Re: revisiting Apollo

From: Yoda (briansterling_at_rogers.com)
Date: 07/19/04 

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:57:56 GMT

Holy ***..why dont you people watch the documentary then make your
silly comments. Then at least questions like what you pose below won't
have to be answered because they are answered in the documentary.

Jaxtraw wrote:

> "Yoda" <briansterling@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:fQCKc.1057961$Ar.616237@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>>
>>Jaxtraw wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Yoda" <briansterling@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>>news:zWBKc.1057142$Ar.581787@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jaxtraw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Yoda" <briansterling@rogers.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:wGAKc.1054209$Ar.852259@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all can
>>>>>>>share in the very detailed records and televised pictures that
>
> remain.
>
>>>>>>>It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact regardless of the spin
>>>>>>>put on the facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The US government openly admitted recently
>>>>>
>>>>><snip bilge>
>>>>>
>>>>>So to summarise, your belief is that NASA spent billions of dollars
>>>
>>>hoaxing
>>>
>>>
>>>>>a moon landing,
>>>>
>>>>Can you read English? I said the videos shown on TV were hoaxed. Get
>>>>your story strait.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I'm trying to get yours strait (sic) to be honest. Are you saying
>
> that
>
>>>they actually went to the moon, but showed fake videos?
>>
>>Yes. That is all the documentary said. That the immediate televised
>>landing was hoaxed. It ddidn't say the landing itself was hoaxed and
>>indeed you would have to be pretty out to lunch to believe that.
>
>
> Why bother hoaxing something that really happened? I'm perplexed.
>
>
>>>> but were so inept that they got all the basic science wrong,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>and that you can prove this because things look different in hollywood
>>>>>special effects?
>>>>
>>>>Sigh....NASA releases videos promoting new satellite technology and even
>>>>their technicians and artists place stars in the background.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, because these are *simulations* and they want them to look nice,
>
> and
>
>>>people expect stars in space.
>>
>>Duh....but you forget that NASA also likes to maintain accuracy or as
>>realistic as possible. That is the markings of a good artist that works
>>for the space industry no doubt.
>
>
> The markings of a good artist is their use of aesthetics and license.
> Creating a simulation of a scene does not obligate the artist to simulate
> particular characteristics of real imaging devices. Even if you work for
> NASA.
>
>
>>Besides you missed my point, many images from JPL and NASA show stars in
>>the background. My point was they missed blackening them out like they
>>normally do.
>
>
> But why? You're saying that they deliberately didn't include stars in the
> "hoaxed" footage; which shows it to be a hoax because there are no stars to
> be seen. Please explain why they would deliberately make it look incorrect,
> so that people such as yourself could see the deliberate flaw later on. This
> makes no sense at all.
>
>
>>>>I can take
>>>>any camera and place it on a tripod and take pictures of stars. Your
>>>>telling me NASA sent a camera to the moon, and put it on a tripod and it
>>>>couldnt take a picture of stars? Give me a break, we aren't all as
>>>>dumbass about photography as you seem to be.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, but can you do that in broad daylight? Can you take pictures of the
>>>stars if the landscape around you is floodlit to daylight levels?
>>
>>Would you give me a break? You're telling me that the ISS or moon
>>missions were never out of the daylight? You are even kookier than I
>>thought possible.
>
>
> Exactly. I don't believe any of the moon missions took place during the
> lunar night. The place was bathed in sunlight. They would have been
> stumbling around in the dark otherwise. As much light hits the moon as the
> earth, you know.
>
>
>>>Do you know what "dynamic range" is?
>>>
>>
>>Depends on your optics no doubt.
>
>
> No, it depends on your emulsion, or your CCD.
>
> Ian
>
>

Quantcast