| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 | NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD?
| nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 754238
8/28/2009 3:34 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
You know, UNtypical, if you would even do as little as document the steps you took to "correct" the pictures you'd have more than you do now. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 757933
8/28/2009 3:34 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Wow got alittle .....ok.... im good. Sorry bout the caps.For all you left brained people, all speculative your honnor. |
| IDW
User ID: 758419
8/28/2009 3:36 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Come on, the astronaut who DIDN"T want to have any part of the 40 year anniversary? I think he's the same guy that said for" future progress to be made a layer of truth must be reveled"? COME ON. He basically said "We have a big secret"! Someone has that clip....from the commencement speech at an Ivy League collage? We never went there!
You're leaping blind across the grand canyon to conclusions. He could've meant almost anything
WHAT? Your powers of perception are noted. Look at that moment in it's entirety. You compare that to their first tv interviews which again are rife with uncomfortable evasive answers. COME ON now. Somebody post em both! Look for yourself! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 757933
I do not deny that the astronauts appear evasive and uncomfortable when interviewed. I made and commented on this very observation myself. I just think given the statement that was made, you're jumping to conclusions about what it meant specifically. Astronauts are educated in sciences and it could be nothing to do with Apollo. |
| IDW
User ID: 758419
8/28/2009 3:40 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
BTW, FWIW, how would revealing Apollo to be a fraud remove a significant stumblingblock to advancement in general?
See what I mean? That couldn't have been what he was refering to in his cryptic statement, and since it was made at a place of higher edcuation during a commencement address, he was probably refering to a stumbligblock to scientific advancement or advancement of the human race in general. I do not see how proving Apollo was faked will lead to significant advancement in science. |
| UNtypical USer 
Ancient of Days
User ID: 742063
8/28/2009 3:42 PM
 | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
You know, UNtypical, if you would even do as little as document the steps you took to "correct" the pictures you'd have more than you do now. Quoting: nomuse(NLI) 754238
Every photograph is unique. The process began as trial-and-error 18 months ago; I have refined it until I can define it as resolving PITCH, ROLL AND YAW by realigning SKEW and SCALE.
OR, with photos that have contrast extreme or inverted, I can use the Light/Contrast function to clarify what the original details were.
The problem for me is: I can't tell what is a REAL photograph and what is a CONCOCTED "photographic" composition somebody created with a Photoshop technique.
There are some in which the pixels are distorted or rearranged, I can't do anything with them at all.
I'm guessing half the time, still. I haven't refined MY METHIOD (and "method" is the OVER-ARCHING OBSESSION of the "Scientific Community") so that it is transferable from photo to photo!
Go become a Xerox copier technician, and you'll KNOW THE METHOD!
Howzzat!
(>#( >7( >~SheChaiYAH -- JUST A PROGRAMMED MEAT-SUIT? BANNED for DATA @ ATS, BBC, AstroVera, Open Minds & Military.com. Don't take bans personal. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 754238
8/28/2009 3:42 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Nomuse, I read about this many years before the terminology ' global warming' had ever been concocted. It's not impossible if the temperature change was sudden enough to freeze the animal's saliva. I have myself experienced weather back in the 70's in the St Lawrence valley that could do just that. At 45 degrees below zero with moderate winds, opening your mouth to chew food while inhaling deeply can be a matter of life and death. I presume the animal would die shortly thereafter if this was the case. The lungs would be severly damaged almost instantly at the estimated temperature of -125 degrees f Quoting: IDW 758419
True enough. I was out on a glacier in Alaska and the tears on my eyelashes froze; I could feel the little icicles "clinking" when I blinked!
The point I was making is not that death can't come quickly, but that solidity can't come quickly enough to keep several tons of animal flesh from collapsing in a heap.
No sir, that is not true. The material found in the animals mouth indicated that it was eaten in the summertime when vegetation found was in a flowering state, I remmeber that specific. Quoting: IDW 758419
And that's when you get lots of nice icy slush to fall in and die in. In the coldest climes, not everything melts. The first flowers force their way through the old snow.
You want fast climate change, look for a volcano. But even that can't overcome the inertia of air and land. If the sun were to shut off this instant, none of us would be flash-frozen. As a total SWAG, I'd say it would take a couple of weeks before the atmosphere started freezing out.
Now, if you aren't arguing for flash-freezing, but just mean that over a period of weeks conditions went from summer-like to winter-like, sure, I'll gladly follow you there. |
| UNtypical USer
Ancient of Days
User ID: 742063
8/28/2009 3:44 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
How is "global warming" salient to NASA Fraud?
I don't get it.
Okay, cross-posting, cross-talk.
(>#( >7( >~SheChaiYAH -- JUST A PROGRAMMED MEAT-SUIT? BANNED for DATA @ ATS, BBC, AstroVera, Open Minds & Military.com. Don't take bans personal. |
| nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 754238
8/28/2009 3:50 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Every photograph is unique. The process began as trial-and-error 18 months ago; I have refined it until I can define it as resolving PITCH, ROLL AND YAW by realigning SKEW and SCALE. Quoting: UNtypical USer
How? What reference do you use to determine the proper orientation of the surface to the photographic plane?
OR, with photos that have contrast extreme or inverted, I can use the Light/Contrast function to clarify what the original details were. Quoting: UNtypical USer
You are aware, I hope, that contrast information can only be emphasized, not created?
Let's take an extreme case. Say I take a picture of the Moon, and before releasing it to the public I adjust the contrast to absolute; so that all values are either digital black or 0,0,0 white.
You then attempt to "adjust the contrast." The information is GONE. You can not, no matter what you do, ever bring back the real gray-scale information I removed.
I'm guessing half the time, still. I haven't refined MY METHIOD (and "method" is the OVER-ARCHING OBSESSION of the "Scientific Community") so that it is transferable from photo to photo! Quoting: UNtypical USer
Then why don't you take your own? I've seen the size of the pictures you work from. For the Lunar studies, you would get the same results off a telescope in the $300 to $900 range.
And given the size of your "people," you would be able to confirm their presence -- at the very least, spot movement -- with a telescope in the $100 range.
Heck, you could go to a star party (or better yet, a tsukimi -- we have one here yearly, by the lake), and that would give you absolutely free, access to a physical telescope capable of seeing your phantom people AS THEY WALK AROUND. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 758419
8/28/2009 3:51 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Nomuse, I read about this many years before the terminology ' global warming' had ever been concocted. It's not impossible if the temperature change was sudden enough to freeze the animal's saliva. I have myself experienced weather back in the 70's in the St Lawrence valley that could do just that. At 45 degrees below zero with moderate winds, opening your mouth to chew food while inhaling deeply can be a matter of life and death. I presume the animal would die shortly thereafter if this was the case. The lungs would be severly damaged almost instantly at the estimated temperature of -125 degrees f
True enough. I was out on a glacier in Alaska and the tears on my eyelashes froze; I could feel the little icicles "clinking" when I blinked!
The point I was making is not that death can't come quickly, but that solidity can't come quickly enough to keep several tons of animal flesh from collapsing in a heap.
No sir, that is not true. The material found in the animals mouth indicated that it was eaten in the summertime when vegetation found was in a flowering state, I remmeber that specific.
And that's when you get lots of nice icy slush to fall in and die in. In the coldest climes, not everything melts. The first flowers force their way through the old snow.
You want fast climate change, look for a volcano. But even that can't overcome the inertia of air and land. If the sun were to shut off this instant, none of us would be flash-frozen. As a total SWAG, I'd say it would take a couple of weeks before the atmosphere started freezing out.
Now, if you aren't arguing for flash-freezing, but just mean that over a period of weeks conditions went from summer-like to winter-like, sure, I'll gladly follow you there. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 754238
During thunderstorms downdrafts can result in sudden temperature changes during normal climatic conditions. Temperature changes of 30 degrees in a few seconds are not unheard of. What caused snow in Suadi arabia in July was an unusual downdraft, where stratospheric air fell to Earth suddenly. I have seen cold fronts that resulted in changes of 60 degrees in 1 hour myself. |
| nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 754238
8/28/2009 3:58 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
During thunderstorms downdrafts can result in sudden temperature changes during normal climatic conditions. Temperature changes of 30 degrees in a few seconds are not unheard of. What caused snow in Suadi arabia in July was an unusual downdraft, where stratospheric air fell to Earth suddenly. I have seen cold fronts that resulted in changes of 60 degrees in 1 hour myself. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 758419
You can get a similar (local) drop during a solar eclipse.
I've spent time in San Francisco. That place is like a tiger; it turns on the tourists in their shorts and t-shirts in the late afternoon, as cold brisk air comes roaring over the ocean from the far North. It happens FAST.
The point is that even the most artificial conditions, not normally observed on Earth, could freeze a mammoth standing up. Air doesn't have the heat capacity to do it, and flesh doesn't have the conduction to allow it. It takes many hours for the freezing process to work its way through the bulk of the animal, period. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 757933
8/28/2009 4:01 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Come on, the astronaut who DIDN"T want to have any part of the 40 year anniversary? I think he's the same guy that said for" future progress to be made a layer of truth must be reveled"? COME ON. He basically said "We have a big secret"! Someone has that clip....from the commencement speech at an Ivy League collage? We never went there!
You're leaping blind across the grand canyon to conclusions. He could've meant almost anything
WHAT? Your powers of perception are noted. Look at that moment in it's entirety. You compare that to their first tv interviews which again are rife with uncomfortable evasive answers. COME ON now. Somebody post em both! Look for yourself!
I do not deny that the astronauts appear evasive and uncomfortable when interviewed. I made and commented on this very observation myself. I just think given the statement that was made, you're jumping to conclusions about what it meant specifically. Astronauts are educated in sciences and it could be nothing to do with Apollo. Quoting: IDW 758419
So next we add NASA "Looses" the one and only set of original tapes. Then they are "found" erased? Please ..... definatly enough evidence to DEMAND more transparency. Give these old guys a chance to come clean before they do the next dance if you know what I mean. |
| UNtypical USer
Ancient of Days
User ID: 742063
8/28/2009 4:17 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
How? What reference do you use to determine the proper orientation of the surface to the photographic plane?
...UP and DOWN, as determined by gravity. One can SEE up and down in every photo.
OR, with photos that have contrast extreme or inverted, I can use the Light/Contrast function to clarify what the original details were.
You are aware, I hope, that contrast information can only be emphasized, not created?
...Well, I have been able to take some badly distorted cases backwards toward their origin, to some extent.
Let's take an extreme case. Say I take a picture of the Moon, and before releasing it to the public I adjust the contrast to absolute; so that all values are either digital black or 0,0,0 white.
...It's a useless photo; but NASA does that, with Apollo photos in which there are humans they want to hide.
You then attempt to "adjust the contrast." The information is GONE. You can not, no matter what you do, ever bring back the real gray-scale information I removed.
...In that case, there is nothing that can be done. The photo goes in the trash. About 30-40% go in the trash.
Then why don't you take your own? I've seen the size of the pictures you work from. For the Lunar studies, you would get the same results off a telescope in the $300 to $900 range.
And given the size of your "people," you would be able to confirm their presence -- at the very least, spot movement -- with a telescope in the $100 range.
...I'm a grandma and I live off $848 a month. I can't do any of that on my budget. That's why. Any amount you're speaking of is too much; especially since I don't insist on contributions to my web-sites. They're free.
Heck, you could go to a star party (or better yet, a tsukimi -- we have one here yearly, by the lake), and that would give you absolutely free, access to a physical telescope capable of seeing your phantom people AS THEY WALK AROUND. Quoting: nomuse(NLI) 754238
I am NOT FREE TO DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS YOU SUGGEST.
Capice?
(>#( >7( >~SheChaiYAH -- JUST A PROGRAMMED MEAT-SUIT? BANNED for DATA @ ATS, BBC, AstroVera, Open Minds & Military.com. Don't take bans personal. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 548017
8/28/2009 4:25 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
...I'm a grandma and I live off $848 a month. I can't do any of that on my budget. That's why. Any amount you're speaking of is too much; especially since I don't insist on contributions to my web-sites. They're free. Quoting: UNtypical USer
Why is it that the woo woos can never afford good equipment? |
| UNtypical USer
Ancient of Days
User ID: 742063
8/28/2009 4:34 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Circumstances.
The New World Odour.
When you get there, you'll understand.
(>#( >7( >~SheChaiYAH -- JUST A PROGRAMMED MEAT-SUIT? BANNED for DATA @ ATS, BBC, AstroVera, Open Minds & Military.com. Don't take bans personal. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 757933
8/28/2009 4:35 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
oops I'm not sure where I left that? |
| UNtypical USer
Ancient of Days
User ID: 742063
8/28/2009 4:37 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
When you're poor you learn to make a wonderful SOUP!
:slurp slurp:
(>#( >7( >~SheChaiYAH -- JUST A PROGRAMMED MEAT-SUIT? BANNED for DATA @ ATS, BBC, AstroVera, Open Minds & Military.com. Don't take bans personal. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 548017
8/28/2009 4:45 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Why is it that the woo woos can never afford good equipment? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 548017
Of course, they always have enough to afford a computer and internet access.  |
| UNtypical USer
Ancient of Days
User ID: 742063
8/28/2009 5:14 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
My son GAVE ME MY COMPUTER.
You want to give me a telescope?
I accept!
(>#( >7( >~SheChaiYAH -- JUST A PROGRAMMED MEAT-SUIT? BANNED for DATA @ ATS, BBC, AstroVera, Open Minds & Military.com. Don't take bans personal. |
| 341923
User ID: 753072
8/28/2009 6:19 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
So why can't you go to a FREE star party and use their equipment for FREE? Too afraid it will ruin your delusions?
Just when you think batshit crazy can't get any crazier Emily
goes and ups the ante. |
| UNtypical USer
Ancient of Days
User ID: 742063
8/28/2009 7:35 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
What's a free star party?
Up on Mount Hamilton? Where?
They do not want to discuss anything but what they already "know", their dogma.
No other ideas need show up.
(>#( >7( >~SheChaiYAH -- JUST A PROGRAMMED MEAT-SUIT? BANNED for DATA @ ATS, BBC, AstroVera, Open Minds & Military.com. Don't take bans personal. |
| The Commentator
User ID: 587619
8/28/2009 8:11 PM
 | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Or maybe the problem is you aren't making a good argument for your cause.
Think on this; when you see a badly xeroxed flyer tacked to a telephone pole, and the writing on it is scribbled, almost illegible, and what you can read is rambling and so badly spelled you can't make out what they are trying to say, it is YOUR fault you aren't getting the message?
All you are doing, Emily, is posting and re-posting a collection of images you ran through some filters -- intersparsed with insulting everyone who took those pictures in the first place, and anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you.
You haven't even made an effort to clarify what it is you are saying. You won't make simple, clear statements. You won't add as much as an arrow to your processed images. And you blame other people for not following you?
They can't even understand what you are trying to say, BECAUSE YOU SAY IT SO BADLY.
If your work is important, than it is worth doing the work to bring it to an audience. Learn how to present your case. Learn how to handle counter-arguments.
So sorry!
What I'm saying is, NASA is altering their photos to conceal details.
Okay?
Those details they're concealing compromise LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS -- ESPECIALLY HUMAN LIFE.
Can YOU UNDERSTAND THAT CLEARLY?
Good!
Now, BELIEVE ME OR NOT! That's what I have to say! Quoting: UNtypical USer
And all you have to do to have people believe you is show evidence that makes a compelling case for your claims. And that is EXACTLY what you have failed to do, Emily. All you have done is make claims and deny you have any responsibility to support them.
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT CLEARLY??? No, probably not.
non sufficit Orbis |
| The Commentator
User ID: 587619
8/28/2009 8:12 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Last Edited by The Commentator on 8/28/2009 at 8:12 PM
non sufficit Orbis |
| The Commentator
User ID: 587619
8/28/2009 8:12 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
What's a free star party?
Up on Mount Hamilton? Where?
They do not want to discuss anything but what they already "know", their dogma.
No other ideas need show up. Quoting: UNtypical USer
What's the matter, Emily? Afraid your crackpot idea will get the reception they deserve?
non sufficit Orbis |
| The Commentator
User ID: 587619
8/28/2009 8:23 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
You know, UNtypical, if you would even do as little as document the steps you took to "correct" the pictures you'd have more than you do now.
Every photograph is unique. The process began as trial-and-error 18 months ago; I have refined it until I can define it as resolving PITCH, ROLL AND YAW by realigning SKEW and SCALE.
OR, with photos that have contrast extreme or inverted, I can use the Light/Contrast function to clarify what the original details were.
The problem for me is: I can't tell what is a REAL photograph and what is a CONCOCTED "photographic" composition somebody created with a Photoshop technique.
There are some in which the pixels are distorted or rearranged, I can't do anything with them at all.
I'm guessing half the time, still. I haven't refined MY METHIOD (and "method" is the OVER-ARCHING OBSESSION of the "Scientific Community") so that it is transferable from photo to photo!
Go become a Xerox copier technician, and you'll KNOW THE METHOD!
Howzzat! Quoting: UNtypical USer
As you know, Emily, pitch roll and yaw refers to spacecraft attitude, where it is pointing in space.
How in the hell does this have any effect on imaging systems?
I suspect you just latched on to some words you don't understand and tried to hang your delusions on them.
non sufficit Orbis |
| UNtypical USer
Ancient of Days
User ID: 742063
8/28/2009 8:28 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
There is movement of a satellite during its onboard camera's "click."
That's what I mean. It comes out in a photo as a smear or tilt.
Not difficult to comprehend.
(>#( >7( >~SheChaiYAH -- JUST A PROGRAMMED MEAT-SUIT? BANNED for DATA @ ATS, BBC, AstroVera, Open Minds & Military.com. Don't take bans personal. |
| The Commentator
User ID: 587619
8/28/2009 8:36 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
There is movement of a satellite during its onboard camera's "click."
That's what I mean. It comes out in a photo as a smear or tilt.
Not difficult to comprehend. Quoting: UNtypical USer
So show some evidence for this claim, Emily and you may get more than one star.
But my guess is you can't show the sloightest evidence for your claim, after all you haven't yet, why should you change your delusion now?
non sufficit Orbis |
| nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 754238
8/28/2009 8:51 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
What's a free star party?
Up on Mount Hamilton? Where?
They do not want to discuss anything but what they already "know", their dogma.
No other ideas need show up. Quoting: UNtypical USer
So EVERYONE with a hundred bucks to spare and a free night is in on the secret? What, do they get pulled aside at Sears when they buy a "My First Telescope" for their kid and get told "Don't notice the people walking around on the Moon, now...they aren't really there?" |
| nomuse(NLI)
User ID: 754238
8/28/2009 8:53 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
There is movement of a satellite during its onboard camera's "click."
That's what I mean. It comes out in a photo as a smear or tilt.
Not difficult to comprehend. Quoting: UNtypical USer
Also not difficult to show. Show a single case of movement blur.
You still haven't realized that out of the photographs you've presented on this thread, most were not taken by spacecraft in motion!
Viking Mars photo -- spacecraft has landed.
Full hemisphere of Moon -- taken from ground, by amateur astronomer. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 757933
8/28/2009 8:55 PM | | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
Come on someone post those two clips of the astronaughts A) The First Interveiw and B)The Neil Armstrong Commencement Address he made in 2009?
YOU gotta see SEE the look on their faces. |
| UNtypical USer
Ancient of Days
User ID: 742063
8/28/2009 9:20 PM
| | Re: NASA DUMB or NASA FRAUD? | Quote |
I post what I post.
You are free to make your own interpretations of the many images I put up.
Have a nice weekend.
(>#( >7( >~SheChaiYAH -- JUST A PROGRAMMED MEAT-SUIT? BANNED for DATA @ ATS, BBC, AstroVera, Open Minds & Military.com. Don't take bans personal. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 | |
|
