pretzelogik

I've brought this up before. There is no institution that is as much an expression of the vagaries of the state as is NASA. Aside from its genesis in the occult and image manipulation, the sheer volume of coerced resources flowing into its coffers should give any liberty minded person pause. The inability to recognize this is likely related to an unexamined allegiance to the scientific community, which has been politicized as much, if not more than any other discipline co-opted by the state. Just as there are no "rogue" elements corrupting politics (H20 diluting water) climate change hysteria is the state of science. BTW, where do you think NASA stands on climate change?

I might buy that if there was a need to "assemble" an image captured from 13 million miles away. Google earth assembles images to provide a panorama as the field of view is too small to encompass the entire image. Even consumer cameras have this capability. Set aside the fact that we can all see what we want to see, the moon is 1/54th the distance from where these picture were taken. Why is it that with a lens that has this capability of resolving images, can they not just point it at the moon and show us clear and unequivocal photos of flags, buggies and such? If the image referenced above taken by the LROC was taken from a distance of 30 to 120 miles, it's over 100,000,000 times closer to the moon than the Cassini was to Saturn. We should be able to count the rivets on the booster 5 seconds to verify that Space.com is registered to a registrar that manages over 6 million domain names? Okay,... I should have lifted the image directly from NASA where the identical image is posted, instead of the Space.com fanboy site sponsored by Purch. The content manager of Purch is Robert Roy Brit who also administers Live Science. In his own words, when describing himself in response to an article he has this to say about himself being an internet hoax: "Interestingly, no mention of "science" or "space," which have defined my career the past two decades". Make of that what you will.

Surely, NASA would never fake anything. Certainly not the photo (ahem) of Saturn published as image number 14 on their Space.com website here. I guess cranking up the brightness and contrast in Gimp which yields the image at the right does not reveal anything that would raise an eyebrow. That's right, nothing to see here. Gimp is free, BTW. This exercise can be duplicated by anyone so inclined. Try it with an few dozen actual photos and see if you can get a result similar to this. If it can be duplicated with an unadulterated photo, I would kindly request the image be shared with the public to illuminate how inky black backgrounds can appear as a series of pasted squares sans manipulation.

There may be a disconnect as to what qualifies as evidence. Sorry to tread in conspiracy territory, but to use a familiar example: At a certain temperature steel will melt. A certain accelerant burns at temperature X. In theory, once the acceralerant was applied to the steel and ignited for a particular period of time, the steel should indeed melt. We know that steel will melt, as it was created in a forge. We know the accelerant will ignite. This knowledge is not evidence. The evidence is the remains of the twisted metal that was melted by the accelerant. One degree of separation from the physical evidence would be photographic evidence. If the photographic evidence offered as proof conflicts with itself, i.e. conflicting shadows, missing/added elements that could only be explained through compositing, then there is a problem with the narrative. The conflict of interest comes into play when the only evidence provided is supplied by the claimant. In the case of atomic/nuclear bombs, the only photographic evidence available is provided by the military, who stand to reap tremendous benefits so long as the narrative remains credible. It has been shown time and again, in ways no one in this thread has even taken the slightest attempt at debunking, that the imagery presented as evidence is impossible and contrived. I see no need in examining any other aspects of the nuclear narrative until someone can explain static clouds or a half static and half dynamic explosion. To all takers I say: Good luck!

What baffles me is not whether science is questioned (I think there are strict protocols that enforce the status quo in the scientific and academic communities, I recommend reading/listening to Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt for a look at the mechanics http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Disciplined_Minds)but the conflict of interest. Any claim that is supported with evidence provided by the party making the claim should be subject to critical scrutiny and taken with extreme skepticism. I do not discount improvements in photographic technology but do recognize impossible images presented as fact. An explosion that rocks a plane 30,000 feet away (according to the narrative) cannot leave clouds 1,000 feet away unperturbed. An explosion cannot be dynamic in one area and static in another. These are conflicts of logic, not photographic imaging technology. As far as conspiracies go, the world is built on conspiracy. There is an open conspiracy in which those identifying themselves as government claim dominion over others in a particular area and are somehow perceived as legitimate. This claim is enforced by murder or the threat thereof and yet the idea that they would use illusion to implement their agenda is rejected as a bridge too far. And speaking of the strenuous effort of keeping secrets from our "enemies" (enemies is a concept I reject in terms of the state narrative, I have far more to fear from those in the so called USA than those outside of it, as has always been the case), if 600,000 people working on the Manhattan Project could keep that secret, why would keeping a hoax secret be any different?

It is not a question of whether they can't exist. The evidence for their existence is demonstrably flawed, contradictory and created exclusively by the creators of the bomb narrative itself, a conflict of interest that goes unquestioned and examined for the most part on an anarchy forum which baffles me. We cannot trust the state on matters of fiat currency, military, education, foreign policy sure, but science and academia are above reproach. Move along these are not the droids you are looking for.

Is there a blood test or something that determines alpha? How do the functionaries of the perfect democracy get their funding?

Some background on the “clock”: blogs.artvoice.com… Evidently, “engineering” the “clock” involved removing the innards of a Micronta, (a Radio Shack subsidiary) clock – www.radioshackcatalogs.com…, and then installing them into an aluminum "pencil case", More backstory from Willie Loman, which describes a much contrary version of the event: willyloman.wordpress.com… It's worth noting, the father of our aspiring “engineer” (social, maybe) was involved in the Quran burning saga from a few years back: www.dallasobserver.com… When transferring electronics from one enclosure to another wins an invitation to the whitehouse and the theoretical physics program at MIT, not to mention the level of unusual and totally unwarranted media attention that this event has been given, it's safe to describe the entire charade as a psyop.

Credibility is not a particularly strong suit of peer review in the evaluation of the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/

What is the real conspiracy?

Chris Kendall from Hoaxbusters call has a very informative talk with Thomas W. Murphy, Ph. D., whose primary project is running the lunar laser ranging experiment at Apache Point Observatory. The professor apologizes for the misdirection of Mythbusters and other mainstream "scientific" entertainers. Speaking of lunar apparati, we should not forget about our lunar neighbors the Chinese and the Russians. what with their Jade Rabbit and my favorite, the Lunokhod (pictured below), which is evidently also reflecting laser beams. Or, it could be cooking up some tasty bipedal beaver stew.

So when exactly is it that escape velocity occurs? I still can't picture sitting in a vehicle that is moving nine times faster than something that is already impossible to see, but let's say that is possible. Isn't the moon supposed to be locked to the gravitational field of the earth? How does the rocket escape that field in between here and the moon? Oh, and don't forget the static clouds. That's really the important thing. I am simply using the figures that NASA puts out as far as the "speed" required to escape the earth's gravitational field. When an auto manufacturer says a car will take x seconds to go form 0 to 60, what is reference frame to which they are referring? How do we consider speed in common parlance when we are moving through space at x MPH? Does the rocket ever leave the reference frame of the earth? Is the earth's rotation in a particular direction added/subtracted to the speed of the rocket? Are the relative trajectories of the moon's rotation around the earth and the rotation around the sun considered in the escape velocity speed? I imagine my limited grasp om the mathematics required to understand all the calculations may fall somewhat short. So, let's just cut to the chase and give me your best explanation about how the clouds on the latest moon transit video remain static.

This explanation nullifies the concept of velocity. "What do you mean I was speeding, officer? Look, you're moving a thousand miles an hour right now, so you are already 965 over the 35 MPH speed limit." I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who gets pulled over.

This offers very little in the way of explaining away the contradictions. So, you are saying you find nothing implausible about astronauts moving at nine times the speed of one of the fastest rifle cartridges?

This only strengthens the argument against the authenticity of these photos. No, in fact I don't expect their cameras to be anything close to what would be required to photograph stable images from those distances. That is why the authenticity should be questioned. But forget the lenses, stabilization, maintenance of perspective, control of iris, manipulation of the controls in real time from a million miles away and the communication (visual feedback, plus zoom, pan, tilt, focus and iris, along with maintaining the position of the "craft") channel required. What is the explanation for the static clouds? Glad you mentioned escape velocity! The escape velocity required to leave the gravitational field of earth according to NASA, is 36,960 ft/s. (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducato ... ty_prt.htm) Also, according to Wickipedia, the.220 Swift rifle cartridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Swift) has a muzzle velocity of 4000 ft/s (commonly cited as one of the fastest available production model cartridges and yet still some nine times slower than an Apollo rocket, evidently). Last month there was a bit of buzz about the possibility of new unmanned "hyper sonic" rockets changing the nature of warfare by the year 2040, the projected date of the perfection of these projectiles that will reach the currently unprecedented (except when talking about Apollo rockets) rate of 5573 ft/s: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/arms-race-betw ... ft-1508241 We have all seen the slow acceleration of the Apollo rockets that the camera follows until they are out of sight (at least two minutes or more, while the Kaman line is some seven seconds away at escape velocity), yet they are evidently all the while picking up enough speed to become virtually invisible to any cameras that might attempt to capture them by the time they reach "space". And yet, if all goes according to plan, the military will have unmanned rockets capable of achieving speeds approaching less than one sixth the speed of Apollo rockets by the year 2040. That gives them another thirty years or so to achieve what they had already done nearly eighty years prior. I find the idea of a manned rocket traveling nine times faster than the fastest rifle cartridge to be a bit of an eyebrow raiser, but even more puzzling is the fact that they are still working toward achieving unmanned rocket speeds that will fall far short of what was readily available in the sixties. It's more of a suspicion, but earth bound camera resolution seems to me a bit more detailed than what I would expect for an object 234 or 237 thousand miles away. In fact, we can see some details of the moon with the naked eye which seems unlikely at those distances, although I understand atmospheric conditions provide less interference when looking up. Mt. McKinley in Alaska can be seen from Anchorage, which is over 100 miles away, I'd like to compare the detail a 200X camera lens could provide to the mountain from Anchorage, then virtually extrapolate that 2300 times. For someone who has spent thousands of hours behind expensive broadcast lenses the distances seems a bit off, but I have nothing more than intuition at this point.

Anyone who has ever operated a camera or used a zoom lens realizes that the further the lens is from the subject when it is at the end of its focal length, the more dramatic the effects of the slightest movement of the lens. Below is a sample of a consumer grade 200x (digital, 50x optical) lens capturing the moon. Notice the effect of the zoom button activation on a camera affixed to a tripod on stable ground. Also, notice the city lights appear with no adjustment to the iris and the moon still plainly visible in the frame. Actually, I am beginning to question the accuracy of the conventional notion of celestial distances. According to doctrine, a telescope that would resolve to show Apollo remnants on the moon would require a 100 meter mirror - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/12/moon-hoax-why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers/#.VcbJe_ksN8E The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is supposedly 234,000 miles (minus 51) closer to the moon than the earth bound camera, and yet the resolution certainly does not appear to be 4680 times better than the Sony in the video above. Apparently, NASA can not equip a space probe on a million mile voyage with a camera that has comparable optics to a $400.00 consumer Sony that would be capable of capturing stars. And yes Torero, I actually posted the NASA - Disney subliminal earlier in the thread, as well as another entry that traces the relationship between NASA, Disney and the occult. Of course, the military ties go without saying.

More fascinating video content from NASA's remarkable million mile lenses featuring static clouds:

What do the occult, Scientology and Hollywood have in common? Well, NASA, of course. Take Jack Parsons, Aleister Crowley and L. Ron Hubbard, then mix in a little T. Keith Glennan and you are well on your way to establishing one of the premier science agencies of the new technologic era. How silly of those conspiracy researchers out there to suspect a new age, occultic Hollywood production outfit funded by unlimited amounts of federal dollars to be guilty of anything but the most rigorous adherence to transparency and the advancement of technology for the good of humankind. Oh, and I almost forgot Wernher von Braun, who was inspired to rocketry by jules Verne (the science fiction writer who actually correctly identified the escape velocity of earth in the 1800s, go figure) https://books.google.com/books?id=HaM6CpDYE3oC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=Jules+verne+correctly+estimates+Escape+velocity&source=bl&ots=MJSjmySw3B&sig=TZKBwcgDgm_F-sNCO6527jeVWXg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMIwsuZ1e-FxwIVDzGICh1TWgCh#v=onepage&q=Jules%20verne%20correctly%20estimates%20Escape%20velocity&f=false) Of course, von Braun was very involved with Disney (already a known producer of overt pro military propaganda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World_War_II_propaganda_production) in promoting the space narrative (http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/disney_article.html) serving as technical director for both film and theme park exhibits. So, is finding a Disney-esque subliminal in latest NASA offering a case of seeing a pattern that doesn't exist, or is dismissing it a failure to recognize a pattern that does?

The comment posted previously seemed to allude to the idea that those who fail to see the pattern that would indicate the presence of a tiger would get ate by said tiger, so the failure-to-recognize-pattern genes would be eliminated from the gene pool over time. If anything, religion is an argument for the deliberate avoidance of recognizing actual patterns, as there are far more unfulfilled prophecies and unanswered prayers than vice versa. Religion is an example of the ability to recognize actual patterns being removed from its adherents through conditioning. In the case of NASA releasing a photo with intentionally embedded imagery (the intentional may be arguable, since no one will likely come forward to claim the subliminal) it would fit a long running pattern of image manipulation by NASA, although for many, the ability to recognize it as such has been inhibited through conditioning.

I guess that is what I was getting at. The genetic consequence of dismissing an actual pattern as coincidence would be greater (in terms of negative impact on survival) than that of perceiving a non-existent pattern that was merely a coincidence. Ergo, we should be genetically predisposed to see actual patterns. How many instances of "coincidence" does it take before a pattern can be confirmed?

I am confused as to whether the photoshopped image above (allegedly taken from one million miles away) is analagous to a coincidence or an actual tiger.

There is a very strong bias toward accepting what is delivered to us as "news" as factual, when in reality the media has no legal or ethical obligation to provide any truth whatsoever. The mission statement of Newscorp (The Rupert Murdoch conglmerate) was posted earlier in another thread, but it bears repeating: "Creating and distributing top-quality news, sports and entertainment around the world." Before their website updated it was featured at the top of the banner. Evidently, they have a new tag lin: "Delivering extraordinary experiences for our customers and consumers is at the heart of who we are." (Bold and italics are theirs) These statements should be taken literally, they create news and deliver extra ordinary experiences. They do not provide facts, facts are by their own definitions contrary to their mission statement. News is created (in any big national or worldwide event that becomes part of the collective dialogue) the same way movies are created, with scripts, actors, sets and street theater added for effect. If an actual event happens that can be spun to benefit the agenda, the set designers and copywriters get an easy week. The reason these conspiracies can go on forever and never get resolved (Kennedy, 9/11) with new wrinkles continually added like sequals to The Hobbit, is because there are no facts to uncover and nail down. The entire yarn is spun from whole cloth. When the hour is up and all the digital supernatural effest dissolve into the "News at 6" graphic, an assumption is made that facts are on the way but it's still only lights and sounds, like any show or infomercial and should be assigned the same level of truth value.

The latest WTF moment courtesy of NASA by way of Time Magazine online July 20, 2015: http://time.com/3964653/nasa-earth-photo/ Flipped and highlighted (Disney fans may be acquainted with similar subliminal images) for your viewing convenience:

The camera was not out of focus, it was IN focus, both the foreground and background. The helicopter hardware should be blurry and indistinguishable. Anyone with a camera can verify for themselves that this is a physical impossibility. Mathematics is fine, empirical evidence is better. Just provide a single example of a long lens camera producing an image with the foreground and background in focus (especially while the camera zooms in/out as it does in the clip referenced, the image is merely a still from that segment). As the phenomenon can only be produced with two cameras layered into a single image with editing, we recognized that this clip aired as live was actually compiled in advance of the event. As was mentioned in the above post, the 9/11 imagery is chock full of such anomalies (or errors better yet). The video quality was satisfactory for convincing the world what they saw was real at that time (I was convinced initially and for some years afterward, so no I didn't just decide it was an inside job, I came to that conclusion once the evidence was undeniable) but does not stand up to scrutiny.