We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

originally posted by: cooperton
Then why are NASA engineers and astronauts struggling to figure out how to get new technology through this region?

Because the technology developed in these last 50 years was not developed to achieve a better protection against radiation but to get smaller sizes that result in lower power consumption and less heat produced.
Smaller sizes makes today's electronics more sensitive to radiation and lower power use makes them more sensitive to power variations that may happen when hit by a charged particle.

Imagine 50 years after Columbus, and the European boat-builders all of a sudden can't make a vessel that can bring humans to America. It's an absurd thought, but that's what's happening with getting humans past low earth orbit

It's absurd because you cannot compare 50 years evolution in ship building in the 16th century to electronics evolution in the 20th and 21st centuries, the electronics evolution has been extremely fast.
But your analogy can be used: imagine that during those 50 years, nobody had the need to sail across the ocean, only short distances in calm waters, so they started building ships with thinner planks and bigger, fixed sails. Thinner planks would make the ships lights, so they could carry more cargo, while bigger, fixed sails would allow them higher speeds. Using a ship like that to cross the ocean would be risky, as bigger waves could break it and stronger winds could break the masts.

originally posted by: Ove38
No, this is what the say about parallel and non-parallel shadows. They understand it perfectly.

At 2:49:27 youtu.be...

But it's possible that the terrain would be responsible for the difference in direction.

Saying the terrain is almost perfectly flat means nothing, as local differences are enough to create diverging shadows, as shadows are the result of a projecting light and a surface where the shadow is projected. Differences in any of them will give different results.

originally posted by: Grenade
The ISS footage posted earlier in this thread certainly raises some question about the legitimacy of recent NASA missions.

What footage?

a reply to: ArMaP

There's also the fact that when people are drawing their arrows claiming the direction of the shadows they seem to have difficulty in doing it accurately - almost as if they are deliberately trying to make something look more out of line than they actually are.

www.moonhoaxdebunked.com...

Moon hoaxers have problems with thinking in three dimensions. The shadow lines make much more sense when when you follow them back to the light source, which is clearly some distance away. those lines match exactly with the rays produced by the camera lens.

A nearby light source would create very different shadows.

a reply to: pfishy

When did I say they received a lethal dose?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

It's hard to see a 3D scene in a 2D photo, anaglyphs like the one on that page are a very good tool.

a reply to: pfishy

www.history.nasa.gov...

Radiation exposure for Apollo missions Apollo 7 and 9 were in low earth orbit and thus not penetrate the Van Allen belts

Each astronaut carried a personal dosimeter as well as film badges to record radiation exposure The dosimeters were
designed by Apollo 8 crew member Bill Aders a nuclear engineer

Apollo Mission
Skin Dose, rads

7 0.16
8 .16
9 .20
10 .48
11 .18
12 .58
13 .24
14 1.14
15 .30
16 .51
17 .55

a reply to: ArMaP

www.bitchute.com...

The first couple of minutes raises some questions.

This is a clear chroma key glitch at around 2:45 in this video:

a reply to: Grenade
He claims the whole scene would have washed out; that is not how all compression works. Mostly it only deals with changes in the video, here the astronauts moving.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: ArMaP

www.bitchute.com...

The first couple of minutes raises some questions.

This is a clear chroma key glitch at around 2:45 in this video:

It's not a chroma key issue, but almost certainly a compression issue.

Large raw video files are compressed into smaller file sizes for various reasons - to save memory space, to stream, to reduced bandwidth requirements, etc. But when a file is compressed, some information needs to be deleted. Video compression algorithms use the opportunity where frames have repeated information on them to delete that repeated info as redundant.

For example, and what is likely happening here, the video compression algorithm is noticing that the pixels of the stagnant background is remaining the same frame after frame. To reduce file size, it needs to only keep the info that's moving. That is, pixels that have major changes) from one frame to the next.

The algorithm does its best to keep up with the motion in order to refresh pixels that have moved/changed, but occasionally - and more so depending on the amount of compression - it makes mistakes and doesn't notice some movements and tries to repeat pixels from one frame to the next, even when the pixel has changed.

In this case, it's the moving ISS crew member. The crew member is moving, but the algorithm is not catching up. It repeats the pixel from the past frame of the crew member standing still (just like it is repeating the pixels of the non-moving background) but it is also trying to show the pixels being refreshed by the his movement. The same thing happens with the next frame, but is compounded by the error in the last frame. Continue this compression error over several consecutive frames, and you get what you see here.


EDIT TO ADD:
By the way, this is the same effect behind those "reptilian shapeshifter" videos.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Moon hoaxers have problems with thinking in three dimensions. The shadow lines make much more sense when when you follow them back to the light source, which is clearly some distance away. those lines match exactly with the rays produced by the camera lens.

A nearby light source would create very different shadows.

It's a fake hasselblad image with fake crosshairs. The image is cut out from a bigger image, like this.





Example of fake crosshairs



source: www.lpi.usra.edu...

a reply to: Ove38

Saying it don't make it so.

It's a genuine hasselblad image with genuine cross hairs. Your claim it's cut out from a bigger image is as unfounded as it is false. Prove otherwise.

You can see it as part of a series of pictures forming a large panorama in my copy of this National Geographic magazine:

file:///D:/obm/ephemera/site/ngeo/ngeo_ap14a.pdf

The duplicated reseau marks in the second photo are a product of ibternal reflections from the lens. You can draw lines through them and it will trace back to the source - the sun in the image.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

Saying it don't make it so.

It's a genuine hasselblad image with genuine cross hairs. Your claim it's cut out from a bigger image is as unfounded as it is false. Prove otherwise.

You can see it as part of a series of pictures forming a large panorama in my copy of this National Geographic magazine:

file:///D:/obm/ephemera/site/ngeo/ngeo_ap14a.pdf

The duplicated reseau marks in the second photo are a product of ibternal reflections from the lens. You can draw lines through them and it will trace back to the source - the sun in the image.

The big picture, the real image was taken with the light source right in front of the camera. That's why the shadows diverge.

a reply to: Grenade

Thanks.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the videos are fake for publicity purposes, I have see altered NASA photos on NASA sites more than once, but only on the more "public relations" side of things, like a photo of the Moon that in which they removed the colour of the Moon, probably to make the photo look "more convincing".

From the science side of things I have never seen any suspicious thing.

On the second video, it looks like compression artefacts, as some video compression methods only compress the areas that change and ignore the areas that do not change.

originally posted by: Ove38

The big picture, the real image was taken with the light source right in front of the camera. That's why the shadows diverge.

You mean like these images with the sun in front and shadows in perspective:

a reply to: Box of Rain

And the invisible wires in the first video? The astronaut playing with an invisible ball? The video with Bush at NASA?

a reply to: ArMaP

At least unlike the other disingenuous posters you admit that looks fake and suspicious. This kind of thing is what hurts their credibility.

a reply to: Ove38

The 'big picture' is composed of several images in a panorama. It's in tbe link I posted. They're even labelled for you. That is very different to your claim of it being a subsection of a larger image. The light source is the sun. Prove it isn't.

Are you just going to gish gallop through every piece of easily debunked c**p you've read or do you have any original thoughts of your own?

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Ove38

The big picture, the real image was taken with the light source right in front of the camera. That's why the shadows diverge.

You mean like these images with the sun in front and shadows in perspective:

And now compare that with this impossible Apollo image. The photo has clearly been cropped out of a bigger photo.



Like this