[-VR-] Tool_Minion Posted June 10, 2008 Author Report Posted June 10, 2008 Ooh, I like.......... Quote
BIGDANIEL Posted June 10, 2008 Report Posted June 10, 2008 DAMN!!!! I didnt think I get through all 7 pages of this thread. I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself. I've always wondered, when looking at the picture below, why the stars arent visible. I mean, they're always there right? We cant see them all the time on Earth for various reasons, but they should always be visible while in space. Every picture I've seen shot from the shuttle shows them. Quote
[-VR-] Tool_Minion Posted June 10, 2008 Author Report Posted June 10, 2008 Snake Doctor ]DAMN!!!! I didnt think I get through all 7 pages of this thread. I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself. I've always wondered, when looking at the picture below, why the stars arent visible. I mean, they're always there right? We cant see them all the time on Earth for various reasons, but they should always be visible while in space. Every picture I've seen shot from the shuttle shows them. Because NASA INVENTED PhotoShop. Quote
Guest SaTAnS_SoUlJa Posted June 10, 2008 Report Posted June 10, 2008 I say "Paranoid Delusions" Quote
Chili327 Posted June 10, 2008 Report Posted June 10, 2008 Tool_Minion ] Snake Doctor ]DAMN!!!! I didnt think I get through all 7 pages of this thread. I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself. I've always wondered, when looking at the picture below, why the stars arent visible. I mean, they're always there right? We cant see them all the time on Earth for various reasons, but they should always be visible while in space. Every picture I've seen shot from the shuttle shows them. Because NASA INVENTED PhotoShop. It's called green screen. Quote
RNG187 Posted June 10, 2008 Report Posted June 10, 2008 ^^^^good use of raisin bran boxes, that shit's nasty. Quote
Disciple74 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Tool_Minion ] Snake Doctor ]DAMN!!!! I didnt think I get through all 7 pages of this thread. I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself. I've always wondered, when looking at the picture below, why the stars arent visible. I mean, they're always there right? We cant see them all the time on Earth for various reasons, but they should always be visible while in space. Every picture I've seen shot from the shuttle shows them. Because NASA INVENTED PhotoShop. This was the best point all day. hahahhahhaha Quote
Playerdown Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Snake Doctor ]DAMN!!!! I didnt think I get through all 7 pages of this thread. I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself. I've always wondered, when looking at the picture below, why the stars arent visible. I mean, they're always there right? We cant see them all the time on Earth for various reasons, but they should always be visible while in space. Every picture I've seen shot from the shuttle shows them. Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars? Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen. This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well. I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us. The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars. On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day. So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars! It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here. Quote
[RIP]saint52 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 I have to agree with Player, nice post, but I have looked into this a long time ago and put it to rest. I wanted to pose this question to you guys- Most of you have probably heard the phenomenon known as the "Arizona Lights" or something to that effect where a delta formation occurred of spherical lights over Scottsdale or somewhere in AZ. Now, at one point some jokester tied Magnesium flares to ballons and started a scare again but the source was originally found out. Now, the first time the lights were investgated and found out NOT to be flares and unexplained. What are your thoughts? Quote
[-VR-] Tool_Minion Posted June 11, 2008 Author Report Posted June 11, 2008 saint52 ]I have to agree with Player, nice post, but I have looked into this a long time ago and put it to rest. I wanted to pose this question to you guys- Most of you have probably heard the phenomenon known as the "Arizona Lights" or something to that effect where a delta formation occurred of spherical lights over Scottsdale or somewhere in AZ. Now, at one point some jokester tied Magnesium flares to ballons and started a scare again but the source was originally found out. Now, the first time the lights were investgated and found out NOT to be flares and unexplained. What are your thoughts? I remember this, they were in the form of a large triangle, yes? Quote
[RIP]saint52 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Yea bro in my post a delta formation is a triangle, or atleast that was the formation reported bro. Quote
Guest Corruptor310 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 I heard something about some guy had sent afloat some type of ballons for a wedding or something and they were mistaken for "formation". here ya go http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/080423-bad-phoenix-lights.html Quote
[RIP]saint52 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Yea that instance was a fake one trying to replicate the first time. But no one can explain the first time. Its scale, length of time, perfect formation ect... Quote
[-VR-] Tool_Minion Posted June 11, 2008 Author Report Posted June 11, 2008 I would have to go with secret military plane over Aliens, only because of the proximity to Area 51. While I believe the U.S. Government DOES have confermation of E.T. life forms, I still think Area 51's main purpose is for testing new technology. Quote
Guest Corruptor310 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 yep i would have to agree some type of military aircraft -- testing. Quote
[RIP]saint52 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Yea but for a "secret" military excercise, it was anythng but secret, it lasted a very long time and jets were scrambled, but they dont admit that. Actually if you follow area 51 much, they have actually moved 85% of it to an unknown location. Quote
[-VR-] Tool_Minion Posted June 11, 2008 Author Report Posted June 11, 2008 I here that, and while I agree that it is a firm possiblility that it wasn't US MADE, they notoriously lie about that shit anyway for National Security purposes. Quote
Guest Corruptor310 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 saint52 ]Yea but for a "secret" military excercise, it was anythng but secret, it lasted a very long time and jets were scrambled, but they dont admit that. Actually if you follow area 51 much, they have actually moved 85% of it to an unknown location. can you post this info -- i know i seen it before but i would like to look it over again. area 19 the current read Quote
[RIP]saint52 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 I watched a documentary on it. I'm trying to find info now. Quote
Playerdown Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 The Power Line What made Area 19 partially famous in the first place is that here is a huge 34.5 kilovolt powerline, which terminates right in the middle of Area 19, in the middle of nowhere. There is nothing that is "supposed" to be there in any NTS documents. Quote
Guest Corruptor310 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 Real or not?? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/01/23/scimars123.xml Quote
Guest Corruptor310 Posted June 11, 2008 Report Posted June 11, 2008 and for the inquiring mind you can google earth == both area 51 and 19. i am trying to figure out what the buildings are that are in area 19 Kash, Hornitos, Egmont and so forth. They do indicate US Nuke Hornitos -- but some buildings dont say US Nuke they might just say like tafi. secret base, huh.......... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.