Tinman,
You are so predictable and easily triggered. I am surprised it took as long as it did for you to start this thread.
In the years leading up to the RT fiasco, I followed along at overunity.com and gained a great deal of respect for you. I, as I am sure others did as well, found you to be an excellent experimentalist with an open and scientific mind that was quick to devise experiments to isolate variables while making your investigations. I watched as more formally trained individuals (.99. MH. TK, Mark (RIP), and others) helped you understand your measurements, sources of errors, etc. as you were quick to grasp and learn. I was quite impressed.
Then, after the RT fiasco and your fake moon landing thread, it became obvious to me that there are certain subjects, three that I am now aware of, that will trigger you every time and cause you to become totally biased and unscientific. It seems you have allowed your beliefs regarding these subjects to cloud your judgement. It is a shame that you do not apply the objective investigative skills I once knew you to have to these subjects.
Over on the Mars nuclear war thread, you trivialize achieving Mars orbit, or indeed landing a rover, as being no big deal, its been done thousands of times. Of course this can't include Mars, because we haven't been there thousands of times. Mars has been tough. Russia gave up after many failures, and the US has had quite a few failures as well, one particularly embarrassing, but the US prodded along.
It is indeed becoming easier (not easy) to get to Mars, and space in general, mainly because of NASA. Almost without exclusion, all the data collected from every launch of a scientific package deployed by NASA (and its failures) has been placed in the public domain for scientists to use all over the world. That ever growing knowledge base is allowing other countries and private companies to get in the space game as well. That knowledge base came at a very high cost in terms of both lives and treasure.
Some here scoff at the $80 million dollar cost of the Mars 'copter, but will spend no time investigating why it cost that much. In fact, that $80 million dollar project cost is actually $85 million dollars, the additional $5 million being roughly a month of operational expenses after deployment. For sure there is some degree of bloat in the NASA budget, but, as other US budget items go, the NASA budget is one of the more transparent budgets by way of openly published data or via FOIA requests. NASA maintains some rather costly facilities which are constantly upgraded to maintain currency. With regard to the $5 million operating cost of Ingenuity, if a given project requires maintaining a team of Engineers, software developers, and duplicate hardware or simulators, using NASA hardware at NASA facilities, and needing bandwidth on NASA maintained deep space tracking and communication networks, that project has to share in the annual costs to maintain all those facilities and associated personnel. Space is not cheap. That is why up until recently, it required state sponsorship to get into space. But, again, due to the sharing of the data gleaned from those state sponsored programs, even that is changing as private companies throw their hat in the ring.
So, if it is becoming a trivial matter to get to Mars, as you would on the one hand have us believe, we can, primarily, thank NASA. But, on the other hand, you also seem to think its all fakery and lies.
Now you want to throw the ISS into your fake space crap, which means you need to change this thread title from "Deceptions of NASA" to something along the lines of "Worldwide Conspiracy to Fake the ISS", because many countries have been involved with the ISS.
I read your thread this morning while having my coffee, and followed all the provided links. At first, I found it all quite humorous and a bit entertaining. But as my day continued I became a bit sad, considering that you, of all people, would display the degree of ignorance depicted by the following post:
You have to ask your self-->if they can do it,why fake it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZjNV5WRagc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZjNV5WRagc
We know it's not just a glitch with the feed,as it is only ever the objects that are moving,and the astronot's.
The inserted fixed background picture that replaces the green screen never glitches.
Brad
The bold portion in the above quote should have been your first clue. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of video compression and error correction would immediately recognize these as compression and dropout related artifacts. That these "proof of fakery" artifacts happen only, or mostly, to moving objects should have made that very obvious.
There are now hundreds of video compression algorithms, but the most basic tenet of these compression techniques is that only those items in a given frame that change (as in "move") from frame to frame are transmitted. In other words, any video data that does not move (i.e., is the same as in the previous frame) is not transmitted, but instead copied from the previous frame. Only the difference between two subsequent frames is transmitted. If a dropout occurs for some number of frames, it is only the changing, i.e., "moving" objects that are lost.
Surely you have seen similar compression/motion related artifacts from satellite TV dropouts and poorly edited (hard cuts/starts) posted videos where some amount of time is required for the entire frame to reassemble, particularly with regard to moving objects.
Anyone that is using these artifacts as proof of fakery or green screen usage is not even bothering to understand what it is they are actually seeing.
What a shame,
PW
Author
Topic: Deceptions of NASA (Read 17127 times)
