Not even trying to make it look good. Everything they tell you is a lie.
(media.scored.co)
Comments (48)
sorted by:
i can get a better picture of the moon with my phone. fuk NASA
Of the back? Must be a good phone.
You know....
The flat earthers here catch a lot of shit. Maybe deservedly so. But they at least make respectable attempts to explain their theories and patiently do so.
I'm not convinced yet that the earth is flat. But some shit NASA does looks fake as fuck. The moon landers look like they were made out of recycled scrap at a junk yard and lazily riveted cheap sheet metal together .
The DART Asteroid Impact from a month ago looked fake as fuck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-OvnVdZP_8
And the photo in the op looks fake as fuck. It's like they are trying to layer shit under a microscope and sell it as being outer space. Looks fidgety and fake.
The nature of this realm matters, but in the case of NASA the most important take away is that they are liars. And if they lied about even ONE big thing, then EVERYTHING is suspect not only within NASA but EVERY government and everything said governments publish and broadcast.
It forces you to throw out the whole framework people have been programmed with and that's a very tough thing to do. This is related to the "born again" idea.
It looked fake as hell to me. It'd be good to see others suspected the same thing and proved it to be a fake.
Also, the woman narrating it sounds like she's in a porn film and orgasming. Not only did NASA fake the asteroid impact, but they filled it with sexual innuendo. "oh, wow. we're going straight in. Ohhhhh....wooooow yeahhhhh oh wowwww oh my gosh ohhhh wowwww" https://www.bitchute.com/video/5rapr2oDq_w/
Are you blowing up an asteroid or getting dicked down, bitch? Does anyone believe these dumb bimbo blonde women are running the space program and blowing up asteroids in outer space? These dumb bitches couldn't change a tire.
No, they literally don’t.
Skil says Hitler didn't help the Jews but didn't gas them either. Seems a bit conflicted. When challenged on this, he just kept repeating the same line, over and over and over. "Thank you for admitting that Hitler did not work with zionists and that jews are damned for all time, as per the Bible."
I'd wager that he's actually one of the m0ds, which is why nothing is done about him.
"I'm not a pedophile, I just eNtErTaIn tHe ThOuGhT!!"
You're the one attempting to make an "equivalency" between the cold hard facts of WW2 and flat earth.
You're "just asking questions" with all the sincerity of Nancy pelosi impeaching Trump with the fake Steele dossier paid for by Hilary Clinton.
LOOK AT THE ANTI-ALIASING.
WHAT IS THIS? A RENDERING FOR ANTS?!
Flat Earth shills, ladies and gents.
BRO... RUSH MY SHJJT, RITE NOW.
FCUKN RUSH IT BIITCH.
RUSH THE SHJJT.
YOU CAN TELL IT'S REAL CAUSE IT LOOKS SO FAKE
Flat Earth shills, ladies and gents.
I have an empty coffee can they can use, if they need something to trace out a circle with.
It's also worth noting that the earth is supposedly 4 times bigger than the moon, so why does it look moon sized when taking a pic from the moon?
I read somewhere that it is traveling at 1000 mph? isn't escape velocity 25,000 mph? ...or was that just a suggestion?
With elliptical orbits like this one the speed changes depending on where you're at in the orbit. The craft slows down as it moves toward the apex and speeds up afterward. Think of it as a car coasting up a hill and having enough momentum to go over the top, then picking up speed again as it rolls down the other side.
They say the Earth has an elliptical orbit around the sun.
They say you can't feel Earth's motion because it's constant.
An elliptical orbit is not constant, it consists of acceleration and deceleration.
Something, something, watch your porno
That's a good point. I haven't done the math but my gut tells me the earth's orbit around the sun is almost circular so the acceleration is probably too small to notice given that it takes A YEAR to complete one orbit.
I just looked up the flight path for the Orion capsule and it's pretty impressive. It took off from earth to meet up with where the moon would be by the time it got there, used the moon's gravity to fling it away in the opposite direction, and it's now on its way to meet up with the moon a second time and use its gravity to fling it back toward earth for a landing.
Nope, you’re too mentally defective to be considered human.
Look, I believe in the mainstream stuff about space and even I thought this livestream looked bad. No high-res closeup video of the moon, just blurry wide angle shots. I'm hoping they recorded the back side of the moon when the capsule was only 80 miles away from the surface.
I've noticed that these pictures are strange for digital cameras. The capsule (foreground) looks really high res, but the moon (background) looks really fuzzy and low res. It's as if they're trying to emulate old school film camera lenses with perspective shots like you see in movies, where the background is out of focus.
If you've ever listened to commentaries for TV shows around the time that HD digital cameras started being used (early and mid 2000s), you'll often hear the directors and producers lament the limitations of those HD cameras, that they couldn't emulate film cameras precisely (at the time), and that they made things appear unnatural, because everything, foreground and background, were all in perfect focus. We've had digital cameras for over 15 years which can focus everything in shot.
How a multi billion dollar government org can't manage to attach a 15 year old camera to a flying tin can strains credulity. The moon in these pics looks incredibly fake.
Yeah I agree. There may be an explanation for it that's not obvious to the average person without knowledge of the limitations of modern cameras. NASA tends to use older technology that they have hardened against radiation rather than the latest and greatest. Still, the moon image was blurry and full of compression artifacts while the Orion craft was crisp. Could be that the craft was perfectly still relative to the camera while the moon was not and the antialiasing software couldn't handle it. I just don't know enough about digital cameras to come up with a theory.
If the blurriness of the moon was due to movement, then the solution would be really simple, to tilt or pan the camera to keep the moon focused while taking pictures, which is perfectly within the realm of our capabilities. The entire purpose of that camera is to take pictures of the moon. If we wanted clear crisp pictures of the side of the satellite, we could've just left it on the ground, hired a mildly competent photographer, and saved millions upon millions of dollars. Again, it strains credulity.
I also don't buy that explanation. Even though space travel is fast, the satellite's altitude above the moon would make the moon's apparent movement appear far slower, relatively speaking, and the shutter speed of the camera would be insanely quick, relatively speaking, given the brightness of the moon that close, which means those pictures should barely be blurry, if at all.
This is supported by pictures other satellites have taken of other moons and planets (including earth), which were travelling far faster, and using older cameras. The fastest consumer level digital cameras have shutter speeds of 1/8000th (of a second). According to the photography websites I read, people can use "slower" shutter speeds of 1/200th to produce pictures without blur. If motion blur made the moon that blurry in these images, then satellites orbiting earth wouldn't be able to take clear high res pictures of earth, and yet they can. This is, of course, assuming all the other satellite images are real.
Their space images always look like bad CGI. There is no good excuse for not having 8K footage of every inch of the moon AND the earth from very far away.
They can't because then the jig would REALLY be up because they aren't actually doing what they say they are and the high res would allow for pixel peeping. So they give us potato bigfoot images.
Reality is different than what we are told.
That's because they are CGI enhanced. That's not a secret. Most of the pictures they get are shitty (and that's another debate entirely), but pretty much every celestial photo they post is edited to make it look impressive.
I suppose bandwidth could be an issue, especially that far from earth. I doubt they could livestream it at that resolution. Still, I had hoped the video would be better than it was,
Looks perfectly fine to me. Not sure what I'm supposed to be noticing here.
Full res:
https://files.catbox.moe/j4f35g.jpeg
Hey, there's that big long heavy selfie arm again.
Also known as a solar panel...
People still believe this shit is real?
Don't know. Personally, I don't believe anything the government tells me. Doesn't help when you've seen "Oops there's gravity up here" fuckups that were livestreamed, although I think that was Russian.
The photo supposedly taken on Venus is blatantly edited with details of the landscape perfectly mirrored on both sides of the photo. Best case scenario, they received incomplete data and shopped it to make a whole picture. Worst case, there wasn't a probe on Venus at all.
I've seen footage from a supposedly real EVA where an astronaut has what's claimed to be a water leak. If it was, it stayed liquid in the vacuum of space and shot off, with droplets visibly changing direction and moving erratically. Neither of those things should happen in space. But the droplets do look exactly like air bubbles floating upwards in a large pool.
Not saying the earth is flat, but if you look around you might find things that make you doubt nasa.
Nope. Fake, fake, and more fake. Here’s the million dollar question. Why would they fake that shit and where the fuck are they going? To a hidden continent? Another crater on a larger Earth? Taking people and supplies to the break away civilization? Who knows? It’s all on the table at this point.
I think there's a reasonable chance that they are censoring things that would show up on a raw image. Fake portions of images doesn't automatically mean the earth is flat, or all space is fake. All it proves is that they don't want to show close ups of the moon, or the real interior of the ISS. They might have weapons up there that they're not supposed to have.
They wouldn’t. There’s no reason to.
Space, you subhuman retard. Whites go places sheerly to go there. You wouldn’t understand.
You’ve never been to space though. 🤣🤣🤣
No one cares, paid shill.
Well shit, don’t get mad just ask the Whites to let you get on the next rocket going up! Hell, even Bezos let a dirty colored go up in his moon missile. Of course, they’ll make sure a card carrying member doesn’t get left out. 😂😂😂😂
No one cares, paid shill.
No, they’re all paid shills and most are run as sockpuppets by the same person.