Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10

Topic closed

2008-02-22 04:32:29
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6177|Washington DC

Funky_Finny wrote:

As I previously stated before, stars ARE bright enough to be exposed on a camera film, regardless of the shutter speed. Tonight I will take a picture of the sky at 1/2000 of a second (The fasted shutter speed my camera will allow) to prove it to you.

And to explain the almost thousand pounds of lunar rock, they landed un-manned space craft on the moon, I'll accept that, and that could pick up rock. Maybe not as efficiently but it could certainly do it. Didn't they make a craft that would land on Mars able to do this? I'm sure if you sent enough of these to the moon (which they did, right?) you could collect enough moon rocks.
Stars: You're on Earth not the moon, we have a thing called the atmosphere that keeps us from being fried by intense heat (which would be accompanied with intense light)

So now you think they sent an un-manned spacecraft to the moon successfully? Why couldn't it happen to be carrying a few people then??

edit: LOL WUT, so you're saying the government made what was essentially an outer-space UAV in 1969 but god forbid a human actually landed?

Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-02-22 04:33:07)

2008-02-22 04:35:12
Funky_Finny
Banned
+456|6348|Carnoustie, Scotland

HurricaИe wrote:

Funky_Finny wrote:

As I previously stated before, stars ARE bright enough to be exposed on a camera film, regardless of the shutter speed. Tonight I will take a picture of the sky at 1/2000 of a second (The fasted shutter speed my camera will allow) to prove it to you.

And to explain the almost thousand pounds of lunar rock, they landed un-manned space craft on the moon, I'll accept that, and that could pick up rock. Maybe not as efficiently but it could certainly do it. Didn't they make a craft that would land on Mars able to do this? I'm sure if you sent enough of these to the moon (which they did, right?) you could collect enough moon rocks.
Stars: You're on Earth not the moon, we have a thing called the atmosphere that keeps us from being fried by intense heat (which would be accompanied with intense light)

So now you think they sent an un-manned spacecraft to the moon successfully? Why couldn't it happen to be carrying a few people then??

edit: LOL WUT, so you're saying the government made what was essentially an outer-space UAV in 1969 but god forbid a human actually landed?
Do you even know how cameras work?

If I can capture stars at 1/2000 of a second, WITH an atmosphere, then they'll be much duller than on the moon, since it's not got an atmosphere and is closer to the stars.

Yes, I do think they are able, and were able, to get people to the moon, but I think the supposed one that did go to the moon didn't go, as nobody had the balls to go or the government didn't want to send anyone for whatever reason, and just staged it.
2008-02-22 04:36:24
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6177|Washington DC

Funky_Finny wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

Funky_Finny wrote:

As I previously stated before, stars ARE bright enough to be exposed on a camera film, regardless of the shutter speed. Tonight I will take a picture of the sky at 1/2000 of a second (The fasted shutter speed my camera will allow) to prove it to you.

And to explain the almost thousand pounds of lunar rock, they landed un-manned space craft on the moon, I'll accept that, and that could pick up rock. Maybe not as efficiently but it could certainly do it. Didn't they make a craft that would land on Mars able to do this? I'm sure if you sent enough of these to the moon (which they did, right?) you could collect enough moon rocks.
Stars: You're on Earth not the moon, we have a thing called the atmosphere that keeps us from being fried by intense heat (which would be accompanied with intense light)

So now you think they sent an un-manned spacecraft to the moon successfully? Why couldn't it happen to be carrying a few people then??

edit: LOL WUT, so you're saying the government made what was essentially an outer-space UAV in 1969 but god forbid a human actually landed?
Do you even know how cameras work?

If I can capture stars at 1/2000 of a second, WITH an atmosphere, then they'll be much duller than on the moon, since it's not got an atmosphere and is closer to the stars.

Yes, I do think they are able, and were able, to get people to the moon, but I think the supposed one that did go to the moon didn't go, as nobody had the balls to go or the government didn't want to send anyone for whatever reason, and just staged it.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Hubble_01.jpg

oh look, no stars. jews did hubble?
2008-02-22 04:37:11
Gawwad
My way or Haddaway!
+212|6901|Espoo, Finland
Jesus christ Finny. GTFO already.
Just because some conspiracy video says it was faked doesn't mean it was faked...

Edit: I'll give you a task. Wait till sun has set, then get a really bright lamp and hang it from a tree or something towards you.
Now take a picture of the sky so that the light is atleast partly visible on the picture.
Edit2: or just look at above photo.

Last edited by Gawwad (2008-02-22 04:40:24)

2008-02-22 04:38:56
Funky_Finny
Banned
+456|6348|Carnoustie, Scotland

Gawwad wrote:

Jesus christ Finny. GTFO already.
Just because some conspiracy video says it was faked doesn't mean it was faked...
Perhaps not, but just because my opinion is that it was faked does mean it was faked to me.
2008-02-22 04:45:34
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6177|Washington DC
Jupiter is a conspiracy

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Jupiter.jpg/600px-Jupiter.jpg

Space is a conspiracy

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Full_moon_partially_obscured_by_atmosphere.jpg/800px-Full_moon_partially_obscured_by_atmosphere.jpg
2008-02-22 04:46:42
gene_pool
Banned
+519|6837|Gold coast, Aus.
Oxygen is a lie
2008-02-22 04:48:14
gene_pool
Banned
+519|6837|Gold coast, Aus.
FUCK! Now I'm breathing manually. And so are you.

ps: jews did space
2008-02-22 04:53:48
djphetal
Go Ducks.
+346|6551|Oregon
yeah, the "starless" sky was taken while intense sunlight was hitting the moon... so it would make sense that the stars would be drowned out.
We don't quite see the stars here during the daytime...
2008-02-22 04:58:24
Funky_Finny
Banned
+456|6348|Carnoustie, Scotland

djphetal wrote:

yeah, the "starless" sky was taken while intense sunlight was hitting the moon... so it would make sense that the stars would be drowned out.
We don't quite see the stars here during the daytime...
Oh my god, the stars would not be drowned out!! How many times do I have to say this, seriously?

1/2000th of a second shutter speed would still capture starlight!! You would need at least 1/10000 to drown out starlight and it wasn't bright enough to use that shutter speed, I doubt even the cameras they used over 1/1500!
2008-02-22 05:00:09
cPL.Phukz
Member
+4|6323
The Van Allen Radiation Belt which i have heard/read is near impossible to get past... i cant remember much about this atm... will need to have a look at the conspiracy documentaries again some day...
2008-02-22 05:02:11
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6177|Washington DC

Funky_Finny wrote:

djphetal wrote:

yeah, the "starless" sky was taken while intense sunlight was hitting the moon... so it would make sense that the stars would be drowned out.
We don't quite see the stars here during the daytime...
Oh my god, the stars would not be drowned out!! How many times do I have to say this, seriously?

1/2000th of a second shutter speed would still capture starlight!! You would need at least 1/10000 to drown out starlight and it wasn't bright enough to use that shutter speed, I doubt even the cameras they used over 1/1500!
somehow i trust multiple photographs of shit that's in space over the words of a 15 year old on a gaming forum

edit: In regards to the radiation belt, from wiki

"During Project Apollo, astronauts traveled through the Van Allen belts on both the outbound and return trips to the moon. The crews spent only limited time in transit in the region, and consequently the radiation exposure was limited. The Apollo 14 crew recorded the highest Van Allen belt exposures during their February 1971 mission, but the crew's short-term exposure was still within acceptable levels. Future manned missions beyond earth orbit must also transit the Van Allen belts, but these missions will be shielded and hardened for much longer-duration exposure to cosmic rays and solar wind."

Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-02-22 05:04:03)

2008-02-22 05:04:24
djphetal
Go Ducks.
+346|6551|Oregon

Funky_Finny wrote:

djphetal wrote:

yeah, the "starless" sky was taken while intense sunlight was hitting the moon... so it would make sense that the stars would be drowned out.
We don't quite see the stars here during the daytime...
Oh my god, the stars would not be drowned out!! How many times do I have to say this, seriously?

1/2000th of a second shutter speed would still capture starlight!! You would need at least 1/10000 to drown out starlight and it wasn't bright enough to use that shutter speed, I doubt even the cameras they used over 1/1500!
It has nothing to do with the damn camera or shutter speed! Most likely the astronauts themselves would have a hard time seeing the stars in the sunlight!
Do me a favor and go outside during the daytime, look up, and tell me if you can see ANYTHING celestial... except the sun and possibly the moon (which is reflecting the sun).

Now, I know our atmosphere makes everything blue and all... but there are also a number of experiments you can do by yourself.

Go to a baseball game at night, and get under the lights, or on the field if you can...
Look up...

CAN YOU SEE STARS? NO!

So, until you show me a picture taken from under a VERY bright light, at night, with stars in it... I won't even consider this point of your argument.
2008-02-22 05:05:36
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6177|Washington DC

djphetal wrote:

Funky_Finny wrote:

djphetal wrote:

yeah, the "starless" sky was taken while intense sunlight was hitting the moon... so it would make sense that the stars would be drowned out.
We don't quite see the stars here during the daytime...
Oh my god, the stars would not be drowned out!! How many times do I have to say this, seriously?

1/2000th of a second shutter speed would still capture starlight!! You would need at least 1/10000 to drown out starlight and it wasn't bright enough to use that shutter speed, I doubt even the cameras they used over 1/1500!
It has nothing to do with the damn camera or shutter speed! Most likely the astronauts themselves would have a hard time seeing the stars in the sunlight!
Do me a favor and go outside during the daytime, look up, and tell me if you can see ANYTHING celestial... except the sun and possibly the moon (which is reflecting the sun).

Now, I know our atmosphere makes everything blue and all... but there are also a number of experiments you can do by yourself.

Go to a baseball game at night, and get under the lights, or on the field if you can...
Look up...

CAN YOU SEE STARS? NO!

So, until you show me a picture taken from under a VERY bright light, at night, with stars in it... I won't even consider this point of your argument.
make sure that light is as bright as the sun's light would be on the surface of the moon
2008-02-22 05:10:42
djphetal
Go Ducks.
+346|6551|Oregon

HurricaИe wrote:

djphetal wrote:

Funky_Finny wrote:

Oh my god, the stars would not be drowned out!! How many times do I have to say this, seriously?

1/2000th of a second shutter speed would still capture starlight!! You would need at least 1/10000 to drown out starlight and it wasn't bright enough to use that shutter speed, I doubt even the cameras they used over 1/1500!
It has nothing to do with the damn camera or shutter speed! Most likely the astronauts themselves would have a hard time seeing the stars in the sunlight!
Do me a favor and go outside during the daytime, look up, and tell me if you can see ANYTHING celestial... except the sun and possibly the moon (which is reflecting the sun).

Now, I know our atmosphere makes everything blue and all... but there are also a number of experiments you can do by yourself.

Go to a baseball game at night, and get under the lights, or on the field if you can...
Look up...

CAN YOU SEE STARS? NO!

So, until you show me a picture taken from under a VERY bright light, at night, with stars in it... I won't even consider this point of your argument.
make sure that light is as bright as the sun's light would be on the surface of the moon
exactly... VERY bright.

edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examinatio … oon_photos
argue with that.

Last edited by djphetal (2008-02-22 05:13:46)

2008-02-22 05:29:16
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6794|Columbus, OH
Have you ever consider the camera has a filter lens to reduce excessive brightness?
2008-02-22 06:28:59
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6395

Funky_Finny wrote:

djphetal wrote:

yeah, the "starless" sky was taken while intense sunlight was hitting the moon... so it would make sense that the stars would be drowned out.
We don't quite see the stars here during the daytime...
Oh my god, the stars would not be drowned out!! How many times do I have to say this, seriously?

1/2000th of a second shutter speed would still capture starlight!! You would need at least 1/10000 to drown out starlight and it wasn't bright enough to use that shutter speed, I doubt even the cameras they used over 1/1500!
Seriously, get your head out of your ass!!!!!  There are thousands of pictures we have taken of things in orbit, our own planet, other planets (like Saturn/ Jupiter and you will never see stars around the picture. Please show me ONE picture of a space picture that was taken of a single object   that shows the stars. I see plenty of proof of these pictures and there are tons of professional explanations why you wont see stars in these types of pictures but you need to open your ears and mind. Honestly, you are stuck on tunnel vision and cant get over unproven conspiracy theories. It is amazing how close minded you are.
2008-02-22 06:38:42
ThePriest1750
Tank commander
+83|6951|DUTCH snap ik!
stop whining and close this topic

Last edited by ThePriest1750 (2008-02-22 06:39:00)

2008-02-22 06:58:16
(T)eflon(S)hadow
R.I.P. Neda
+456|7045|Grapevine, TX
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in … 417AAA72jd

Funky_Finny wrote:

[Perhaps not, but just because my opinion is that it was faked does mean it was faked to me.
Your opinion is wrong. Your Belief is wrong.Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Period.I hate to call you out like everyone else but you are ignorant when it comes to basic science. Ill say it again it isn't rocket science.

ThePriest1750 wrote:

stop whining and close this topic
no u

https://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/cma/lowres/cman32l.jpg
2008-02-22 07:37:16
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6215|...

dayarath wrote:

Funky, No. Just no. Out of the replies I can't determine wether you're just joking or being dead serious.

Kinetic energy takes quite the time to fade when you're in an area like the moon. With that I really do mean, quite a time. Tell me, how do you computer generate real looking dust in the 1960's, how? Did NASA manage to get their hands on vegas movie maker and photoshop?

And, the flag is not rly fluttering: Tell me, why - if there would be wind beforehand, WHY is the flag not fluttering AT ALL when the man lets the pole go and walks over to the camera:



The camera was most likely set up beforehand, I doubt that Armstrong's famous line "This is a small step for man, but a giant leap for mankind" was thought up on the spot, but probably scripted. To give it a better feel, i'm certain they would've set up the spot a bit.

Your high grades don't mean shit. I don't know what kind of education you follow but over here it makes a huge difference which of the four you're doing.

Even so, you lack the initiative to go and think logically about the whole situation, and investigate for yourself. Not everything written is true, and if you were really as smart as you would like to make yourself believe, you would know this.

more: their movement is pretty unrealistic to copy if you would be on earth. Especially with the heavy space suits you wouldn't be able to jump and hop like that.
I quote this again for you funky. And don´t selectively quote out 1 line, in which before I said in the 1960´s indicating that there were no super editing devices back then.

Answer all the questions now fagget.

Also, if there should be stars why would there not be any stars in any photograph we´ve token of objects in space?

Let me guess that means we never went outside our own atmosphere and sattelites don't exist. yes.

Last edited by dayarath (2008-02-22 07:43:22)

inane little opines
2008-02-22 07:44:16
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6346|North Tonawanda, NY

cPL.Phukz wrote:

The Van Allen Radiation Belt which i have heard/read is near impossible to get past... i cant remember much about this atm... will need to have a look at the conspiracy documentaries again some day...
Why would it be impossible to get past?  They traveled through it very quickly.
2008-02-22 08:44:02
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6925|England. Stoke

Funky_Finny wrote:

since it's not got an atmosphere and is closer to the stars.
.
The moon is closer to the stars...
I mean seriously wtf
2008-02-22 08:46:24
bennisboy
Member
+829|6862|Poundland
Also if it was such a massive hoax, surely one of the people in on it would have spotted they forgot the stars?
2008-02-22 08:49:24
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6925|England. Stoke
And surely the numerous, confirmed spies working within the space programme would have told the Soviets and they would have said "hey hang on a minute we should tell everyone about this and make the American's look like tard's", but no there silence must have been bought also...
2008-02-22 08:50:02
SgtSlutter
Banned
+550|6853|Amsterdam, NY

HurricaИe wrote:

Funky_Finny wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:


Stars: You're on Earth not the moon, we have a thing called the atmosphere that keeps us from being fried by intense heat (which would be accompanied with intense light)

So now you think they sent an un-manned spacecraft to the moon successfully? Why couldn't it happen to be carrying a few people then??

edit: LOL WUT, so you're saying the government made what was essentially an outer-space UAV in 1969 but god forbid a human actually landed?
Do you even know how cameras work?

If I can capture stars at 1/2000 of a second, WITH an atmosphere, then they'll be much duller than on the moon, since it's not got an atmosphere and is closer to the stars.

Yes, I do think they are able, and were able, to get people to the moon, but I think the supposed one that did go to the moon didn't go, as nobody had the balls to go or the government didn't want to send anyone for whatever reason, and just staged it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ble_01.jpg

oh look, no stars. jews did hubble?
JEWS DID HUBBLE

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard