trodas Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I believe people should not steal. Not even when things are seemingly of zero value, like... rocks. This - emphasis on being a state agency - NASA agency, however, do employ some stealers here and there. They even worked on the Moon set - pardon, I should have said "on the Moon" Stealing is not nice - not even when people steal rocks:http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-146-22293HR.jpghttp://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-146-22294HR.jpg Same scene from video, the rock from AS17-146-22293HR photo is nowhere near to be found: http://youtu.be/Z0438bdGbS0?t=48m23s ... http://youtu.be/Z0438bdGbS0?t=53m58s So I do believe that NASA employ thiefs, but I would go on and say, that the most important thing that they stole from us all away, are our dreams and hopes of space travel and visiting at least the Moon. But everyone is free to draw own conclusions from what little I show there. It might hurt, but it is the truth. 1 1
Wuzzums Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Yes, it is the truth. It is the truth about perspective. The camera changes angle. The "rock" is actually a very large stone formation but far away so a small change in camera angle up close translates to a large change in angle far away. The large stone in the background is behind the large stone in the foreground. Got to bed. 7 1
RuralRon Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I agree with Wuzzums concerning this particular example. Not saying trodas is wrong about hos conclusion, as I have seen much stronger evidence that supports "man never set foot on the moon" position. It's been years since I looked into this, but one piece of evidence I recall, but I must admit I haven't investigated, is that the hatch size on the L.E.M. is too small for a man and his space suit to exit. That should be easy to validate or disprove. The moon landing hoax is an interesting conspiracy theory, and it doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult to pull off imo.
jacbot Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Well its funny because there is the context of "moon-landing-never-happended" movement. Otherwise people would not really care about peculear perspective shifts.
RuralRon Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 It's funny for several reasons, the conclusion, the circular reasoning - I'm ROFL 2 1
trodas Posted July 29, 2014 Author Posted July 29, 2014 Wuzzums - Yes, it is the truth. It is the truth about perspective. The camera changes angle. The "rock" is actually a very large stone formation but far away... Ehm, if this stone is far away, then it should not have any visible features, because of the focus and distance. But I clearly see the rock texture, and it look like it is just very very close. Just look at the ground, lol. so a small change in camera angle up close translates to a large change in angle far away. The large stone in the background is behind the large stone in the foreground.it loo This is wishfull thinking. Anything that is far away did not move much, if at all, when astroNOT just step ONE step to the left. You need to take some photos to see, how this does not add up at all... But I can help you to see, what you obviously don't want to see: See the problem now? Still struggling? Okay... there we go: Better? Also, before speaking about perspective, check out the pans from the TV camera on the Rover. It is like 2,5 - 3m to the left from the astroNOT and you can see that the scene stays pretty much the same: Look, I understand, that you wish this is perspective or something, but it is not. The rock is just there and then... it is not. No matter how much you wish it will be there, it is not because of perspective. But because the prop people wrongly manipulate with the backgrounds. Perhaps intentionaly, because they are deeply unhappy about what they are doing. RuralRon - I agree with Wuzzums concerning this particular example. Not saying trodas is wrong about hos conclusion, as I have seen much stronger evidence that supports "man never set foot on the moon" Another one who just want to see what it is not there? Sure I have tons of similar examples, and far worser ones, but if people refuse to see the obvious... what good they are? For example, sometimes even tracks are stealed over time... or do they last only 5 minutes on the "Moon"? AS15-82-11140 - time 165:39:51 - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11140HR.jpgAS15-82-11141 - time 165:44:46 - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11141HR.jpgtime: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html (time: mission hours:min:sec)...but there are, as bonus, some rocks added now (and to this day, I was under the firm impression, that Apollo supposedly gather rocks on the Moon - like these: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm -, not added the rocks from Earth on the Moon I quess I was wrong ) hatch size on the L.E.M. is too small for a man and his space suit to exit. That should be easy to validate or disprove. Well, as with the Wuzzmus "shifty eyes" you are wrong again. To test this, NASA must let you borrow their spacesuit and some LEM. And then Wuzzmus will say, taht this was just a testing LEM and you will be screwed with all your testing There is actually far better one - in vacuum, these space suits are bloated, because on Sun, the Moon get 134°C and the air expand. Alexey Leonov was almost killed, because he cannot get back to his Vostok, Ed White had these problems... but never Apollo astroNOTs. Of course. They never had enter the space, so... See Ed White videos for the evident balooning and see Apollo videos for the lack of this. The moon landing hoax is an interesting conspiracy theory, and it doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult to pull off imo. Wrong once agan, because as long, as you have evidence (no matter how flimsy it is), then it is possibility not a theory anymore. Get more proofs and theory become reality. What if I told you, that there is a lightbulb visible in Apollo photographs of the "Sun"...? I agree on the easy to pull it off, because they had the ASP (Apollo Simulation Project) that was designed that way, so the Huston people never know, if this is real or not. By their own admission they can't tell the difference. So it was easy to dupe them... Wuzzums - with the Saturn V it is a really bad example. Check this out - the Saturn V allegedly was able to lift 3x more and cost 6x less to launch that Space Shuttle. On top of that, it have a perfect track record. And on top of that, no one ever made such big rocket engines The truth is, that these engines are so ineffective, that getting Skylab on LEO was miracle that they pulled in night by full Moon to get cover from eyes to cover up, what they are lunching to the orbit. Never the less, Apollo 11 and 12 crew was into LEO at least... Back to the engines and technology. If back in 1968 USA have such technology, then why build the booster for Space Shuttle? It can easily lift the Shuttle off by Saturn V and you did not need anything. So, why ditch that technology? Well, it is was worthless, then it make sense. But not if it was actually working, and any rocket engineer tell you, that you cannot simply enlarge the rocket engine, because you get unstability and ineffectivity. But... don't take my word for it. The Russian engines was always much better and they never manage to get so big engines. Their Moon rocket N1 engines stun west over 30 years after they are made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZnYr94aa9E "The efficiency of these engines is very good, better that anything else developed around the world today." (36:40) "Today regarded as some of the finest in the world, the engines use a unique technology developed by Russia at this hight of the Space Race. A technology so ambitious, that the western rocket sciencist thought is was impossible to master." (2:17)"The performace of the engines were probably 10, 15% higher that we have in United States." (0:58) "It was not the same technology we are used to. It was a paradigm shift of what we were expected." (1:10) So much for Saturn V, huh? But funny video. There is just one slight problem - no one ever can set foot on the Moon, because of intense radioactvity in space, past the Earth magnetic shield and the Van Allen belts. So it is kinda hilarious, lol. jacbot - Well its funny because there is the context of "moon-landing-never-happended" movement. Otherwise people would not really care about peculear perspective shifts. LOL ... Sure thing. As I see, the deep need to not confront the established ideas REALLY affect the mind, as the test showed: http://youtu.be/p8ERfxWouXs?t=11m05sSocial conformity alter perception at neuorogical level. 2
shirgall Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Wuzzums - Ehm, if this stone is far away, then it should not have any visible features, because of the focus and distance. But I clearly see the rock texture, and it look like it is just very very close. Just look at the ground, lol. Things that are far away lose detail in an atmosphere, but less so in a vacuum. There's no dust or other particulates in the way in the example. 1
trodas Posted July 29, 2014 Author Posted July 29, 2014 Have you ever heard about... focus of camera? Have you even looked at where the rock actually is? And what do you see? 4
JonnyD Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 The more you look at that does it look like the small rock is behind the large one and what you're observing is just a change in camera angle. Have two pictures open, put your finger at the left of the large rock and toggle between the two pictures. You'll notice the large rock moves about 2/3 foot the same distance as the small rock. I'm not that great at paint but I drew in red where the small rock is. 1
MrCapitalism Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Have you ever heard about... focus of camera? Ever head of.... depth of field? Edit: I personally think the rock dropped below a small hill.. I think it can still see the top of it shifted to the right, just above the large shadow. 1 1
trodas Posted July 30, 2014 Author Posted July 30, 2014 JonnyD - you haven't watched the video, right? Because if you did, then you noticed that this cannot be true by any stretch of imagination, right? Or do you are so desperately need to hold this big govt lie true? ... If is, I prepared a little eye opener for you. We have the scene from at least 3 anges: Do you agree that the perspective rules do apply for the shadows, too? If not, then there cannt be any debate, don't you agree? And if you agree, then notice how I drew the lines parallel to the other rock shadow, that it is pointing to the missing rock. I did that to make you notice, that the perspective shift does happen (no one is denying it), yet the rock should be still visible in all there cases and not completely gone, as the shadow line show to be true. ... Not enought? Okay! After the shadow from the big rock to the right that I used as "pointer", there are two rocks before the missing one. The later seems to be quite close the the "missing" rock. Also it well visible on all there examples, including the video. Now watch, how it "move" between the pictures. You can see the rock slightly move, as perspective dictate (the scene is quite small, that was proven beyong shadow of the doubt: Hadley a study in fakery - http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/hadley.pdf Colin Rourke, Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, COVENTRY CV4 7AL, UK). But you still can see it on all the there pictures! Now since the rocks are almost touching themselves, then please explain to me, how that could happen in real life And when you are at it, explain how the tracks can disappear too, lol: http://pictureshack.ru/images/58358_as15-82-11140-1_busted_badly.gif MrCapitalism - depth of field? Sure thing. But that actually prove these photos are fake, because the camera cannot be focused on so close ground and so far away ground features. Altrought one have to admit, that in case of Apollo, the surface features are only where the prop people drop them: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-144-22128HR.jpg :laugh: But you did not find that strange at least, do you? JonnyD - Rock dropped bellow a small hill? OMFG You make my day. Where do you see the hill, that could hide the rock, pretty please with sugar on top? And also - why on one picture it should be visible and on another it is not present? The astroNOT did not have changed it's position more that 2 feets and vertical position is still the same. So that only make you so desperately looking for solution for this presented problem, that you are going into surreality. Why do you defending the indefensible? You should be aware, that these few examples are just a tip of the iceberg. IMHO they are not even the strongest ones But I do have a few favorites. One of them is trackless Rover: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-20979HR.jpg This is just laughable But surely you can see the tracks, how the Rover get there, right? I fail to see then, but you sure sure sure see them, right...? Look, I don't want to be mean, but... you are kinda pushed me with the "rock hidden behing a small hill" explaination. Actually, you just pointed out at the rock I used for reference to demonstrate, that the bigger rock must be visible. If you insist on "hill" (where you see one, lol), then be prepared to say, where this rock get Because it is visible on all the images... Would that mountain in the background be several miles away at least? So a change in camera by about 2 foot would make a big difference to what is shown in the background? But the best is the last. I mean... no disrespect, but when you drive in a car, how fast things close to the car move? Quite, right? How about things "several miles at least" away? They are standing still, right? Well, it might come as surprise to you, but the same is true in perspective. Things that are close enought are affected, things that are far far away are not affected at all But hey... you say several miles away? Most surface features (read - rocks, craters, dips, anything) in all Apollo photos end 10m away from the camera. As I already shown - rocks are only where the prop people drop them. Want more examples? Okay, here we go: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11075HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11077HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-111-18091HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-110-17960HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-110-18007HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-109-17823HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-109-17789HR.jpg Don't you find at least strange, that all rocks and surface features, that are sharp and do cast shadows, end on the Apollo pictures pretty abruptly? I can see the backdrop lines... you don't see them? 4
JonnyD Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 JonnyD - you haven't watched the video, right? Because if you did, then you noticed that this cannot be true by any stretch of imagination, right? Or do you are so desperately need to hold this big govt lie true? ... If is, I prepared a little eye opener for you. We have the scene from at least 3 anges: Do you agree that the perspective rules do apply for the shadows, too? If not, then there cannt be any debate, don't you agree? And if you agree, then notice how I drew the lines parallel to the other rock shadow, that it is pointing to the missing rock. I did that to make you notice, that the perspective shift does happen (no one is denying it), yet the rock should be still visible in all there cases and not completely gone, as the shadow line show to be true. The video only shows the first angle which makes sense as to why you don't see the "smaller" rock as it's behind the foreground rock. What you see in the background isn't close, it's probably several miles away so moving 2/3 feet to the right like in the second picture can significantly change what you see in the background. Notice the slope of the mountain in the background is different too. The "smaller" rock we're talking could be the size of a two story house. 3
trodas Posted August 2, 2014 Author Posted August 2, 2014 Well, the medium sized rock, that is close up from top to the right shadow, is present on ALL the images. Therefore your perspective claim is wrong. the background isn't close, it's probably several miles away so moving 2/3 feet to the right like in the second picture can significantly change what you see in the background This is seriously wrong understanding of perspective. Try it in real life. You quickyl realize, that no matter how much steps you took, the several miles away background never change. This is so obvious, that your attempts to push this "logic" is completely beyond any reasoning. For the very last time - try this, before making utterly wrong claims. For the record - only way that the sidestep of astroNOT could have cause this is, if the astroNOT was very close to the rocks. For example if the distance between the photographer and the object was SAME as the sidestep lenght, then the change in ange will be 45°. That would be serious, that could bring the object behing the cover. However if the sidestep is less that 1m and the object is about 15m away, then the change in perspective is mere 6°. If the object is several miles away, then the change in ange is nonexisting and only important thing is, how close are the rocks and how wide are the space between them, compared to the sidestep. In all cases, the rock has to be (at least partly) visible. ... Whatever. Let's move on to more harder stuff All the Apollo TV telecasts are made by the Rover camera. Allegedly. So there is no place for second camera and also in the life broadcast, there cannot be cuts, right? Yea, that would sane man say. It is not life broadcast, when there is a cut... so, what is this?! Apollo 17 flag ceremony - so much for live broadcast, huh? http://pictureshack.ru/images/75252_Apollo_17_fading_flag_ceremony.gifOriginal video:http://ulozto.cz/xhyELjA/apollo-17-fading-flag-ceremony-wmvFading flag video discovery by Jarrah White: 1 2
Bastii Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 You're clearly spending a lot of time with this stuff, why is this so important for you? 2
RuralRon Posted August 2, 2014 Posted August 2, 2014 My primary feedback to you trodas is about the way you're presenting your position, which I'm quite sympathetic and biased towards your perspective I might add. You have looked into this deeper than I have and possibly more than most have here on this forum. I can understand it's frustrating trying to convince skeptics of any subject. And I'm not always calm, cool and collected and matter of fact with my arguments either. But I have found the more you can be that way and present the data that supports your position and refrain from inflammatory adjectives and negative characterizations of your opponents or their statements, the will better it will serve you to get your point across. Not to mention gain you more respect here on FDR. We're all here seeking truth and that is best served with rational rather than emotional discussion. Something to think about. 2
trodas Posted August 2, 2014 Author Posted August 2, 2014 Bastii - why would not be the story of this grand hoax would be absolutely (albeit chilly a bit, when come to the real fact why we did not go) stunning to anyone? I wanted go to the stars and I still want to go. Sadly there is probably no way we can set the foot (w/o getting seriously injured by radioactivity) on at least the Moon, but we can go for sure. 2m of water shielding keep thre radiation levels sustainable, altrough not clearly safe. But we never go, untill we stop living in fairytales. RuralRon - then please someone explain the perspective to the offending (mostly my brain :-) ) party Never the less, you did not see even surface scratchec, of what I did for a research. Mostly it is based on other people research, but I finding new things almost each time I look at the images or data (for example the number of Sun flares happening during Apollo missions are beyond belief). For example, my trackless Rover series: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11902HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11901HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21354HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-143-21932HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-143-21857HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11603HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-142-21796HR.jpg - how do the astroNOTs get back to the LEM?! No tracks, lol... (some scenes are made using models only) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Apollo15LunarRover.jpg http://apolloanomalies.com/missing_tracks.htm :laugh: ... Wanna see something even better? Okay. Dr. Colin Rourke (Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick) got the balls not to be restrained about what will people think and he took a look at the Apollo 15 photos of "Moon" Hadley mountains. These are so obvious fakes, that it beg a little explaination - on Moon, there is no atmosphere, so, no erosion. Therefore most of the mountains are sharp and harsh. And quess what - where ALL Apollo fotos show a nice smooth mountains, there telescopes show pretty rough terrain, very sharp and edgy mountains... but even that is not the best kick out of the study: http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/hadley.pdf Hadley: a study in fakery (version 2) Is it plausible that three views of the same mountain from different places should have exactly the same outline (differing only in scale)? No: real mountains always look different from different viewpoints. The IMHO best argument is on page 10, slightly mentioned as: "The shadow is not consistent with the supposed method of photography being used. ...the shadow of the astronaut taking the photo must point back to his feet which are at centre bottom. You can easily produce a photo with a shadow like the one in this photo, by tilting the camera. Take your digital camera out next time there is sun and experiment. No photo taken with the camera level with respect to your body (as it must be if fixed to your breastplate) can produce a shadow like this." http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6984.jpg Where is the problem? First at all, there is a apparent hotspot near the shadow of the head of this astroNOT. That itself prove, that this is a studio light, so we are not on Moon. But there is a worser problem. The center of each Apollo photo is marked by the biggest cross. Therefore we see, that there is no cropping, that could make this photo possible. The biggest problem? Well, the shadow of the astroNOT, that is supposedly taking the picture, is not pointing to him, but to another person (stative), and his(her) shadow is not even present on the picture. ... It must look like THIS: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5930HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6941HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6985HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20744HR.jpg And NO, never once like this: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5961HR.jpg http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6984.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6848HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6796HR.jpg ... Of course I managed, after brief search, to find many similar ones: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5962 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5961 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5928 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6730 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6751 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6753 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6775 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6776 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6796 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6846 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6848 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-48-7059 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-48-7082 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS14-64-9099 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-86-11596 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-86-11644 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-137-21008 ...etc... Nice, huh? Shadow of astoNOT, if present, must always point to the middle of the screen (because of fixed camera on chest) - if it does not, then he is not the one, who taken the picture. How do you like that? 1 3
RuralRon Posted August 3, 2014 Posted August 3, 2014 Unless the actual photo was cropped, which would explain it.
trodas Posted August 3, 2014 Author Posted August 3, 2014 It would be priceless, if you actually bother to even read my argument, RuralRon:"The center of each Apollo photo is marked by the biggest cross. Therefore we see, that there is no cropping, that could make this photo possible." Bastii - see? That is why Because it is kind of interesting, to what lenghts people go, to protect their cherished views. Group psychology (not to be different, no to think differently, that is scary!) force them to alter the reality they see.I never seen anything as amazing, as this.Perspective? Nah!Reading what I actually write? Nah!Selective focus on some seemingly possibly refutable arguments, while ignoring the white Elefant in the room? Yay!...New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostilehttp://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/14/whatabout7/ 1 3
RuralRon Posted August 3, 2014 Posted August 3, 2014 You lost me with that comment trodas. Good luck, I'm gone. 1 1
trodas Posted August 7, 2014 Author Posted August 7, 2014 Proof, that Apollo astroNOTs cannot survive the journey thru the Van Allen belts, not even by this way, the ex-CIA Robert A. Braeunig thought he will sping it, so the crews spendt only 40min in the less intensive part of the belts and 20 in the more intensive part: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm It is nonsense, because Apollo astroNOTs always claim, that they go straight for the Moon (or more precisely to the place, where Moon will be, when they got there - witch is another rason, why they cannot "hit the mark" by manual control and only one mid course correction) and that it confirmed by Apollo flight journals, triangulating using stars on simgle spot in the space, not using any parabolic way, that would require more corrections in course and entierly different level of calculation. This cannot be done "by hand", so the parabolic way is nonsense even by Apollo standards. To make matters worse, the Moon is orbiting the Earth with ange to equator (inclination) 28.65°: http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec96/earmoon.html This is kinda close to 30° inclination, witch is regarded as the worsest inclination to get more radioactve exposure. So the results witch Jarrah calculated, would be much, much more worser in reality. Yet even when we accept the Braeunig fantasies as true, even then the radioactive doses are so high, that there is no chance to survive this journey at all: MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly III 1
James Dean Posted August 7, 2014 Posted August 7, 2014 I'm less interested in the unprovable speculation of photographs from nearly 70 years ago. It's very interesting and I can tell that this is very important to the original poster, but in the end there is just too much removal from the actual events (of either the actual landing or the framing) to make any reasonable assesment. I'm much more interested in how people respond to, and are senitive in light of the fact that a moon landing hoax would represent a massive, illumanti level of conspiracy within, not just one government, but a near global cabal of unprecedented power and unity of propaganda. This is what trips me up in the moon landing debates, I'm very open to the possibility that such a conspiracy could exist, but it reminds me of conversations about the Roswell UFO crash. You could show be blurry photos of the a disc in the sky all you want, but until testable and verifyable evidence is brought to bear, I remain skeptical, which is the rational position in light of such a large and unlikely unity within the government. A theory based on weatherbaloons or whatever is much more likely (not to say true) and is the better theory by defitintion, because it makes fewer assumptions. For instance, the cost of the apollo space program was reported to be $25.4 billion in 1973. Again, I'm very open to the possibilty of such a conspiracy, it is certainly not a proposterous proposal, but where would you suggest all this money actually went? did it cost that much to fake a landing and pay off all the peope involved? More importantly though it really doesn't matter. If irrefutable proof came out in the next hour showing NASA never landed on the moon, it would change nothing. Do you think that a moon landing hoax is what they've been really trying to cover up all these years when they pretty braisenly and openly slaughter millions of innocent civilians, imprison people for non crims, destroy domestic families with the war on drugs, destroy foreign families with the war on terror, whether or not they fibbed about the moon landing is low on my priorities list. Even if the whole of america at this point knew without a shadow of a doubt that the moon landing was fake, it wouldn't change their fundemental attidute towards the state at all, far more aggregious crimes seems to pass them by like weeds in the sidewalk. I won't insult your itelliengce by suggesting that you don't already understand this, so I'm left wondering why this topic is so imporant to you? I'd be currious in knowing what you have to say. 2
Bradford26 Posted August 7, 2014 Posted August 7, 2014 A Personal Story In high school, there was this popular guy who was dating a girl that I was physically attracted to. Everyone liked him, even though he wasn't very smart, and I was regularly made fun of. I was always so confused why so many people hung out with him and why they didn't see what I saw. One day, in weight training class, I see him walk in and... he has toilet paper hanging out of the back of his pants! "This is it!" I thought to myself, "I get to see the popular guy made fun of and shunned by the whole class!!" Nothing happened. People saw it. Nobody cared. How could this happen?! Why did nobody respond?! I realized that the popular guy was popular because of what other people need. They needed a person to revere and, subsequently, a person like me to pick on and put down. I think that your 'theory about a NASA conspiracy' is my 'toilet paper in the pants of the popular guy'. You believe it's the thing that will finally, once and for all, convince people that the government is corrupt and bad. However, if the government lied about the moon landing, it would merely be another lie to add to the ever-expanding pile of lies that fail to convince everyone that the government is corrupt and bad. It's time to consider that the government is something that people have a psychological need for. If this is the case, it's time to consider what events in their childhood or adult lives have caused them to be dependent on a corrupt and bad system and what makes them oblivious to these causes. One final question: If today, your theory is proven to be 100% true beyond a shadow of a doubt and is broadcast around the world for everyone to see, what will you do tomorrow? 3
trodas Posted August 7, 2014 Author Posted August 7, 2014 James Dean - unprovable speculation of photographs from nearly 70 years ago I do not agree. First, it is not that old (1969-1972 and we are at 2014). Second, if the photographic material is faked (and I see no other way to explain the irregularities), then the event is faked. The obviousnes of some of the "mistakes" make me believe that the "errors" are intentional.Other errors are just cost-saving. For example this: Is from this video:http://youtube.com/watch?v=GpYa8YrakcwNow the video is there:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA6Jo4KydyQCheck times 14:01 and 17:10 times. Next day, another space... same scene I find that funny and I believe that the pictures tell the story pretty well.(and we are not yet even scratching the surface of the errors) I'm much more interested in how people respond to Same here. The reaction is invaluable to study and it show how deeply we are manipulated. Even Stefan recently pointed out that the notion, that the Moonlandings are faked, are just laughable and not worthy discussing. That is what make me post this thread. near global cabal of unprecedented power and unity of propaganda (...) I'm very open to the possibility that such a conspiracy could exist I have proofs that the conspiration exist. There are many reasons, why Russians did not blow the whistle on USA, some are more plausible that others:http://youtu.be/nZN3PI7HRvU?t=32s However we have a proof of the conspiracy. The Russians, after they "lost" (for the first time in anything worth mentioning in space exploration - a hint) the Moon race, they pretended that they are never in the race to begin with:http://youtu.be/mPh079lMhI8?t=3m52sTo put long story short, they managed to keep for 30+ years in secret their Moon program, witch produced 17 N1 rockets - http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm - (size of Saturn, only more powerfull!) and 3 unmanned test of their Lunar Lander and their "Moon" engines are still best in the world, better that anything USA ever do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZnYr94aa9E ...And the proof? CIA had the photos of N1 rocket on the ramp since the beginning: http://youtu.be/wZI8uLCsjlU?t=33m35s So there you have a proof that they are in bed together all the time, never ratting big lies on others. USA never blow the whistle on, for example, the biggest Russians nuclear incident (hint, it was not the Tschernobyl), same is valid for the other way around. IMHO the biggest lies are never exposed by govts, because they might lead people to question every governments. where would you suggest all this money actually went? I have no idea, I think that I'm not in position to speculate there. No reasearch done in thi field. If you insist, then since everything was made just as if the Saturn V can go with the capsule to the Moon, then the money was actually spendt on the stuff that they show up. And that was costy show The budget for the simulation is included from the go, because there is the ASP project (Apollo Simulation Project), witch was designed that it can deliver the mission data to Huston, as if the mission really go and Huston cannot distinguish between the simulation and real event. So that take us only to handfull of people, that know about it. Probably only one problematic part was the dropping of the capsule to the sea. They do it (some believe) only with A11 and A12, because the cargo crew was caught by airliner pilot in case of A11, so... they have to stop doing it. Consequently, all zero gravity shoots are under 30 sec in later missions, witch can be simulated using the "vomit comet" plane. To put long story short, the number of people involved in the fakery if rather surprisingly small and the costs are not much different, if we go, or if we did not. In all cases you have to fire up the Saturn V rocket, witch end up in some ocean, and that cost most. If there is a surplus (given how govt run companies are effective I dubt that), then the Vietnam war, that is raging at the time, surely welcome any funds. And I believe that honest people in NASA did all possible efforts to get the technology as much forward, as possible, when the funds are available. Still, Shuttle cost 6x much to launch and can deliver 3x less weight as payload. That make the Saturn V super cost effective. If fact, it was so much effective per price rocket, that there was no reason why not put Shuttle just on top of the 2nd stage of Saturn V and it can fly right away. All the years of developing the main booster could be saved, if the Saturn V really work, as they say it did (eg. reaching the performance they claim it reached). So if you just compare the prices of launch, then you see, that the Apollo program was surprisingly cheap, compared to real space exploration costs (even in terms of lifes). If irrefutable proof came out in the next hour showing NASA never landed on the moon, it would change nothing. I disagree completely. First at all, there are the proofs already and good luck refuting them. But second and much more importantly, the impact will be serious. That is, because this lie is kept for so long (how long lasted the WMD in Iraq lie?) and it grow so big. And as with every major lie, exposing the lie cause more people to being thinking, what else they are lying us about...?! You say it change nothing. Well, I say that - if you take the WMD in Iraq lie, then it give us a clear and well usable argument, that everytime someone claim that what he see/hear in media is credible, then all one need is to point at this Iraq WMD lie and that it is. Now this become a powerfull argument, witch saved us from USA targeting Syria. Because people starting to having secon thoughts, we are spared that war. So as you can see, every exposed lie (and the bigger, the better) counts. Therefore I passionatelly disagree that the Moon hoax is futile quest. Also I believe that we can go, should go and have to go into space and we will never get there, if we believe in crazy fairytales like this: http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/040106columbia.html (hint - where do you see the JPL logo on the "Mars" photo of the rover?) If today, your theory is proven (...) what will you do tomorrow? It is not a theory, when there is a evidence. But I will still answer. Well, I took on another big lie, that need to be killed. For example - holohoax Sounds explosive enought, right? And believe me, it will be a blast:http://s8.postimage.org/qj69n1g6t/real_gas_chamber.jpg...http://s7.postimg.org/dq2ryaw6z/russia_6_millions.jpg...http://s13.postimage.org/ivyivx86v/Auschwitz_plagu_4_M_to_1_5_M.jpg Currently... do you remember the WTF7 reported as collapsed, 20 min ago, when WTC7 is still standing in the background video? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbhKvi3yNLo ) Well, there we have a predecesor: MoonFaker: Premature Separation 1
trodas Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 Moon versus comet 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko Comet 67P: Apollo (mostly 15, but others too) pictures from the "Moon": ...spot the difference! Hint: there is no erosion in vacuum of space, so there is no way the mountains will be smooth... No way at all. And they aren't. Even amateur photos of the prominent A15 mount Hadley show very sharp edges in absolute contrast to the round, smooth images of the "very same" mountain from A15 photos: ROFL =:-) NASA mooned the world 1
trodas Posted July 22, 2015 Author Posted July 22, 2015 Just comparing Philae photos of the comet to the alleged Moon photos 1
A4E Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 I am aware of the age of this post, but I felt like replying to it now, though I recognize that I might not get a reply back. I'm less interested in the unprovable speculation of photographs from nearly 70 years ago. It's very interesting and I can tell that this is very important to the original poster, but in the end there is just too much removal from the actual events (of either the actual landing or the framing) to make any reasonable assesment. What 'actual landing' are you referring to? I would like to see you prove that someone piloted something that landed on the moon. I am not being sarcastic or anything. I would really like it to be proven to me that a human was inside something that landed on the moon. I'm much more interested in how people respond to, and are senitive in light of the fact that a moon landing hoax would represent a massive, illumanti level of conspiracy within, not just one government, but a near global cabal of unprecedented power and unity of propaganda. A straw man is not a fact. So it could not be just central people in the management of NASA? What is the reason it has to involve such a broad spectrum of institutions and people? Lets say a person in my city was lying to people about taking a trip to the north pole on one particular day, and I find a surveillance tape, 100% identifying this person to be sitting in a cafe on that entire day. Would this person's hoax then represent a massive, neighborhood wide level of conspiracy, and not just with his/her family, but a near nationwide cabal of unprecedented influence and spreading of misinformation? btw, Russia has a mutual benefit of keeping quiet of anything they know about USA, because they are, or at least have been, doing much of the same. I remain skeptical, which is the rational position in light of such a large and unlikely unity within the government. No, you are not skeptical. If you had been, you would not accept that a human was inside something that landed on the moon, until it had been proven to you. For instance, the cost of the apollo space program was reported to be $25.4 billion in 1973. Again, I'm very open to the possibilty of such a conspiracy, it is certainly not a proposterous proposal, but where would you suggest all this money actually went? did it cost that much to fake a landing and pay off all the peope involved? It is known that they paid contractors. So it would be interesting to see how many of those contractor companies were created shortly before the hoax, and by whom, to get a better overview of how much of the money could have been filtered out into the pockets of complicit people. 1 1
J-William Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 Oh my god! Could you please just not beat this dead horse over and over. I get it the government is evil and lies to everyone... Somehow the government faking a moon landing is worse that faking the Tonkin gulf incident which initiated a war that got millions of Vietnamese killed? Or the lies that got the US involved in WW1 or WWII? I don't think so. 4 1
pretzelogik Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 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: 1 1
shirgall Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 Our brains are massive pattern matching machines that quickly notice coincidences, because one survives to breed just a little bit more when we notice the tiger before it's too late. While we're at it, the moon landing was "cosmic manspreading": http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/24/sorry-buzz-aldrin-the-moon-landing-was-just-cosmic-manspreading/ 1
pretzelogik Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Our brains are massive pattern matching machines that quickly notice coincidences, because one survives to breed just a little bit more when we notice the tiger before it's too late. While we're at it, the moon landing was "cosmic manspreading": http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/24/sorry-buzz-aldrin-the-moon-landing-was-just-cosmic-manspreading/ 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. 1
shirgall Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 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. Forced coincidence, seeing patterns when conditioned to do so. Photoshopped just to make it more obvious. A recent example is the people seeing pluto or a heart in the Pluto pictures. Some people see it right away, others have to be preconditioned to see it. The invocation of the Disney "Sex" posters is intended to precondition people to seeing letters in the sky. 1
pretzelogik Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Forced coincidence, seeing patterns when conditioned to do so. Photoshopped just to make it more obvious. A recent example is the people seeing pluto or a heart in the Pluto pictures. Some people see it right away, others have to be preconditioned to see it. The invocation of the Disney "Sex" posters is intended to precondition people to seeing letters in the sky. 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? 1 2
Slavik Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 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? It doesnt necessarily follow that you are genetically predisposed to see actual patterns. As an example, we are genetically predisposed to see faces, look around your room and try to notice faces in the inanimate objects, you will see a lot, mere patterns that we make into faces in our minds. Have you never looked at the clouds to see if you can make objects out of them? The same applies. The greatest false pattern creation is Religion, how many times have they committed "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, the whole thing is one giant fallacy. Would it be correct to say the same about religions "How many instances of "coincidence" does it take before a pattern can be confirmed? "
Recommended Posts