[andiwd]

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?

[Dual1ty]

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?

Safe to say that they are operating nothing except a computer program. And yes, SpaceX / NASA launched it.

[andiwd]

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?

They are operating nothing except a computer program. And yes, SpaceX / NASA launched it - and?

It was launched by spacex from an air force installation (now space force). Exactly where did NASA come in to it? Do NOAA believe they have a satellite but the data is being faked? Did spacex and the air force think they were launching a satellite but it was secretly swapped out and their own transmissions and signals faked or did they know it failed and they are part of the coverup as well?

[Dual1ty]

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?

They are operating nothing except a computer program. And yes, SpaceX / NASA launched it - and?

It was launched by spacex from an air force installation (now space force). Exactly where did NASA come in to it? Do NOAA believe they have a satellite but the data is being faked? Did spacex and the air force think they were launching a satellite but it was secretly swapped out and their own transmissions and signals faked or did they know it failed and they are part of the coverup as well?

Yeah, an air force (government) installation that NASA (government) uses all the time. SpaceX provides the rocket, that's about all. The "mission" itself is managed by NASA and NOAA (government). You can read about it online, it's not a "conspiracy theory".

They don't have to swap anything, all they have to do is fake the telemetry. The satellite itself probably went nowhere except maybe the Bermuda Triangle. It certainly did not leave Earth!

[Everette Graham]

NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?

[Dual1ty]

NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they fake almost everything?

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

But obviously if you're a staunch globe believer / NASA lover you will see that and shrug it off, or try to come up with an alternate "logical" explanation which supports a "not CGI" narrative, even though NASA itself provided no statement about it.

That's just one little thing of many. I really can't be bothered to explain why NASA shouldn't be trusted or all the stuff they've faked, especially considering all the info that's already out there about it. It's one of those things that if you know, you know. A really obvious one is the Moon landing, but you probably believe that one too, huh? Even though most people who don't believe it are actually globe believers. But there's a lack of those type of globe believers here, I noticed. Coincidence? Of course not.

[markjo]

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive.  In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.

[Dual1ty]

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive.  In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.

So it wasn't a CGI glitch because if it was it would've been caught.

Well, they didn't catch it. That was the beauty of it.

Amazing the arguments you NASA lovers come up with.

[Pete Svarrior]

Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive.  In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.

This argument always comes across as so desperate. "If they were dishonest, they'd be more perfect about it; therefore, they must be honest." There isn't even an attempt at a logical sequence here.

Markjo, you forget that most people in this world are shockingly incompetent. If mediocrity works for their goals, why do you assume they'd strive for perfection?

[AATW]

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is?

No. Science is about making and testing hypotheses which explain how the world and universe work.
The hypotheses are never said to be 100% proven, but with testing you can build confidence in them being correct.
And they should always be open to improvement or replaced entirely if a better model comes along.

But this claim, like many claims, can't be directly tested. You've already agreed there is no way to prove that the image in the OP came from a satellite a million miles away.
So we're back to how credible you find the claim, and that relates to your model of reality. Is there anything that makes you think it's not possible to send signals from a million miles away? On page 1 of this thread I did some analysis of the image in the OP in terms of the scale of the moon relative to the earth and it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect to see from the distance claimed. So while I can't prove that this image is as claimed, I've no particular reason to believe it isn't. Your only response to my analysis was to claim that anyone who believed the data come from a million miles away was gullible. You didn't elaborate.

Earlier in this thread you said:
"If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid"
But now you're agreeing that can't be done.

And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all.

In your opinion. But you've provided very little evidence to back that up. You said they "fake almost everything" but provide no evidence.
You talk about the "CGI glitching". Can you show that example? Are you an expert in image or video analysis? Do you understand about artefacts from video compression?
What investigation have you done on the ISS? That's something you can directly observe so that's a good starting point.
Have you witnessed any rocket launches?
When it comes to the moon landings I've mentioned Jodrell Bank in the UK who were tracking the craft, and the team in Australia who were relaying signals.
Most moan hoax "evidence" I've seen is based on an ignorance of what actually happened or of basic physics, or simple incredulity.

And, again, you don't just have to take NASA's word for it. Multiple countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises have launched things too.

[Everette Graham]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they fake almost everything?

Wow, an original claim that you would still refuse to support if your life depended on it. I ask you what has led you to believe that NASA is incredible, and you respond with "They fake almost everything." This is a really broad response with no elaboration. It's a claim you freely throw out without caring to support it.

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

Would you care to provide the source of this video so we can all access it? Surely you don't expect me to just blindly believe you, right? On top of that, what evidence do you have that it was in fact CGI, rather than just an average glitch? I know a lot of conspiracy theorists like to throw out "CGI" at most of what NASA shows the world, but they never care to show us the evidence that what NASA is showing us contains CGI. So unless you can genuinely provide airtight evidence that the specific video you are referring to contains malicious CGI, I, along with everyone else, can and should dismiss your claim.

But obviously if you're a staunch globe believer / NASA lover you will see that and shrug it off, or try to come up with an alternate "logical" explanation which supports a "not CGI" narrative, even though NASA itself provided no statement about it.

Incorrect. I am not close-minded and I am very welcome to a change of my views. If you can provide truthful and sufficient evidence that NASA included malicious CGI in one of their videos, I would accept your evidence upon further research to ensure your evidence is truly truthful.

That's just one little thing of many. I really can't be bothered to explain why NASA shouldn't be trusted or all the stuff they've faked, especially considering all the info that's already out there about it. It's one of those things that if you know, you know. A really obvious one is the Moon landing, but you probably believe that one too, huh? Even though most people who don't believe it are actually globe believers. But there's a lack of those type of globe believers here, I noticed. Coincidence? Of course not.

All of the videos and conspiracy theories I've seen about NASA faking things are easily debunked. Whether it be glitches in ISS videos or live streams, space telescope imagery, satellite data & imagery, moon landings, you name it. I'm almost certain I've heard it all at this point. The biggest flaw I notice in all of these conspiracy theories is that none of them genuinely provide actual evidence. If evidence is provided, it's usually taken out of context. For example, a lot of moon landing deniers like to show off a small section of an interview that Buzz Aldrin had with a little girl. The issue is that they never let Buzz Aldrin finish his sentence in any of the clips shown. Or better yet, they never show how the interview even starts out. If these conspiracy theorists were honest about their evidence, they would be happy to show everybody the full interview, rather than a cherry-picked clip that was thrown way out of context. The few times that I have brought that up to some of these people, I tend to have my comments deleted, I get blocked, or my comment just never surfaces and remains hidden under all of the gullible people that fell for the clip, angrily shaming Buzz Aldrin and NASA like robots. So to answer your question, yes, I believe in the moon landings. Being an astrophotographer myself has only strengthened the evidence that the moon landings were real. Of course, as I stated earlier, if you would care to provide sufficient evidence that the moon landings were faked, I'd absolutely look into it without a doubt. With all of this being said, I hope I can receive a response from you including the video you referred to & sufficient evidence for all of the assertions you have made here. If not, do not expect anybody to believe what you say. Everybody can, and most likely will simply dismiss your assertions.

[AATW]

Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive.  In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.

This argument always comes across as so desperate. "If they were dishonest, they'd be more perfect about it; therefore, they must be honest." There isn't even an attempt at a logical sequence here.

I dunno. I mean, the narrative from some is that people like NASA are simultaneously competent enough to fake things to a level which has fooled the world, but are also incompetent enough to make mistakes which "people on the internet" spot. But I guess one could make the argument that most people don't really scrutinise NASA's output.

That said, the people that do...are they really experts in video/image analysis? In previous conversations we've established that I'm certainly not, but I know as much as many of the things claimed to be "CGI glitches" are video compression artefacts, or they're people with a certain agenda just seeing what they want to see. I did create a thread on here some time back where 3 VFX artists analysed some of the Apollo footage and concluded that it couldn't have been faked given the technology at the time. In the ensuing thread there was very little attempt to respond to what the experts said. I seem to remember Thork going off on a tangent.

[Tom Bishop]

3 VFX artists

Most of your kindergarten proofs are not worth replying to. You are going to need better evidence than "artists" with no known credentials who claim that it was impossible for NASA to fake the moon landings.

[Pete Svarrior]

I dunno. I mean, the narrative from some is that people like NASA are simultaneously competent enough to fake things to a level which has fooled the world, but are also incompetent enough to make mistakes which "people on the internet" spot. But I guess one could make the argument that most people don't really scrutinise NASA's output.

That would be mighty consistent with most conspiracy theories that have been successfully uncovered, though. "The world" is incompetent - this goes both for conspirators and outside observers. And then there are a few people who are a little more observant, often insufferably pedantic, who do spot things others don't. Does it surprise you that they'd be "on the Internet"?

[AATW]

And then there are a few people who are a little more observant, often insufferably pedantic, who do spot things others don't. Does it surprise you that they'd be "on the Internet"?

No, that doesn't surprise me.
But the key question is whether they really are spotting things that are indicators of fakery or a conspiracy.
Or are they people who already have a certain agenda seeing things because they want to, or doing things like misidentifying video compression artefacts as "CGI glitches".
Do they have any actual expertise in the field they're discussing?
Most of the moon landing hoax "evidence" I've seen is based on ignorance, it's not well researched evidence which is about to crack the whole case wide open.

[Dual1ty]

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is?

No. Science is about making and testing hypotheses which explain how the world and universe work.
The hypotheses are never said to be 100% proven, but with testing you can build confidence in them being correct.
And they should always be open to improvement or replaced entirely if a better model comes along.

Not really. A hypothesis is meant to be used as a tool like math; both of those were never meant to be what science revolves around, contrary to what they tell you these days. A big part of the problem is that science got corrupted by power and the scientific method got polluted from the 17th century by inductivism. Which again, could be a useful tool, but it was given much more importance than it deserves because they were already all in with Copernicanism at that point and they needed a justification to call it science when it was obviously not. Well, you would call it science, but that's what all pseudoscientists or pseudoscience believers claim their pseudoscience is too.

But this claim, like many claims, can't be directly tested. You've already agreed there is no way to prove that the image in the OP came from a satellite a million miles away.
So we're back to how credible you find the claim, and that relates to your model of reality. Is there anything that makes you think it's not possible to send signals from a million miles away?

Earlier in this thread you said:
"If the claim is that the data came from a million miles away, you need to prove that I'm afraid"
But now you're agreeing that can't be done.

No, I'm back to explaining how science is not about credibility. Can you prove that unicorns or leprechauns exist? No? Maybe they're not real, then. Isn't that my whole point? I think it is, thank you. Even if there were unicorns and leprechauns all over the earth, that still doesn't prove that you can strap them to a rocket and they will reach "L1" because of some imaginary slingshot effect based on the core assumption that the Earth is a spinning ball.

Not to mention that in order to talk about the possibility of signals sent from 1 million miles away, you need to prove that it's even possible for a signal-emitting device (or anything at all) to get there in the first place. The only place that "L1" exists is in people's imagination. In other words, no proof at all that it exists.

Have you witnessed any rocket launches?

Is that supposed to be evidence of anything other than they launch rockets? You NASA lovers crack me up with your "arguments".

And, again, you don't just have to take NASA's word for it. Multiple countries now have space programmes. Private enterprises have launched things too.

Well, that proves the current accepted model of the universe, then.

You do realize that what you're calling "space" is actually LEO, right? Most (well, really all) of the "space" operations are well below the LEO boundary. So basically a few hundred miles max. And that's assuming that an object can go that high, which is already a big assumption. A few hundred miles is what % of 94 billion light years? I'm not even gonna do that math - you do that for me since you're the Star Trek fan.

[Pete Svarrior]

But the key question is whether they really are spotting things that are indicators of fakery or a conspiracy.

Obviously, I agree. However, that has nothing to do with my objection to markjo's argument. "If NASA were faking it, they'd be doing it better" just doesn't gel at all. You could make this argument ad infinitum. Every time someone spots a mistake you can just go "well, if it was a rEaL conspiracy, they just wouldn't have made the mistake!" This relies on the assumption that malicious actors are somehow perfect. This assumption is not substantiated, and, in my opinion, defies common sense and every precedent we know of.

This is irrespective of whether NASA are faking it.

[Dual1ty]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they fake almost everything?

Wow, an original claim that you would still refuse to support if your life depended on it. I ask you what has led you to believe that NASA is incredible, and you respond with "They fake almost everything." This is a really broad response with no elaboration. It's a claim you freely throw out without caring to support it.

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

Would you care to provide the source of this video so we can all access it? Surely you don't expect me to just blindly believe you, right? On top of that, what evidence do you have that it was in fact CGI, rather than just an average glitch? I know a lot of conspiracy theorists like to throw out "CGI" at most of what NASA shows the world, but they never care to show us the evidence that what NASA is showing us contains CGI. So unless you can genuinely provide airtight evidence that the specific video you are referring to contains malicious CGI, I, along with everyone else, can and should dismiss your claim.

But obviously if you're a staunch globe believer / NASA lover you will see that and shrug it off, or try to come up with an alternate "logical" explanation which supports a "not CGI" narrative, even though NASA itself provided no statement about it.

Incorrect. I am not close-minded and I am very welcome to a change of my views. If you can provide truthful and sufficient evidence that NASA included malicious CGI in one of their videos, I would accept your evidence upon further research to ensure your evidence is truly truthful.

That's just one little thing of many. I really can't be bothered to explain why NASA shouldn't be trusted or all the stuff they've faked, especially considering all the info that's already out there about it. It's one of those things that if you know, you know. A really obvious one is the Moon landing, but you probably believe that one too, huh? Even though most people who don't believe it are actually globe believers. But there's a lack of those type of globe believers here, I noticed. Coincidence? Of course not.

All of the videos and conspiracy theories I've seen about NASA faking things are easily debunked. Whether it be glitches in ISS videos or live streams, space telescope imagery, satellite data & imagery, moon landings, you name it. I'm almost certain I've heard it all at this point. The biggest flaw I notice in all of these conspiracy theories is that none of them genuinely provide actual evidence. If evidence is provided, it's usually taken out of context. For example, a lot of moon landing deniers like to show off a small section of an interview that Buzz Aldrin had with a little girl. The issue is that they never let Buzz Aldrin finish his sentence in any of the clips shown. Or better yet, they never show how the interview even starts out. If these conspiracy theorists were honest about their evidence, they would be happy to show everybody the full interview, rather than a cherry-picked clip that was thrown way out of context. The few times that I have brought that up to some of these people, I tend to have my comments deleted, I get blocked, or my comment just never surfaces and remains hidden under all of the gullible people that fell for the clip, angrily shaming Buzz Aldrin and NASA like robots. So to answer your question, yes, I believe in the moon landings. Being an astrophotographer myself has only strengthened the evidence that the moon landings were real. Of course, as I stated earlier, if you would care to provide sufficient evidence that the moon landings were faked, I'd absolutely look into it without a doubt. With all of this being said, I hope I can receive a response from you including the video you referred to & sufficient evidence for all of the assertions you have made here. If not, do not expect anybody to believe what you say. Everybody can, and most likely will simply dismiss your assertions.

Yeah, but I don't need to support it, do I? Not considering all the info that, again, is out there already. All you have to do is remove your cognitive bias brain implant and take a peek at all the available info, not believe me because contrary to what you're saying I don't expect anyone to believe anything I say - that's not why I'm here. If anything, I'm here to tell you to not believe anything anyone says (particularly government agencies like NASA), but only if you want to because I can't force you.

No, I don't have the CGI glitch video, it's long gone from my computer and more likely than not that YouTube video is gone too due to censorship.

Really, that clip of the little girl with Buzz? That's your example? I think you can do better than that if you really believe every ounce of skepticism regarding NASA is unjustified and every piece of evidence that NASA lies is "easily debunked".

Ultimately, the #1 PROOF (not evidence) that NASA is faking stuff is that Earth is not a spinning globe. Since you claim to be open-minded - are you open-minded to that one too? I doubt it!

[Everette Graham]

Yeah, but I don't need to support it, do I? Not considering all the info that, again, is out there already. All you have to do is remove your cognitive bias brain implant and take a peek at all the available info, not believe me because contrary to what you're saying I don't expect anyone to believe anything I say - that's not why I'm here. If anything, I'm here to tell you to not believe anything anyone says (particularly government agencies like NASA), but only if you want to because I can't force you.

Uh, yes, you absolutely need to support your claims. Just telling me that the info is out there isn't enough. It's a cop-out for providing evidence. You couldn't even care to elaborate on the info. You're extremely broad with your answers and it's telling me everything I need to know about how this discussion will continue.

No, I don't have the CGI glitch video, it's long gone from my computer and more likely than not that YouTube video is gone too due to censorship.

Okay, so then there's no point in bringing your little video up if you can't even provide an ounce of evidence that this video even existed.

Really, that clip of the little girl with Buzz? That's your example? I think you can do better than that if you really believe every ounce of skepticism regarding NASA is unjustified and every piece of evidence that NASA lies is "easily debunked".

It's common and everyone here knows about the video. I was giving an example that everybody here can easily understand and relate to.

Ultimately, the #1 PROOF (not evidence) that NASA is faking stuff is that Earth is not a spinning globe. Since you claim to be open-minded - are you open-minded to that one too? I doubt it!

Another unsupported claim. Good job. It's even more dishonest that you say proof rather than evidence.

[Dual1ty]

Yeah, but I don't need to support it, do I? Not considering all the info that, again, is out there already. All you have to do is remove your cognitive bias brain implant and take a peek at all the available info, not believe me because contrary to what you're saying I don't expect anyone to believe anything I say - that's not why I'm here. If anything, I'm here to tell you to not believe anything anyone says (particularly government agencies like NASA), but only if you want to because I can't force you.

Uh, yes, you absolutely need to support your claims. Just telling me that the info is out there isn't enough. It's a cop-out for providing evidence. You couldn't even care to elaborate on the info. You're extremely broad with your answers and it's telling me everything I need to know about how this discussion will continue.

No, I don't need to dance when you tell me to dance. If anything you should be the one dancing for me because you are the reality denier. Nothing personal, though.

No, I don't have the CGI glitch video, it's long gone from my computer and more likely than not that YouTube video is gone too due to censorship.

Okay, so then there's no point in bringing your little video up if you can't even provide an ounce of evidence that this video even existed.

Since I no longer have the video, it can only be an anecdotal point, and that is what it was - I never claimed it was anything beyond an anecdote. You asked "What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?" and that was part of the answer.

Really, that clip of the little girl with Buzz? That's your example? I think you can do better than that if you really believe every ounce of skepticism regarding NASA is unjustified and every piece of evidence that NASA lies is "easily debunked".

It's common and everyone here knows about the video. I was giving an example that everybody here can easily understand and relate to.

The point is that's not a good example to debunk the claim that NASA fakes stuff. Like at all. It's not good to use it as evidence that NASA fakes stuff, either. It's just something curious that happened and could be interpreted a certain way, but it's not evidence of anything.

Ultimately, the #1 PROOF (not evidence) that NASA is faking stuff is that Earth is not a spinning globe. Since you claim to be open-minded - are you open-minded to that one too? I doubt it!

Another unsupported claim. Good job. It's even more dishonest that you say proof rather than evidence.

You don't need to tell me "good job", I'm not a dog. But if you think it's an unsupported claim, that's your opinion. I'm not obliged to support my claims every time I make a claim (it's not like Earth not being a spinning globe is my personal subjective claim anyway), and I'm certainly not obliged to provide anything to you specifically just because you have this notion that me not doing that proves your beliefs right somehow.