"Here is the kennedy space center. There's apparently a space shuttle parked outside - but if you zoom in, it's clearly been digitally edited on the map. The aircraft has significantly more resolution than the surrounding area. I wonder what the policy is on editing the map? I wonder how much of the other areas are edited? Food for thought."
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.p ... mber=13193
simonshack wrote:RoyBean wrote:2. "PUZZLING PIXELCRASHES"
This sort of pixel disasters are reminiscent of the 9/11 imagery (jettisoned main tank 'breaks up' in mid-air):
The 1st Columbia Shuttle (STS1) 'pixelcrashes' for a few video frames: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJiFVYoJo88
Here is a similar 'phenomena' to be found in the 9/11 imagery:
3. INEXPLICABLE ARTIFACTS
The only possible explanation for this 'string' hanging under the shuttle is: 'animation graphics gone wrong':
4. ASSORTED MYSTERIES AND SILLINESS
-Mystery wide black object at left running up the runway - stopping and turning thin
-Silly drag chute reflection in (dry) tarmac
-Silly seagull flapping around over the scene (flying away at supersonic speed)
simonshack wrote:Dear all,
QUESTION 3: And this one is for the rocket scientists on board: what sort of thrust/physical forces make it drift sideways? My common sense suggests to me that this is a little strange; I would have thought that, with all that horsepower in the butt, the ENDEAVOUR would lift off in a perfectly vertical trajectory.
nonhocapito wrote: Maybe they have some telescope with the path already timed in so that it automatically follows the rocket.
nonhocapito wrote:The lack of amateur imagery is always puzzling.
reel.deal wrote:yeah. ...which is also why you cant see any stars from the moon !!!
"You're seriously suggesting the space shuttle is fake and the landings are somehow digitally created?"
"Did you seriously not notice how the shuttle's three main engines are offset from the center of gravity?"
"I seriously can't even believe that anyone would think this sort of thing was impossible or unusual."
The lunar surface is quite bright...
simonshack wrote:1: Firstly, I notice that you're seriously fond of the word "seriously":
simonshack wrote:2: Secondly, your lame and tiresome justification (stubbornly proposed by NASA and their apologists for over 4 decades) of why stars are not seen in the NASA imagery is quite frankly excruciatingly silly. No one buys that shit anymore. Everyone owns a camera today - and stars WILL be captured even by cheap ones.
simonshack wrote:3: Thirdly, why did you start off here by quoting several previous posts/pictures of mine - without even addressing their contents? As it is, your first post quotes the following issues: "PUZZLING PIXELCRASHES" and "INEXPLICABLE ARTIFACTS". Can you provide an explanation for these two photographic anomalies?
simonshack wrote:4: Fourthly: Please know that I am willing to consider that SOME SORT OF MOCK-UP SHUTTLE-LOOK-ALIKE/ROCKETS might have been launched from the Kennedy Space Center during the last 30 years. What happened next - as they rose up to the skies and disappeared from view - is an entirely different matter.
simonshack wrote:The point I have been making in my Space Shuttle (and ISS) research is that NASA keeps showing us countless absurd imagery which anyone equipped with a functional brain cannot fail to question.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests