be destroyed?

Well if you're wondering my opinion, OPie, it is that the hoax of the Space Shuttle, is that we (the taxpayers) have constructed and lifted at great cost into space along with the shuttle, how many like 135 of those 747-sized external fuel tanks, only to throw them away!
Do you realize how much valuable space condo real estate we intentionally burned up? I guess because recycling isn't 'cool' when it comes to billion dollar space programs?

Scully~

This is probably a better website for info and photos.
Read and consider, but judge for yourself, of course.

[link to www.davesweb.cnchost.com]

its not the hoax op thinks it is, but one never the less.

Thanks for the links, guys.

While I appreciate and have read many "investigative" sites, I'd like to see some explanations from a more tech-analytical perspective. What I'm really hoping for is a reputable science or technology based resource (like Aviation Weekly, Scientific American, Air & Space/Smithsonian or something along those lines of publications). I hope you understand.

Because they are too dark to be visible on this photo. Did you ever try to photograph faint objects through a telescope? Did you ever photograph anything at all? Have you ever heard about exposure time and sensivity of the image sensor?

The ISS is around mag -3.7, it is the *brightest* object in the night sky (aside from the moon), it is so bright you can even see it at daytime! The average stars are many hundred times fainter compared to that. No camera has such a dynamic range.

This is not StarTrek where they have put bright electric xmas-tree candles behind the spaceship windows to simulate stars, this is the reality!

Geebers, Astronut. Canada User ID: 1357842 is either in love with you or you have a stalker on your tail. Sheesh!
Thread: """WHY IS THIS THE LAST SHUTTLE MISSION, DO WE HAVE NO REASON LEFT TO GO INTO SPACE??"""" (Page 4)

The right camera equipment for what? Its not their mission. There is Hubble to make deep space photographs many times better than they could ever do with some portable equipment, no matter how sophisticated.

What would be the point in carrying some specialzed deep space imagig camera equipment and telescopes in the shuttle if the best images they could make would still be hundreds of times worse than the ones taken by Hubble? And even still worse than images taken from the ground with quite ordinary stationary equipment?

For what reason would they try to do that if they know beforehand that there are many better and easier methods to make some nice looking star photos?