Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:00 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:lol:
Aww, feeling inadequate again, Mugs? there, there, don't take on so!

Fsck me, now you think you're Rumpole!

Short answer: It depends.

Longer answer:

1. I don't see the direct relevance.
2. You won't explain the relevance of your "point" (or indeed what your point actually is) so how can anyone sensibly consider whatever it is you are getting at?
3. It isn't a "yes or no" question. You don't get to set a multiple choice of 2 one-word answers! What next, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Well, you think you do, and if so, good for you! My congratulations! I'd just like to know, how big is your studio (length minimum 93 million miles? Must be expensive to rent) and how do you recreate a G-type main-sequence yellow dwarf star for your re-creation?

If you can't do that, then you would have to set out how you recreate these basic parameters in some other way, in order to arrive at your proof. What is your proof? I'd be fascinated.

I know that your question, such as it presently is, is of no apparent direct relevance to what we are discussing, so unless you can re-frame it in a way where we can see your point and any relevance, you seem to be wasting your time.

I think you've watched too many old TV courtroom dramas and genuinely see yourself like Rumpole or Perry Mason, with a killer question. When what you need is a less banal scriptwriter.

While the "single" (sic) light source you probably refer to (the Sun) was naturally there, any items on the surface were illuminated by more than one light source; the Sun's light was reflected back from the regolith; the Earth was in the sky and acting as another light source (earthshine, much like moonshine on earth, but more variable, and from a bigger object); and the camera had an integral FLASH; which when used would also scatter off the regolith, astronauts' clothing, lander etc. as the individual image's case may be.

As it is, you're trying to infer that you have some sort of killer point, based on your self-proclaimed immense knowledge of the inverse square law and photographic exposures, but your tactic of "Look, I KNOW what the issue is here, and it is OBVIOUS, and so I DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO MAKE MY POINT, I can just ask obligue rhetorical questions and this will suffice" is cringeworthy.

But at least you are learning stuff. I've taught you that there is no air on the Moon, and that the Sun is actually not a small light source, so I am furthering your scientific education. I don't expect gratitude.

There are only two possible explanations here ...... you are either perfectly normal or you are a pompous prat.
And since nobody is perfect, what does that make you?


I am getting the hang of this ......

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:02 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

There are only two possible explanations here ...... you are either perfectly normal or you are a pompous prat.
And since nobody is perfect, what does that make you?


I am getting the hang of this ......

But of course there are other possible explanations. I might be a "holograph". Or what you think you read might just be being planted there by NASA and their flat-planet-wide array of transmitters. Or then again, maybe a reptilian shapeshifter from the Alpha quadrant or wherever it is they live (I forget). You should keep a more open mind.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:00 pm  

Vince Noir wrote:

Google AMOS5 which died recently.

Since you brought up Google. Have you ever seen a Google Maps or Google Earth planes and vehicles cruising around taking pictures for their "street view". Well, if we were to believe that satellite imaging is as accurate as always displayed, satellites should be quite capable of capturing images of buildings down to the tyre marks on the pavement, and easily creating a street based view. So then that leads to the question... why do they need to take pictures with a vehicle if satellites do exist and are capable of what we have always been told they are. Other than what we can actually see and experience with our own senses, nothing can be counted as true, especially when coming from Government who we have seen lie to us and deceive us over and over again. So why do Google use Planes and vehicles to photograph the Earth.

Who needs Satellites then. Google obviously don't to supply Google Earth/Maps. It'd be much easier if Satellites were really up there surely.. Simples,....I await more ad hominem and a plagiarised Diarrhea reply

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:14 pm  

Gotcha by the Googles!!!
Get outa that!!

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:26 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

[b][i]Since you brought up Google. Have you ever seen a Google Maps or Google Earth planes and vehicles cruising around taking pictures for their "street view". Well, if we were to believe that satellite imaging is as accurate as always displayed, satellites should be quite capable of capturing images of buildings down to the tyre marks on the pavement, and easily creating a street based view. ..

This actually illustrates very well why you are so gullible. You could have spent a short time gaining the basic preliminary knowledge of the limits on optical resolution, and then you would not have made this stupid remark. Instead, you just blindly rely on some superficially attractive (to you) madcap "theory" which is scientifically unsound.

The fact is that any optical lens has an absolute limit of the resolution it can reach. I have lots of them which I use on my cameras and my telescope, and understand resolution very well.

Cameras on the satellites in question are simply incapable of achieving the resolution you suggest. If you want to know why this is a fact, just look it up. Google "Airy pattern"for a start. You seem to think it is just possible to "zoom in" infinitely but sadly it's not.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:30 pm  

The Google branding on that plane is a terrible Photoshop job.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:34 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Snip[/i][/b]

Proper funny.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:43 pm  

Trust me I know about these things ....
The Google decals are only there to hide the NASA logos ..... barstards!

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:47 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

Trust me I know about these things ....
The Google decals are only there to hide the NASA logos ..... barstards!

Surely they'd be Freemason symbols?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:55 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

... Other than what we can actually see and experience with our own senses, nothing can be counted as true.... It'd be much easier if Satellites were really up there surely..

But I keep giving you the means to actually see and experience hundreds of satellites passing over your head, and yet you constantly ignore the fact that you CAN see them WITH YOUR OWN EYES on any clear night - if you choose to do so.

I have asked you many times to explain how this can be so, if the satellites did not exist, and you always completely ignore this rather large elephant in your room. Are you afraid to contemplate the answer? Occam wouldn't be.

But as I'm a helpful kind of guy, here are just some of the ones visible in the general Leeds night sky this early evening. Any time you want to explain how come you can see them, if they don't exist, please, do feel free!