Did we land on the moon?

[Prores]

https://www.veed.io/view/9c0db643-49e0-4559-a58b-4a731a22fdad/showcase

Here’s my asteroid I made in 5 minutes

Add icosphere
Deform surface
Subdivide surface
Animate x position
Animate z rotation
Get a picture of gravel, apply as texture
Apply normals to geometry deformation
Crank the exposure up
Add motion blur
Add halation
Done

Probably the best way would be to make it like this, and then degrade it- bit reduce the footage and drop it down to 12fps so it looks more authentic

1 person 5 minutes
Don’t believe anything you see

 

[paternos]

https://www.veed.io/view/9c0db643-49e0-4559-a58b-4a731a22fdad/showcase

Here’s my asteroid I made in 5 minutes

Add icosphere
Deform surface
Subdivide surface
Animate x position
Animate z rotation
Get a picture of gravel, apply as texture
Apply normals to geometry deformation
Crank the exposure up
Add motion blur
Add halation
Done

Probably the best way would be to make it like this, and then degrade it- bit reduce the footage and drop it down to 12fps so it looks more authentic

1 person 5 minutes
Don’t believe anything you see

This is great.

Congratulations with your new job, I think you passed the recruitment test for NASA, you do a lot better job than the diversity hires currently there.

 

[Prores]

This is great.

Congratulations with your new job, I think you passed the recruitment test for NASA, you do a lot better job than the diversity hires currently there.

Thank you, I really hope they put me on for Project Blue Beam. It would be fun to make some ufos and particle effects

 

[Frussell]

Thank you, I really hope they put me on for Project Blue Beam. It would be fun to make some ufos and particle effects

Bravo brother! There are too many red flags with Nasa, I agree. One of the biggest factors that convinced me aside from the hairspray, Pettit, wires, obvious underwater footage, list goes on, was the body language of the hero masons after their return. Those are not men that just came back from the biggest expedition ever attempted by man. Those are men that were told what would happen to their families if they ever spilled the beans. That still happens but I won't go into any detail.

 

[Max Roscoe]

Your 5 minute video at least had a smoother animation.
I found it odd that in the NASA video, the picture of the asteroid was clean and clear, with very high resolution, with no noticable signal noise, which indicates a high bandwidth signal, but instead of a smooth video, or even a jumpy one at a low FPS rate, the asteroid just got larger every couple of seconds, as if you were hitting the "+" key to zoom in tighter on a jpeg image in Windows Explorer.

If they actually had a camera sending a live video feed from this rocket (lol, sure), then you would want a higher frame rate at the expense of resolution. You would want to know what happened, ie why did it miss, where did it hit, etc. in case of a failure or partial success. What information did that video give to anyone (other than "proving" we hit the asteroid)? Nothing.

They're truly not sending their best. But some of them, I suppose, are good people.

 

[cosine]

Compartmentalization- if I get hired at Boeing I will only know what I’m allowed to know, and the same goes for the people above me. Just like how the secret societies our astronaut heros belong to operate.

I don’t believe people have left low earth orbit, this is an important distinction.

Again this is all just speculation on my part, just like I said in my original post.

Edited because my phone died while I was replying

Have you actually had a job at Boeing or somewhere else in the aerospace industry?

I worked on weather satellites, and the compartmentalization is real, in the sense that you have 100-1,000 people working on a satellite, all with different specific roles.

But, there are also systems engineers who have to glue the whole thing together, and assemblers who actually build the satellites. I got to see the assembly with my own eyes and knew those employees well. Weather sites generally work because the satellites we launched are real and actually work. They are not perfect, but we could see satellite images of Hurricane Ian for example.

The same lab also built, in-house, a spacecraft that is currently observing Mars. The same people who assembled the weather satellite also assembled the Mars spacecraft and I got to observe it daily, in person.

All of these satellites produce data which is then analyzed by the same people that I trust. If the data for interplanetary systems was faked, I hope you all realize how gigantic of a pain that would have to be.

If either these weather satellites or the Mars satellite aren't real, then I'm a fool. An incredibly naive fool.

 

[Prores]

Have you actually had a job at Boeing or somewhere else in the aerospace industry?

I worked on weather satellites, and the compartmentalization is real, in the sense that you have 100-1,000 people working on a satellite, all with different specific roles.

But, there are also systems engineers who have to glue the whole thing together, and assemblers who actually build the satellites. I got to see the assembly with my own eyes and knew those employees well. Weather sites generally work because the satellites we launched are real and actually work. They are not perfect, but we could see satellite images of Hurricane Ian for example.

The same lab also built, in-house, a spacecraft that is currently observing Mars. The same people who assembled the weather satellite also assembled the Mars spacecraft and I got to observe it daily, in person.

All of these satellites produce data which is then analyzed by the same people that I trust. If the data for interplanetary systems was faked, I hope you all realize how gigantic of a pain that would have to be.

If either these weather satellites or the Mars satellite aren't real, then I'm a fool. An incredibly naive fool.

So neither of us have worked at Boeing.

Your experience with weather satellites isn’t really relevant to the discussion of the alleged moon landing.

If, as you say, you are open to the idea of yourself being a fool ( or at the very least fooled ) then that shows beautiful humility.

I think that I would truly have great difficulty accepting the reality of the moon landing at this point due to all of the inconsistencies, lack of return flights, masonic involvement, bad video, missing tapes, etc.

 

[Caduceus]

Have you actually had a job at Boeing or somewhere else in the aerospace industry?

I worked on weather satellites, and the compartmentalization is real, in the sense that you have 100-1,000 people working on a satellite, all with different specific roles.

But, there are also systems engineers who have to glue the whole thing together, and assemblers who actually build the satellites. I got to see the assembly with my own eyes and knew those employees well. Weather sites generally work because the satellites we launched are real and actually work. They are not perfect, but we could see satellite images of Hurricane Ian for example.

The same lab also built, in-house, a spacecraft that is currently observing Mars. The same people who assembled the weather satellite also assembled the Mars spacecraft and I got to observe it daily, in person.

All of these satellites produce data which is then analyzed by the same people that I trust. If the data for interplanetary systems was faked, I hope you all realize how gigantic of a pain that would have to be.

If either these weather satellites or the Mars satellite aren't real, then I'm a fool. An incredibly naive fool.

How can you be sure that these satellites are actually in outer space, rather than just floating in low earth orbit ?
They may in reality just be at the same height those weather balloons reach (100,000 feet) before they "pop" ?

The satellites may well be real...but they might be nowhere as far out as you think they are.

 

[Bird]

https://www.veed.io/view/9c0db643-49e0-4559-a58b-4a731a22fdad/showcase

Here’s my asteroid I made in 5 minutes

Add icosphere
Deform surface
Subdivide surface
Animate x position
Animate z rotation
Get a picture of gravel, apply as texture
Apply normals to geometry deformation
Crank the exposure up
Add motion blur
Add halation
Done

Probably the best way would be to make it like this, and then degrade it- bit reduce the footage and drop it down to 12fps so it looks more authentic

1 person 5 minutes
Don’t believe anything you see

What happened to the video? Can you make it accessible again?

This video has been archived.
The video is not available to watch at this time

 

[cosine]

So neither of us have worked at Boeing.

Your experience with weather satellites isn’t really relevant to the discussion of the alleged moon landing.

I have worked on projects that launched on Lockheed satellites and Northrop rockets. Somehow I don't think you would be any more believing if I had worked at Boeing.

The people who build and operate the weather satellites have worked extensively with people from the Apollo missions. The companies and universities involved are massively intertwined. Sure some scientist could come up with a crappy or fraudulent analysis of data after the fact; but the projects all generally work unless one blows up like Challenger or some failed rocket launch.

How can you be sure that these satellites are actually in outer space, rather than just floating in low earth orbit ?

They may in reality just be at the same height those weather balloons reach (100,000 feet) before they "pop" ?

The satellites may well be real...but they might be nowhere as far out as you think they are.

The current major NOAA satellite generation, GOES-R, operates at 22,000 miles in altitude. There's one over the Eastern US coast and one over the Western US coast.

Mission Overview │ GOES-R Series

The GOES-R Series (a collaboration of NOAA and NASA) is the Western Hemisphere’s most advanced weather-monitoring satellite system.

www.goes-r.gov

If they were at 100,000ft that'd be off by a factor of over 1,000. None of the instruments on the satellites would work and we wouldn't be able to see the view that they have from that low altitude. There would be no way to control the satellites from their positions if they were at 100,000ft.

I watched the second one lift off at Cape Canaveral on a ULA rocket. So then the satellite would have to not "really" be aboard or something.

The satellites being at 100,000ft would mean that:
- Everything in mission operations rooms are wrong; in fact you couldn't even communicate with most of the satellites from where the mission operations room is.
- The engineers I know and worked with are wrong about everything they do, and also oblivious to the fact that all of their careers are beyond false
- Someone intercepts the radio signals and somehow includes transmissions that they are operating a "fake" satellite, and then feeds them enormous streams of data for decades in some instances. This fake data is so convincing that they believe it for their entire careers and none of them can figure it out
- One satellite orbits the earth something like 7x per day. If it was only at 100,000ft it'd be quickly incinerated by the atmosphere traveling that fast.
- Every member of my family is wrong about everything they did in aerospace; their careers there are 100% false, yet they also successfully built things like radiation therapy machines, or missiles.

It'd be easier for me to believe that we are in a simulation like The Matrix.

Would any of you consider ever visiting an Aerospace lab and taking a tour? You could visit a NASA facility or any number of public labs at major US universities. Then you could point out to the tour guide which missions are fake and which are real and how you figured that out.

 

[Prores]

I know people work at these places. Just this year I’ve toured manufacturing sites where satellite panels are made. This isn’t an argument for the authenticity of the moon landing- you get that right?

Nothing that happens in low-earth has anything to do with people driving golf carts around on the moon.

 

[RedLagoon]

I have worked on projects that launched on Lockheed satellites and Northrop rockets. Somehow I don't think you would be any more believing if I had worked at Boeing.

The people who build and operate the weather satellites have worked extensively with people from the Apollo missions. The companies and universities involved are massively intertwined. Sure some scientist could come up with a crappy or fraudulent analysis of data after the fact; but the projects all generally work unless one blows up like Challenger or some failed rocket launch.




The current major NOAA satellite generation, GOES-R, operates at 22,000 miles in altitude. There's one over the Eastern US coast and one over the Western US coast.

Mission Overview │ GOES-R Series

The GOES-R Series (a collaboration of NOAA and NASA) is the Western Hemisphere’s most advanced weather-monitoring satellite system.

www.goes-r.gov

If they were at 100,000ft that'd be off by a factor of over 1,000. None of the instruments on the satellites would work and we wouldn't be able to see the view that they have from that low altitude. There would be no way to control the satellites from their positions if they were at 100,000ft.

I watched the second one lift off at Cape Canaveral on a ULA rocket. So then the satellite would have to not "really" be aboard or something.

The satellites being at 100,000ft would mean that:
- Everything in mission operations rooms are wrong; in fact you couldn't even communicate with most of the satellites from where the mission operations room is.
- The engineers I know and worked with are wrong about everything they do, and also oblivious to the fact that all of their careers are beyond false
- Someone intercepts the radio signals and somehow includes transmissions that they are operating a "fake" satellite, and then feeds them enormous streams of data for decades in some instances. This fake data is so convincing that they believe it for their entire careers and none of them can figure it out
- One satellite orbits the earth something like 7x per day. If it was only at 100,000ft it'd be quickly incinerated by the atmosphere traveling that fast.
- Every member of my family is wrong about everything they did in aerospace; their careers there are 100% false, yet they also successfully built things like radiation therapy machines, or missiles.

It'd be easier for me to believe that we are in a simulation like The Matrix.

Would any of you consider ever visiting an Aerospace lab and taking a tour? You could visit a NASA facility or any number of public labs at major US universities. Then you could point out to the tour guide which missions are fake and which are real and how you figured that out.

Could you entertain the idea of satellites being real and the moon landings being fake? Those are two different things you know?

 

[Prores]

What happened to the video? Can you make it accessible again?

This video has been archived.
The video is not available to watch at this time

VEED - trim

Make stunning videos with a single click. Cut, trim, crop, add subtitles and more. Online, no account needed. Try it now, free. VEED

www.veed.io

 

[paternos]

I have worked on projects that launched on Lockheed satellites and Northrop rockets. Somehow I don't think you would be any more believing if I had worked at Boeing.

The people who build and operate the weather satellites have worked extensively with people from the Apollo missions. The companies and universities involved are massively intertwined. Sure some scientist could come up with a crappy or fraudulent analysis of data after the fact; but the projects all generally work unless one blows up like Challenger or some failed rocket launch.




The current major NOAA satellite generation, GOES-R, operates at 22,000 miles in altitude. There's one over the Eastern US coast and one over the Western US coast.

Mission Overview │ GOES-R Series

The GOES-R Series (a collaboration of NOAA and NASA) is the Western Hemisphere’s most advanced weather-monitoring satellite system.

www.goes-r.gov

If they were at 100,000ft that'd be off by a factor of over 1,000. None of the instruments on the satellites would work and we wouldn't be able to see the view that they have from that low altitude. There would be no way to control the satellites from their positions if they were at 100,000ft.

I watched the second one lift off at Cape Canaveral on a ULA rocket. So then the satellite would have to not "really" be aboard or something.

The satellites being at 100,000ft would mean that:
- Everything in mission operations rooms are wrong; in fact you couldn't even communicate with most of the satellites from where the mission operations room is.
- The engineers I know and worked with are wrong about everything they do, and also oblivious to the fact that all of their careers are beyond false
- Someone intercepts the radio signals and somehow includes transmissions that they are operating a "fake" satellite, and then feeds them enormous streams of data for decades in some instances. This fake data is so convincing that they believe it for their entire careers and none of them can figure it out
- One satellite orbits the earth something like 7x per day. If it was only at 100,000ft it'd be quickly incinerated by the atmosphere traveling that fast.
- Every member of my family is wrong about everything they did in aerospace; their careers there are 100% false, yet they also successfully built things like radiation therapy machines, or missiles.

It'd be easier for me to believe that we are in a simulation like The Matrix.

Would any of you consider ever visiting an Aerospace lab and taking a tour? You could visit a NASA facility or any number of public labs at major US universities. Then you could point out to the tour guide which missions are fake and which are real and how you figured that out.

Very interesting, curious with your experience do you think the moonlanding is real? In 1969? And why did we or other countries, like China never repeat? And do you think the DART (interceptence of asteroids is real) are we able to hit an asteroid?

Personally I think yes, satellites are real, practically if you have a satellite dish, being 1 degree off and you're done. Yes many space flights are real which we have seen. The apollo rockets going into space, yes real.

But do you consider it an option that the moon landing was fake? That the DART project is fake?

I think it's like the holocaust, yes there were work camps, yes they wore the pyjama pants, yes they had star patches, yes many died, but systemic extermination with Zyklon B and gas didn't happen.

There is so much lying going on. E.g. the pipeline now, there is no honest person saying, oh it's me.

Are there things in the space program over the years you doubt yourself?

 

[basedgm]

Very interesting, curious with your experience do you think the moonlanding is real? In 1969? And why did we or other countries, like China never repeat? And do you think the DART (interceptence of asteroids is real) are we able to hit an asteroid?

Personally I think yes, satellites are real, practically if you have a satellite dish, being 1 degree off and you're done. Yes many space flights are real which we have seen. The apollo rockets going into space, yes real.

But do you consider it an option that the moon landing was fake? That the DART project is fake?

I think it's like the holocaust, yes there were work camps, yes they wore the pyjama pants, yes they had star patches, yes many died, but systemic extermination with Zyklon B and gas didn't happen.

There is so much lying going on. E.g. the pipeline now, there is no honest person saying, oh it's me.

Are there things in the space program over the years you doubt yourself?

Why are satellite dishes pointed at the nearest cell tower. Why are they never pointed directly up which would be the mathematically most direct line to any level of earth orbit? Why are there dead zones everywhere away from cell towers. Why does my friend who works on a freight not get internet for months? Why do people struggle to get a signal when they go hiking? Why have multiple news outlets admitted to 99% of the internet being transmitted from undersea cables?

The global internet is powered by vast undersea cables. But they're vulnerable. | CNN

On July 29, 1858, two steam-powered battleships met in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. There, they connected two ends of a 4,000 kilometer (2,500 mile) long, 1.5 centimeter (0.6 inch) wide cable, linking for the first time the European and North American continents by telegraph.

www.cnn.com

 

[basedgm]

All of these satellites produce data which is then analyzed by the same people that I trust. If the data for interplanetary systems was faked, I hope you all realize how gigantic of a pain that would have to be.

I don't understand the logic exactly. Faking something of this magnitude wouldn't be hard given they have an authority on space knowledge and exploration. It wouldn't be much of a pain at all. Case in point they give us the laughable Photoshops and 99% of the population eat it up

 

[EuropeanCanon]

Bravo brother! There are too many red flags with Nasa, I agree. One of the biggest factors that convinced me aside from the hairspray, Pettit, wires, obvious underwater footage, list goes on, was the body language of the hero masons after their return. Those are not men that just came back from the biggest expedition ever attempted by man. Those are men that were told what would happen to their families if they ever spilled the beans. That still happens but I won't go into any detail.

I recently watched The Crown on Netflix and your comment reminded me of this one episode where Prince Phillip gets super excited about meeting the Apollo astronauts but afterwards is really deflated because they had basically nothing to say about it! I think we know why LOL

 

[Caduceus]

I recently watched The Crown on Netflix and your comment reminded me of this one episode where Prince Phillip gets super excited about meeting the Apollo astronauts but afterwards is really deflated because they had basically nothing to say about it! I think we know why LOL

Here it is:

 

[cosine]

Why have multiple news outlets admitted to 99% of the internet being transmitted from undersea cables?

Can't answer all of your questions, but that's 99% of intercontinental and possibly international traffic, so doesn't include domestic traffic.

Does anyone belief this?

It seems so utterly ridiculous, look at the people in that room and the images of the crash.
Maybe it's real, but they make it look so fake.

Really a planetary defence system?

So, I do believe this is real, but let me now dish out some criticism of the aerospace industry.

The scientists and engineers in this industry commonly think they are way cooler and more productive than they are. Designing and building a camera, or launching a small payload into space costs a hideous amount of money, of course mostly funded by the US gov't. Certain missions like the NOAA weather satellites are great; most interplanetary missions are downright useless. The ROI on most space programs is pathetic, spending hundreds of millions or low billions for mostly fruitless studies of planets like Uranus that make no positive contribution.

In addition, the scientists in particular are so one-track minded that they are pathetic people in any other segment of life. They really are the stereotypical hermit scientist, and are too emotionally stupid to ever lie convincingly.

they make it look so fake.

All I can say is, you produce a space mission and see what the footage looks like.

Could you entertain the idea of satellites being real and the moon landings being fake? Those are two different things you know?

The difficulty with this is it's the same exact community that builds satellites that work. Developments have been handed down by thousands of brilliant people and the technology blends from one project to the next. Top research scientists commonly work on 100+ contracts and grants across their careers.

Anyone who has spent time in that industry knows that it either has to all be fake or all real. I've seen enough of it work to believe in the latter, despite all sorts of boneheaded scientists.

 

[paternos]

This satellite topic is interesting , finding a new topic to dig into.

We call this a radio telescope



And this a 40 dollar satellite dish:


When I look at it, it's the same just less advanced. Somehow I can't belief the last thing communicates with a thing 2000 km away.

I mean my wifi is bad after 50 meters. (that 400000X the distance)

So I try to look up satellites, like how do they look for real? And somehow I can just find weird 3d generated images. Try it yourself in Google, you get these weird 3d generated images with an earth in the backgroud.


So then my 40 dollar connected to camper dish communicates with this last thing? And it doesn't really really matter how I point the dish? I mean half a degree is many many KM the wrong way, how powerful is that satellite? With a bunch of solar panels? If I would have that amount on my house with full solar intensity (300 watt/panel) I could barely power my 2000 watt toaster.

And then when the satellites are behind the earth. They say batteries take over. When I'm in a plane it's already -50 degrees celsius. How can batteries of the satellites withstand that cold? For years on end?

I don't know, I yesterday I said I believe in satellites, but there is something fishy here, I'll visit some space flight museums or so. And try to learn a bit more. Never really dug into it.

Anyone has a convincing movie explaining how it works with the physical satellite? Not these 3d generated animations that I have seen 1000s of times? So man in a room, a satellite, holding it, explaining the technology, circuit boards, battery technology, how it deals with cold, i mean very practical.