Jump to content
Toepoke

There is no dark side of the moon

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Huddersfield said:

Why would they do that?

A just about once in a lifetime opportunity that would potentially eliminate thousands of questions and accusations.

2 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

Just to prove to a handful of "truthers"...

There's a lot more than a handful (if that matters).

3 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

...something that they knew to be true anyway.

Well, that's the point of contention.

4 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

 In reality, that's just a sort of 'reverse engineering' of the truth...

It's not.

They're the only ones that can conveniently supposedly do it.

5 minutes ago, Huddersfield said:

Did you ever organise taking those long exposure shots I suggested of the sky ages back? The star circle ones? 

No, not yet.

Behind on everything.

Still working.

Was hoping to have a 12 month countdown to retirement, and now, who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

A just about once in a lifetime opportunity that would potentially eliminate thousands of questions and accusations.

There's a lot more than a handful (if that matters).

Well, that's the point of contention.

It's not.

They're the only ones that can conveniently supposedly do it.

No, not yet.

Behind on everything.

Still working.

Was hoping to have a 12 month countdown to retirement, and now, who knows?

The point is, they were not going to waste extremely expensive resources to ‘prove’ something they really didn’t need to prove. 

And this is your ‘opportunity of a lifetime’ to prove your own theories. Seriously, get it done. There are posters on here who live in the Southern Hemisphere. I’m sure one of them could do the photo next time there’s a clear dark sky & compare it to yours. Then it’s over to you to explain your observations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

Oh, I believe that they'll eventually be able to fake it, but they're not there yet and that's why no one has seen something that they should easily be able to show us.

Anyone stand on the moon and film a 360?

 

If they can "fake" stuff like this it should be easy enough to show some dots flying around the earth.

That said a satellite a few feet across is probably a bit tricky to pick out from a photo taken over half a million miles away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Distance to Earth 879,000 miles??? That's some orbit! :blink:

Great images btw.

Yeah, pretty sure it's at one of the Lagrange points (where the gravitational pull of the earth / sun / moon equalise so you can basically just sit there (not quite as straightforward as that to be fair). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Any idea what the wee coloured blobs are over the Philipines in centre of picture #3?   Just wondering.

 

Don't know. I could guess at all manner of things but they'd mostly be BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

The globe earth doesn't exist, no, so therefore impossible to photograph.

 

Makes Absolute statement

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

I am.

Insists he's open minded.

 

Scotty CTA ladies and gentlemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Oh, I believe that they'll eventually be able to fake it, but they're not there yet and that's why no one has seen something that they should easily be able to show us.

Anyone stand on the moon and film a 360?

 

How did they fake the movement of dust on the moon videos in the 60s Scott? I've asked this five or six times before and you've never answered it. Always go quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

If they can "fake" stuff like this it should be easy enough to show some dots flying around the earth.

That said a satellite a few feet across is probably a bit tricky to pick out from a photo taken over half a million miles away.

 

ISS is in a pretty low orbit, not many satellites will pass underneath it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, biffer said:

How did they fake the movement of dust on the moon videos in the 60s Scott? I've asked this five or six times before and you've never answered it. Always go quiet.

Still responding to Scottycta lunacy! 😄 That’s so 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, biffer said:

ISS is in a pretty low orbit, not many satellites will pass underneath it. 

Sorry I was referring more to the idea of something like DSCOVR filming satellite movements.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, duncan II said:

Still responding to Scottycta lunacy! 😄 That’s so 2012.

He’ll be gone for a while now, because he never answers that one, just deflects and pushes it onto a different subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have a quiz question on on another thread, about a boat sailing round Antarctica, waiting to be answered. Just in case anyone is bored!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also can’t explain why the moon appears upside down in the Southern Hemisphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Toepoke said:

Sorry I was referring more to the idea of something like DSCOVR filming satellite movements.

 

 

That’s a resolution thing. At that distance you’d need a fricking huge telescope to see something a few metres across. It’s to do with something called diffraction limited optics - basically there is an absolute limit to how small a thing you can see with a certain diameter of telescope from a certain distance (it’s also affected by wavelength of the light). At about 400km you can see something about 2.5m across with a telescope 10cm in diameter. It scales pretty much linearly, so at 400,000 km you’d need something 10m across to resolve that (and that’s the theoretical best you can achieve, in reality it’d never be quite that good, also depends on telescope design and pixel size of the detector). These are hard limits of physics, not limitations of technology.

The EPIC instrument on DSCOVR only has a 30cm optic - I just checked and it has a resolution of about 25km. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2020 at 11:33 AM, biffer said:

Makes Absolute statement

Insists he's open minded.

It's hardly a contradiction.

On 4/2/2020 at 11:35 AM, biffer said:

How did they fake the movement of dust on the moon videos in the 60s Scott? I've asked this five or six times before and you've never answered it. Always go quiet.

They didn't. The dust doesn't act at all as it should.

(This was covered in the first documentary in 'Scotty's Picks'.)

On 4/2/2020 at 11:41 AM, biffer said:

ISS is in a pretty low orbit, not many satellites will pass underneath it. 

See the brightest spot in the North of Italy?

If that were real you'd go blind wearing a welders mask.

On 4/2/2020 at 5:55 PM, biffer said:

He’ll be gone for a while now, because he never answers that one, just deflects and pushes it onto a different subject.

Apologies for having a life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

It's hardly a contradiction.

They didn't. The dust doesn't act at all as it should.

evidence you don’t understand gravity or mechanics

12 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

(This was covered in the first documentary in 'Scotty's Picks'.)

See the brightest spot in the North of Italy?
 

evidence you don’t understand electronics

12 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

If that were real you'd go blind wearing a welders mask.

Apologies for having a life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald... The video asks numbered questions after each segment.

I'd be interested in your answers for any you'd like to tackle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Donald... The video asks numbered questions after each segment.

I'd be interested in your answers for any you'd like to tackle.

If you’re not prepared to properly study and understand physics, why should I bother to engage with things with unsourced, biased videos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These 'conspiracy' conversations always seems to follow the same pattern wherever I come across them.

'Truther' who has absolutely no knowledge of how (using our example here) dust might behave in a low gravity, ultra-thin atmosphere finds a YouTube video & immediately purports to understand it.

Someone comes along who has studied Physics or similar & tries to explain that actually, this is highly complex & because of factors A, B, & C,  the established theories stand up to scrutiny.

Truther, preferring to deal in Janet & John standards of 'evidence' don't understand, but take the complications as proof that their questions can't be answered.

Inconvenient truths, flight timetables for example in flat Earth discussions, or the literally tens of thousands of people who would have had to be 'in' on a Moon landing fraud, are treated as part of a global conspiracy. Meanwhile, the truthers refuse to listen to any alternative story than their own whilst convincing themselves that those who actually HAVE looked at all possibilities & reached a different conclusion are sheeple.

Numerous posters have suggested simple experimental proof on the shape of the Earth & these always get dodged, so we get stuck in Groundhog Day. It's nothing more than a bit of fun on a football message board, but the sad thing is that I know people in the real world who, to all intents & purposes, are sinking into a quite serious mental illness whereby their self-perception is that they are the only ones who are intelligent enough to know the truth.

Where that takes you, of course, is that you need a conspiracy for EVERYTHING, or at least will automatically believe that everything has an alternative explanation involving illumnati, aliens or whatever their chosen 'they are hiding this from us' is.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2020 at 8:24 AM, Huddersfield said:

These 'conspiracy' conversations always seems to follow the same pattern wherever I come across them.

'Truther' who has absolutely no knowledge of how (using our example here) dust might behave in a low gravity, ultra-thin atmosphere finds a YouTube video & immediately purports to understand it.

Someone comes along who has studied Physics or similar & tries to explain that actually, this is highly complex & because of factors A, B, & C,  the established theories stand up to scrutiny.

Truther, preferring to deal in Janet & John standards of 'evidence' don't understand, but take the complications as proof that their questions can't be answered.

Inconvenient truths, flight timetables for example in flat Earth discussions, or the literally tens of thousands of people who would have had to be 'in' on a Moon landing fraud, are treated as part of a global conspiracy. Meanwhile, the truthers refuse to listen to any alternative story than their own whilst convincing themselves that those who actually HAVE looked at all possibilities & reached a different conclusion are sheeple.

Numerous posters have suggested simple experimental proof on the shape of the Earth & these always get dodged, so we get stuck in Groundhog Day. It's nothing more than a bit of fun on a football message board, but the sad thing is that I know people in the real world who, to all intents & purposes, are sinking into a quite serious mental illness whereby their self-perception is that they are the only ones who are intelligent enough to know the truth.

Where that takes you, of course, is that you need a conspiracy for EVERYTHING, or at least will automatically believe that everything has an alternative explanation involving illumnati, aliens or whatever their chosen 'they are hiding this from us' is.

A very good summary.  Particularly the bit about needing a conspiracy for everything. 
 

I personally think we might be evolutionarily predisposed to believe in things that aren’t true to a certain extent. We benefit massively as a species from inquisitiveness and a drive to look for reasons, but spending too much time on them wouldn’t have been beneficial when we were hunter gatherers. So getting an explanation that was good enough for our every day purposes was what we needed most of the time. Match that up with pattern recognition and you get to this concept of belief. Sometimes it can be beneficial to believe things that aren’t true, e.g. there are always lions down that path, when they’re only there one out of a hundred times. It’s beneficial to believe that and avoid the path until need drives you to determine when the lions are actually there. Determinative method trumping belief. Stick society and civilisation on top of that lot and it brings a need to organise belief in order to act together. Hence religion. So we have belief systems and are predisposed to them, which with the collapse of religion in western societies in particular leads to a need for something else to believe in, and conspiracy theories have filled some of that gap.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I find it a little odd some of you are so fixated on Scotty and see him as some sort of representative of 'truthers' or just people who research and write about so called 'conspiracy theories'  (another astonishingly stupid and lazy phrase used continuously in a completely unthinking manner).

Do you want to know where Scotty gets all his 'conspiracy' stuff? Alex Mellonhead Jones.

I ask you would you bother your arse to tune into Alex Jones? over and over again... So why do you keep coming back to Scotty over and over, trying to have reasoned arguments or provoke a eureka moment? Seriously if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result then you lads are off your fucking nut. He believes in a Flat Earth... that should have been enough.

If you spent the time looking into quality researchers on non mental subjects you'd realize some things are really not as they are presented. If someone is not paying Scotty to invoke ridicule and scorn they should be as he does a great job of it. And you guys are like a moth to that nutty light... a weird and nutty symbiotic relationship. :wink2:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Personally I find it a little odd some of you are so fixated on Scotty and see him as some sort of representative of 'truthers' or just people who research and write about so called 'conspiracy theories'  (another astonishingly stupid and lazy phrase used continuously in a completely unthinking manner).

Do you want to know where Scotty gets all his 'conspiracy' stuff? Alex Mellonhead Jones.

I ask you would you bother your arse to tune into Alex Jones? over and over again... So why do you keep coming back to Scotty over and over, trying to have reasoned arguments or provoke a eureka moment? Seriously if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result then you lads are off your fucking nut. He believes in a Flat Earth... that should have been enough.

If you spent the time looking into quality researchers on non mental subjects you'd realize some things are really not as they are presented. If someone is not paying Scotty to invoke ridicule and scorn they should be as he does a great job of it. And you guys are like a moth to that nutty light... a weird and nutty symbiotic relationship. :wink2:

 

Exactly it's all a distraction. If we're going to psychoanalyse from our armchairs it's a comfort blanket. If folk can disprove this then they can extrapolate that to mean all the other nasty stuff isn't real too and the world is a safe space with no malign subterfuge at play and their inaction to rectify that isn't really a damning indictment of their path of least resistance existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...