Originally posted by sonhouseLook at the link, numbnuts.
Answers: NASA doesn't lie. And the moon deal, did you not believe my arithmetic about how big Earth would look like from the moon? I went over that in great detail for JW and it is about the size of your outstretched thumb as seen from the moon.
What part of the moon is a quarter MILLION miles away do you not understand?
I have proved NASA has lied and can readily do so again.
The images they produce are fabrications; they have yet to produce any unaltered photographs of the earth and whatever they have produced contradicts earlier productions.
If you consider the last link provided of the eclipse animation is a valid representation, you've got your head too far up your ass to understand basic physics.
Your understanding of how light works is a joke, and you cannot offer a single, salient accurate explanation for the visibility of distant objects.
No, not distant objects observed and recorded then reported on the internet (which you are free to investigate on your own), but objects I myself am able to see pretty much every day across the water of Lake Erie.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhere is your proof NASA fabricated anything? All you have is words words and more words, like 'obvious animations'. That is not proof. That is opinion. You don't seem to have the slightest idea of the difference.
I have proved NASA has lied and can readily do so again.
The images they produce are fabrications; they have yet to produce any unaltered photographs of the earth and whatever they have produced contradicts earlier productions.
If you consider the last link provided of the eclipse animation is a valid representation, you've got your head too far up yo ...[text shortened]... r own), but objects I myself am able to see pretty much every day across the water of Lake Erie.
BTW, you have to go back a lot further in time and call THEM liars also, there was another expedition to Antarctica in 1840, several years long in fact and there was a meeting between American and French navies down there back then also:
http://www.south-pole.com/p0000079.htm
So you going to call these early exporers, French and Americans liars also?
-Removed-Quite the contrary.
I've made two very specific and very testable claims.
Refuting these claims with conclusive facts as opposed to personal invective, they are removed from the table and whatever rests upon their foundation is laid waste.
Simply declaring the claims are faulty will not be enough, no matter how much passion is put into the effort.
Your job is ridiculously simple, but apparently insurmountably difficult.
Prove the claims wrong.
I have offered proof of NASA's absurdities but that was just me being nice; I really didn't have to provide anything.
Literally the only thing you need to do to dismiss the claim is provide even one example of a picture of the earth produced by NASA which is unaltered and otherwise free of any manipulation in any fashion.
How hard can that be, really?
NASA has produced thousands upon thousands of images over the previous decades.
Surely, there ought to be ONE picture of the earth which is an actual, true image of the planet.
Instead, each and every one of the images we have are ALL composites, altered and in some cases Photoshopped.
And, in keeping with the globe earth illusion, each and every one of the images depicts the earth as a perfectly round sphere.
Not an oblate spheroid, not pear-shaped.
Perfectly round.
How hard can it be for you to provide even one picture which discredits this claim?
Although this is not the only reason I make the claim they are lying, but I'll let you off the hook on this one by simply producing one picture.
The other claim is, also, absurdly simple to discredit: prove the math used is wrong or that the examples provided are in error.
How hard can that be, really?
Originally posted by sonhouseWhere is your proof NASA fabricated anything?
Where is your proof NASA fabricated anything? All you have is words words and more words, like 'obvious animations'. That is not proof. That is opinion. You don't seem to have the slightest idea of the difference.
BTW, you have to go back a lot further in time and call THEM liars also, there was another expedition to Antarctica in 1840, several years lon ...[text shortened]... .com/p0000079.htm
So you going to call these early exporers, French and Americans liars also?
Start with what I just posted to divegeester.
Then we can move on to the thousands upon thousands of exhibits.
All you have is words words and more words, like 'obvious animations'. That is not proof. That is opinion. You don't seem to have the slightest idea of the difference.
Hold on to your hat, because you're going to be having it for lunch.
The choice of the words "obvious animations" are a direct result of their website which was quoted in that same post of mine.
To wit:
"This animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon, illuminated by the sun, as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and telescope, and the Earth - one million miles away."
Huh.
Guess my opinion was pretty well founded, right?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo you frigging idiot. Animation in this case is a series of stills taken some time apart. They are images from a spacecraft, NASA does not need to fake anything you little pisssant. That is what I am talking about when I say it is insulting to me personally having worked there.
[b]Where is your proof NASA fabricated anything?
Start with what I just posted to divegeester.
Then we can move on to the thousands upon thousands of exhibits.
All you have is words words and more words, like 'obvious animations'. That is not proof. That is opinion. You don't seem to have the slightest idea of the difference.
Hold on to yo ...[text shortened]... the Earth - one million miles away."[/i]
Huh.
Guess my opinion was pretty well founded, right?[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseYou, sir, are a deranged bundle of sticks.
No you frigging idiot. Animation in this case is a series of stills taken some time apart. They are images from a spacecraft, NASA does not need to fake anything you little pisssant. That is what I am talking about when I say it is insulting to me personally having worked there.
I spit in your general direction.
Unless and until you have mastered the language known as English and the basic concepts thereof, you are directed to back-the-letter-after-'e'-in-the-English-alphabet off.
-Removed-Are you so poor you cannot afford to pay attention?
I've given you clear proof from their own hand of their duplicity.
Too, I have levied a charge which is easily refuted, with a modicum of effort: offer a single picture of earth from NASA which has not been altered or manipulated.
This should be child's play for you or anyone else.