More NASA Lies

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Sep 11, 2015.

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here's some "Footage of the Earth" supposedly taken from a satellite over a time span of several hours. The clouds don't move at all during that time. Therefore, this is fake.


    Check out some of the comments in the comment section of this video.

    Moon Got In The Way Of NASA's Image of Earth From Million Miles Away
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=22&v=gptt3nDn_6s

    -------------------------------
    Are u really that simple? Anyone with a brain can see this is fake. Where is the movement of the clouds?
    -------------------------------
    So clouds just stay frozen in place during hours of time lapse? Lol. Fake. NASA FAIL!
    -------------------------------
    Yes this animation was "created" from several components. NASA can't afford a digital camera that takes actual pictures......AND people believe that this stuff is real.
    -------------------------------
    It looks like a low-budget special effect because that is exactly what it IS.
    -------------------------------
    weird how the cloud patterns don't change on the time lapse. FAKE!
    -------------------------------
    No stars and the clouds don't move over the several hours these pics were taken.We are being deceived on a grand scale.
    -------------------------------


    This new lie can be added to this list.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html


    Let's hear some opinions from some pro-NASA posters.
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <sigh> are you THAT simple scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c?,there's NO need for NASA to fake anything
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Spam. You seem to think posting this on multiple forums is the act of a truther, it most certainly is not.

    The clouds move as expected. In a 5 hour span, some cloud formations moving at average 30-40mph cover 150-200 miles. The visible diameter of the Earth is 8,000 miles, so we would expect to see them move between 1.8-2.5% in a variety of directions. Some of the clouds wouldn't move much at all. There isn't much visible land and the Earth is rotating so quite how you are able to make direct references is very dishonest.

    [​IMG]

    That picture covers under half the 5 hour duration and clearly shows cloud movement. Newsflash, every time you stumble upon a new "conspiracy", there is no need to believe it without verification.
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course you do,It's running at a faster rate....DUH!!
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's not the rate. It's whether there's movement over a given amount of time.

    You can see what twelve hours is in this video...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8v0LCOJ1Vk

    ...so a little less than half of that is five hours. There significant movement in that time. In the other video there is zero movement.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I see profound ignorance on your part and the shameless inability to concede any single moronic conspiracy.

    The video shows a time lapse from a geostationary satellite. That is, it orbits at the same speed as the planet rotates, so always sees the same view. In the video we see a daylight span of 12 hours from a fixed viewpoint. If you break that up into a 1/6th segment, you see the same small cloud movements as the NASA lunar transit gif. A gif, I might add, that shows the Earth spinning so has no single point of reference, as even the visible land is rotating also.

    Do you deny that the two pictures above show cloud motion?

    - - - Updated - - -

    You are lying or need your eyes checking.
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Anyone who actually looks at both videos can see that you're full-of-it. You might as well insist that a picture of a chicken is really a picture of a pig.

    Viewers...

    Please look at both videos and decide for yourselves.

    Also, look at the bottom of this post.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=195797&page=19&p=1065360094#post1065360094


    This guy is not to be taken seriously.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    One video is a gif showing a spinning Earth over a 5 hour period, where the clouds move with the Earth. The other is a static geostationary satellite with a non spinning earth over 12 hours and clouds moving.

    The former has only one point of reference, the USA, which moves edgeways as the Earth spins. Even so, when we take areas even a couple of hours apart, we can clearly see the clouds have changed.

    I ask again, do the two pictures taken two hours apart, show movement in the clouds? You seem afraid to answer and once again resort to your attempted ad-hominem where your moronic Chinese spacewalk observation counts as proof of my credibility. This would be footage where you don't know the difference between a bubble and a booger.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can't identify any change in the clouds in this video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=22&v=gptt3nDn_6s

    I've looked at several spots and watched them throughout the whole movement. Why don't you highlight an obvious movement. If a movement is really there, I'll be the first to say so. I don't have an ego stake in this. I just want the truth to prevail.
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/08/05/watch-the-moon-transit-the-earth/

    A much better video.

    You want the truth to prevail? See post 3 and the two pictures, there are obvious changes in two hours. I highlighted why it is difficult to notice changes since the aspect changes as the clouds become sideways on from the rotation and there is only one area of land to reference against.


    I have sourced the pictures used in very high definition.

    Picture 1:
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011900/a011971/198_1972105.png

    Picture 2:
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011900/a011971/198_1972135.png

    Picture 3:
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011900/a011971/198_1972220.png

    Picture 4:
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011900/a011971/198_1972250.png

    Picture 5:
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011900/a011971/198_1972350.png
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A small segment from picture 1 and picture 5, even allowing for aspect changes, showing loads of big differences.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A genuine truth seeker verifies data and looks at all evidence. You just slap your rubbish up on multiple forums and make out that you are some sort of keyboard warrior for the truth. In the process of saying people are "full of it" and "not to be trusted" you invariably get your butt handed to you. This is one rare event where you admit it. You also seem to think your spam antics on other forums are not easy to find. I find it hilarious that you think NASA pays me to take you apart.
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,762
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It takes a very uneducated delusional mind to see a flag moving around at any speed with no restriction then claim it is underwater. No billowing and no resistance of any kind is physically impossible. This shouldn't even get past an opening claim, but to compound it with a misshapen piece of ice clearly rotating, not rising vertically and claim it is a bubble is just plain idiotic. Your "explanation" for the flag is that the film is slowed down makes no difference, fabric in water simply will not make any kind of movement without being pushed back. You steadfastly refuse to admit the piece of ice is not a bubble and your pathetic claim is that I have doctored the footage. In an era where even small kids can do frame grabs and use movie maker, you are incapable of doing this yourself or asking somebody who can.

    Your main claim is where you observe some cables not behaving as you think they should. You know nothing about motion in a vacuum, the stresses involved, the effects of heat and cold or the frictionless nature that allows even tiny forces to cause movement. So sure of your ridiculous hogwash are you, that you have never answered why shape memory doesn't explain this simple thing.

    You suck as a truther.
     
  17. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0

Share This Page