SSS-666What part of “Moving images transmitted back to earth from television camera of the era (Only about 20 years after television became widely available) Recorded probably on 405 line format on magnetic tape” are you having difficulty following?
Transmitted TO Earth
Recorded ON Earth:rolleyes:
Moggy
Don’t get too excited, Blood Pressure, you know!
I guess I misunderstood.
Either way, I just don’t buy the argument that in the 60s and 70s, the TV technology was so
primitive that we have to accept a 1930s quality recording of the “greatest achievement of the
20th Century”. Hell, even a Charlie Chaplin movie, or even a Buster Keaton one, has better
quality than this.
Anything to say about my loooonnnng and “undisputable” presentation
SSS-666What part of “Moving images transmitted back to earth from television camera of the era (Only about 20 years after television became widely available) Recorded probably on 405 line format on magnetic tape” are you having difficulty following?
Transmitted TO Earth
Recorded ON Earth:rolleyes:
Moggy
Don’t get too excited, Blood Pressure, you know!
I guess I misunderstood.
Either way, I just don’t buy the argument that in the 60s and 70s, the TV technology was so
primitive that we have to accept a 1930s quality recording of the “greatest achievement of the
20th Century”. Hell, even a Charlie Chaplin movie, or even a Buster Keaton one, has better
quality than this.
Anything to say about my loooonnnng and “undisputable” presentation
SSS-666Up to date how? The design is already over a decade old and still has no weapon systems or anything else needed to be remotely close to a fighter prototype.
Certain how? I’m curious to know why you think the PAK-FA is going to be that much superior over the F-22. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but seeing as how nobody really knows anything concrete about the jet…
No. Look-up intercepts of faster targets are certainly possible. If they weren’t, the MiG-25 would have been a complete and utter failure as an interceptor as it would have never been able to shoot down a Blackbird.
Also, you seem to be giving the PAK-FA characteristics which aren’t known to be true.
I can’t elaborate on PKA-FA any more than I already have, and I may be wrong on my
attributions to the plane.
As for the SU-47, Well, I guess that is not a good choice after all and better be scraped.
So, what do you think about the UAV, or as Berlusconi corrected, UCAV. What if 500 or even
1000 of these were to challenge manned Jets like F-15 and the rest. Pulling 11 Gs for a sustained
period wouldn’t be a problem when the pilot is sitting in an airconditioned room sipping tea.
Seen the movie “Peace Maker” with Chevey chase? They had the story built around a UAV
which could be launched like a Shahab Missile at a 45 degree angle, and it could literary run
circles around a manned Fighter Jet.
Why couldn’t the same be done in real combat?
SSS-666lol, well, the Bush HW administration kept reassuring them “we won’t invade”, even though they built up a large force in SA 😀 :p
Hey Silvio. Thanks for not suing me.
As for that scumbag Saddam, I hear his sand castle crumbles because he kept interfering in his
general’s action plan. I guess we just have to wait for the day this humiliated animal is hanging
upside down for a good cause…..like feeding vultures.
I am pretty sure the Iranians know, and are watching, if there is any hint of build up. The bad
guys (you know, the ones that have issued a threat to just about every country on this planet and
invaded quit a few), are trying to nonchalantly accumulate forces mostly in those beggar former
Soviet countries. By forces I mean planes that would be used, but can not take off from the US
or Diego Garcia or anywhere closer than Israel.
Now, am I wrong to assume there is already the technology to fly a UAV high enough and far
enough to intercept a tanker refuelling a ………..I don’t know………F-15 or F-16 or F-117 and may
be F-22?
Here is a thought. Instead of all of the suggested SUs or MIGs, why wouldn’t the Iranians fly 500
or more UAVs with the above mentioned capabilities. They can have just about anybody, who
shows talent, from a high school student to a 70-year-old retired pilot flying them. Hell, even
girls could keep their Hejab and still sit behind the controls. And, from what I hear, the Iranians
have one of the highest rate of girl literacy.
Now isn’t this a futuristic and radical idea? It goes along with my other “disappeared” post in the
Navy section about the feasibility of having dozens of Mini-Subs lurking at the bottom of the
Persian Gulf, looking up, and waiting for the order to take out a Nuclear Sub, Air Craft Carrier
or Aegis Class.
Wonder if any Military Strategist is reading this?
SSS-666Why order a technology demonstrator when they can wait for a fully-developed 5th generation fighter in the form of the PAK-FA? Besides, there’s little chance of the Su-47 being sold to anyone, as it is a privately developed technology demonstrator and little more.
The scenario is for Iran to have only one (1) plane to go against its enemies. Also, since they are
surrounded , from every side by the bad guys, they need to keep that factor in mind when picking a
single plane. Also, the chosen one, must be multi-roll and able to detect and engage the enemy planes
before they get within range to accomplish their mission. . I guess I don’t need to remind us that the
detection of the incoming missiles will not be visual and at close range.
I keep going back to SU-47 because in 10 years it could still be up-to-date. But SU-30, SU-34,
MIG-29 and the rest would be like MIG-25 is today.
PAK-FA may come into service……….I don’t know………. in a few years? SO, for now there is
SU-47. Granted, for what I know, and I don’t know much, PAK-FA will make minced meat out
of F-22. That much is certain. But, for now, we stick with what is available.
Tell me something, wouldn’t a plane that can go up to 80,000 feet, like MIG-31 and one with a
speed of almost Mach 3, like MIG-25 be able to avoid being shot by a plane which can not go
that high or fast? Wouldn’t the pilot just go up and look down with a smile, or punch it and
become a dot? Of course we know that the detection of the missile is not visual, and essentially
NOT a surprise.
SSS-666I swear, some of the medical conditions on this planet could have been invented by a sadist. This definately is one of them 🙁
You know, we go on about how sh**ty our life is, and how we get upset about not being able to
buy something we want or the guy cutting us off on the road, or…….other trivial stuff. Then we
see the pain and sufferings of others around us, particularly in disadvantaged countries. That is
when “we” realise how lucky we are not to have to wory about our skin falling off and other
horrific anomalies affecting those deemed as ”Anomalous”.
And, I can feel for you Halibag. Wishing you looked like that makes me wonder how you look
now!!
SSS-666I swear, some of the medical conditions on this planet could have been invented by a sadist. This definately is one of them 🙁
You know, we go on about how sh**ty our life is, and how we get upset about not being able to
buy something we want or the guy cutting us off on the road, or…….other trivial stuff. Then we
see the pain and sufferings of others around us, particularly in disadvantaged countries. That is
when “we” realise how lucky we are not to have to wory about our skin falling off and other
horrific anomalies affecting those deemed as ”Anomalous”.
And, I can feel for you Halibag. Wishing you looked like that makes me wonder how you look
now!!
SSS-666The only reason it’s an issue is because people choose to make it an issue.
The flat-earthers are idiots. That’s a fact. Don’t even go there.
Anyway, if we went through life on the assumption that nobody should believe anything until it was proven conclusively to the satisfaction of every single person who comes up with some such BS reason that it just can’t have happened, we wouldn’t get anywhere. Let me ask you this: are you a religious person?
What did I say to make you think I would even contemplate even coming close to accept a moronic claim, about the Earth being flat, which belongs to the 12th Century? Along with Alchemistry, Astrology, Faith Healing, Fortune Telling and the rest of the utterly illogical and down right weird beliefs.
I didn’t think this stuff even warranted a discussion???
As for me being religious, are you puting me on? Take another look at my Title ^_^ ^_^ ^_^
SSS-666The only reason it’s an issue is because people choose to make it an issue.
The flat-earthers are idiots. That’s a fact. Don’t even go there.
Anyway, if we went through life on the assumption that nobody should believe anything until it was proven conclusively to the satisfaction of every single person who comes up with some such BS reason that it just can’t have happened, we wouldn’t get anywhere. Let me ask you this: are you a religious person?
What did I say to make you think I would even contemplate even coming close to accept a moronic claim, about the Earth being flat, which belongs to the 12th Century? Along with Alchemistry, Astrology, Faith Healing, Fortune Telling and the rest of the utterly illogical and down right weird beliefs.
I didn’t think this stuff even warranted a discussion???
As for me being religious, are you puting me on? Take another look at my Title ^_^ ^_^ ^_^
SSS-666Oh dearie me. I suspect that we won’t have all that long to wait before The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion are trotted out…… :rolleyes:
Like I said, another time, another thread.
SSS-666Oh dearie me. I suspect that we won’t have all that long to wait before The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion are trotted out…… :rolleyes:
Like I said, another time, another thread.
SSS-666Just about sums up your whole argument. You’ve swallowed the conspiracy thing hook line and sinker and don’t stop to think.
1966. Moving images transmitted back to earth from television camera of the era (Only about 20 years after television became widely available) Recorded probably on 405 line format on magnetic tape.
Stills shot on high quality 35mm or 2.5 Square colour negative in a very sparse atmoshphere. The exposed film carried back to earth and processed in a state-of-the-art film lab.
Of course there is a huge gulf in the quality.
Collapse of conspiracy theory house of cards. :rolleyes:
Moggy
Who was around at the time and working in film and photography.
Well, thanks Moggy. I think you point to a very good fact. After you finish rolling your eyes ^_^
Recording on a 405 line format on magnetic tape. Do you have any knowledge of the radiation
effects on a magnetic tape, or the enormous heat and cold on the Moon? Remember, the
cameras were not wearing “protective” suits.
SSS-666Just about sums up your whole argument. You’ve swallowed the conspiracy thing hook line and sinker and don’t stop to think.
1966. Moving images transmitted back to earth from television camera of the era (Only about 20 years after television became widely available) Recorded probably on 405 line format on magnetic tape.
Stills shot on high quality 35mm or 2.5 Square colour negative in a very sparse atmoshphere. The exposed film carried back to earth and processed in a state-of-the-art film lab.
Of course there is a huge gulf in the quality.
Collapse of conspiracy theory house of cards. :rolleyes:
Moggy
Who was around at the time and working in film and photography.
Well, thanks Moggy. I think you point to a very good fact. After you finish rolling your eyes ^_^
Recording on a 405 line format on magnetic tape. Do you have any knowledge of the radiation
effects on a magnetic tape, or the enormous heat and cold on the Moon? Remember, the
cameras were not wearing “protective” suits.
SSS-666http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2001/news-moonlanding.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations
Gentlemen, calm down. I can understand you gather amongst “your own” and go into a feeding
frenzy. I also know my 3 pages will not make a bit of difference in your opinion. Your brain
works differently, and you see what you want to see. Then again, if logic and common sense
where more prevalent, the world would have been void of suckers.
Here is my big effort to at least try to point out a few things.
Well, I can’t think of anyone stupid enough to believe in the Flat Earth theory, unless of course
they were teleported from the 14th century. If there are people in today’s society who believe in
stuff like that, then Idiots like Bush can be elected over and over again kekekekekekeke.
SOC, you are making me work hard on this. So, here it goes.
The links don’t have anything new AT ALL. They take a photo or a point and make an argument
to suit their purpose. I’ll go over the “proofs” set forth by the Bad Astronomy site, in that neatly
presented table.
1- (No stars in the pictures), in fact in any of them whatsoever: The so-called proof set forth by
this guy is flawed from the start and he builds on that. Which is flawed to begin with. There in
fact should be so many stars, that the entire sky, every inch of it, should look like the center of
the milky way when looked at without light interference. So, he takes a false point and builds on
that.
2- (Deep-Dark shadows)( I hate doing stuff like this, it takes too long and it should be obvious to
a logical person, but….): The argument is once again flawed from the start. Throwing in a fancy
word like the heiligenschein effect will not change anything for the logical mind because there
are no dews on the Moon Grass ( see how dumb this is?). Furthermore, the heiligenschein effect
is uniform, therefore there shouldn’t be shadows, as I said before, in between the kinks of the
gold foil. The shadows form because the edge of the kinked foil is blocking the light. Which
means the source of that light is not uniform, if it in fact was the surface reflecting the light.
3- (More Identical backgrounds): How can anyone accept the garbage presented as proof
seriously. The guy says that NASA was wrong in presenting the same hill as 2 different sites and
2 different missions. DOH.
4- (Astro-not footage shot in slow motion): Now that is a funny argument. And, unfortunately, it
works for a certain type of people ( I don’t mean dumb people, just the ones who are not ruled by
LOGIC and COMMON SENSE). This guy takes a point that actually proves him wrong, but uses
it to say he was right. That easy. The footage looks exactly as if it were filmed at normal speed,
like any other movie on “earth”. And the dust falls back to the ground in a perfect arc. Well, no
shi**t sherlock, that is what happens on earth, not the Moon. DOH
5- (Missing cross-hairs in photos): Gee weez, the argument here is so stupid that it is not worth
deciphering. The pics which show the cross-hairs “behind” the objects are not “overexposed”.
What a silly argument. And, ironically, it works for some.
6-(No blast crater)( my brain is saying stttooooooppppp this ilogical sh**it): Throwing in a few
figures and math does not change anything. The Lander (yeah right, the “Lander”) along with the
Astro-nots and all those heavy equipment needs a lot of reverse thrust to land smoothly. But,
since I am fighting a hard battle with my mind as ( these stuff is so damn obvious), I’ll make a
long story short. In any shape or form and by any stretch of imagination, there has to be a large
blast crater. There isn’t even a little one. Furthermore, having a fraction of earth’s gravity, the
dust would have been blown waaaaay up and strewn all over the place. Yet the “Lander” is
100% clean.
7-(none-parallel shadows): what a load of crap. This guy starts by saying “lets assume the
shadows are not parallel”. No moron, the shadows are NOT parallel, we don’t need to assume.
And, the garbage about “perspective” and “three-dimensional scene” is absolute nonsense. His
proof, packaged in a long jargon-filled bull, is, essentially, that what you see is an optical
illusion. That’s it.
8-(Lander unable to balance itself): Once again this guy relies on ignorance. The “greatest
invention of the century” just came out a couple of years ago, and it was the Scooter with 2
wheels with ability to use a computer for constant balancing. Opposing the body’s shafting. I
guess the “inventors” stole the idea from the Warehouse-Sized, Paper-Spitting, Reel to Reel
Spinning computers of the 60s. Or, was it that they fitted the entire Warehouse-Sized Computer
inside the lander (like Dr Who).
9-(The waving flag): Blah blah blah. The bottom line is that when the Astro-nots stopped
messing with the flag, twisting and shaking and all, the flag had to stop fluttering and stand
perfectly still. The Moon still has a gravity, and that gravity ( in absence of any air, thus any
wind) would straighten any “flutter” and the flag should have been as straight as a cardboard. It
is amusing how the guy puts forth his lame proof.
10-(The deadly radiation of space): I don’t really want to get into Astro Physics and stuff, I know
the audience here, so………. Only that this argument point is not a major one.
11-(Dust around the Lander): Well, I have already touched on this. And, this guy’s experiment
with flour is aimed at fooling the elementary readers. What a load of crap. Once again, he uses
an example which proves himself wrong, then uses it to claim otherwise. Well, why not? There
is a sucker born every day.
12-(Identical background): Well, we already talk about that, and this guy can use measurements,
heights, widths, lengths and any other garbage arguments he wants. The backgrounds are the
same. NASA screwed up and used the same background to take fake photos of “Moon landings”
which were years apart.
13-(No flames from Lunar launch): Wow, this guy is good. Arguing about primitive cameras
(which in itself contradicts just about everything he has said before), no atmosphere and the
hilarious “no flame” fuel. What a load os sh**t. Do you guys really fall for this stuff??? Here is
another question: having considered the “primitive” camera this guy talks about, when the
Lander supposedly takes off with a “bang of a couple of sparklers” who is left behind, on the
Moon, to follow the ascend? As we see, the camera moves up when the Lander takes off.
14-(Why was every picture perfect): Good question. The guy doesn’t offer anything here. Just his
own lame argument. If NASA has thousands of “bad” photos of the Moon landings, then where
the hell are they? I don’t think any one of you would believe those pics were not valuable and
worth seeing regardless of their quality. Hell, there is only one (1) pic of Neil Armstrong, that’s
it. I tell you why. The rest of the “fake” pics of THE FIRST MAN ON THE MOON were too
obvious as fakes.
15-(Did NASA murder its Astro-nots): No………. They had it done for them.
SSS-666http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2001/news-moonlanding.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations
Gentlemen, calm down. I can understand you gather amongst “your own” and go into a feeding
frenzy. I also know my 3 pages will not make a bit of difference in your opinion. Your brain
works differently, and you see what you want to see. Then again, if logic and common sense
where more prevalent, the world would have been void of suckers.
Here is my big effort to at least try to point out a few things.
Well, I can’t think of anyone stupid enough to believe in the Flat Earth theory, unless of course
they were teleported from the 14th century. If there are people in today’s society who believe in
stuff like that, then Idiots like Bush can be elected over and over again kekekekekekeke.
SOC, you are making me work hard on this. So, here it goes.
The links don’t have anything new AT ALL. They take a photo or a point and make an argument
to suit their purpose. I’ll go over the “proofs” set forth by the Bad Astronomy site, in that neatly
presented table.
1- (No stars in the pictures), in fact in any of them whatsoever: The so-called proof set forth by
this guy is flawed from the start and he builds on that. Which is flawed to begin with. There in
fact should be so many stars, that the entire sky, every inch of it, should look like the center of
the milky way when looked at without light interference. So, he takes a false point and builds on
that.
2- (Deep-Dark shadows)( I hate doing stuff like this, it takes too long and it should be obvious to
a logical person, but….): The argument is once again flawed from the start. Throwing in a fancy
word like the heiligenschein effect will not change anything for the logical mind because there
are no dews on the Moon Grass ( see how dumb this is?). Furthermore, the heiligenschein effect
is uniform, therefore there shouldn’t be shadows, as I said before, in between the kinks of the
gold foil. The shadows form because the edge of the kinked foil is blocking the light. Which
means the source of that light is not uniform, if it in fact was the surface reflecting the light.
3- (More Identical backgrounds): How can anyone accept the garbage presented as proof
seriously. The guy says that NASA was wrong in presenting the same hill as 2 different sites and
2 different missions. DOH.
4- (Astro-not footage shot in slow motion): Now that is a funny argument. And, unfortunately, it
works for a certain type of people ( I don’t mean dumb people, just the ones who are not ruled by
LOGIC and COMMON SENSE). This guy takes a point that actually proves him wrong, but uses
it to say he was right. That easy. The footage looks exactly as if it were filmed at normal speed,
like any other movie on “earth”. And the dust falls back to the ground in a perfect arc. Well, no
shi**t sherlock, that is what happens on earth, not the Moon. DOH
5- (Missing cross-hairs in photos): Gee weez, the argument here is so stupid that it is not worth
deciphering. The pics which show the cross-hairs “behind” the objects are not “overexposed”.
What a silly argument. And, ironically, it works for some.
6-(No blast crater)( my brain is saying stttooooooppppp this ilogical sh**it): Throwing in a few
figures and math does not change anything. The Lander (yeah right, the “Lander”) along with the
Astro-nots and all those heavy equipment needs a lot of reverse thrust to land smoothly. But,
since I am fighting a hard battle with my mind as ( these stuff is so damn obvious), I’ll make a
long story short. In any shape or form and by any stretch of imagination, there has to be a large
blast crater. There isn’t even a little one. Furthermore, having a fraction of earth’s gravity, the
dust would have been blown waaaaay up and strewn all over the place. Yet the “Lander” is
100% clean.
7-(none-parallel shadows): what a load of crap. This guy starts by saying “lets assume the
shadows are not parallel”. No moron, the shadows are NOT parallel, we don’t need to assume.
And, the garbage about “perspective” and “three-dimensional scene” is absolute nonsense. His
proof, packaged in a long jargon-filled bull, is, essentially, that what you see is an optical
illusion. That’s it.
8-(Lander unable to balance itself): Once again this guy relies on ignorance. The “greatest
invention of the century” just came out a couple of years ago, and it was the Scooter with 2
wheels with ability to use a computer for constant balancing. Opposing the body’s shafting. I
guess the “inventors” stole the idea from the Warehouse-Sized, Paper-Spitting, Reel to Reel
Spinning computers of the 60s. Or, was it that they fitted the entire Warehouse-Sized Computer
inside the lander (like Dr Who).
9-(The waving flag): Blah blah blah. The bottom line is that when the Astro-nots stopped
messing with the flag, twisting and shaking and all, the flag had to stop fluttering and stand
perfectly still. The Moon still has a gravity, and that gravity ( in absence of any air, thus any
wind) would straighten any “flutter” and the flag should have been as straight as a cardboard. It
is amusing how the guy puts forth his lame proof.
10-(The deadly radiation of space): I don’t really want to get into Astro Physics and stuff, I know
the audience here, so………. Only that this argument point is not a major one.
11-(Dust around the Lander): Well, I have already touched on this. And, this guy’s experiment
with flour is aimed at fooling the elementary readers. What a load of crap. Once again, he uses
an example which proves himself wrong, then uses it to claim otherwise. Well, why not? There
is a sucker born every day.
12-(Identical background): Well, we already talk about that, and this guy can use measurements,
heights, widths, lengths and any other garbage arguments he wants. The backgrounds are the
same. NASA screwed up and used the same background to take fake photos of “Moon landings”
which were years apart.
13-(No flames from Lunar launch): Wow, this guy is good. Arguing about primitive cameras
(which in itself contradicts just about everything he has said before), no atmosphere and the
hilarious “no flame” fuel. What a load os sh**t. Do you guys really fall for this stuff??? Here is
another question: having considered the “primitive” camera this guy talks about, when the
Lander supposedly takes off with a “bang of a couple of sparklers” who is left behind, on the
Moon, to follow the ascend? As we see, the camera moves up when the Lander takes off.
14-(Why was every picture perfect): Good question. The guy doesn’t offer anything here. Just his
own lame argument. If NASA has thousands of “bad” photos of the Moon landings, then where
the hell are they? I don’t think any one of you would believe those pics were not valuable and
worth seeing regardless of their quality. Hell, there is only one (1) pic of Neil Armstrong, that’s
it. I tell you why. The rest of the “fake” pics of THE FIRST MAN ON THE MOON were too
obvious as fakes.
15-(Did NASA murder its Astro-nots): No………. They had it done for them.
Sign In
