surveyor 3

page: 1
0

log in

join
oxo

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   

posted on 2-8-2004 at 12:34 PM Post Number: 702032 (post id: 722726)

Oxo, you still haven't explained about all the pictures, or the movies. You said earlier on that that stuff's easy to fake. Please elaborate, or at least post something in the way of evidence.

Ranting like a mad man isn't normally the best way to get your message across.



ya well I tried doing this but
some communist misinformation agent locked that topic and my reply was lost in cyberspace

some will be trying to censor or block my comments every inch if the way

or disregard them

or say I'm a raving lunatic etc

only to be expected

and business as usual

I can only please the minority

I guess

but even if they should be so badly offended by the truth about it all that they delete all my posts etc.. they can only have it their way very briefly.. for just another moment of darkness in history.. I keep track and copies of everything I post and they will soon be made available in book format.

as for the subject matter at hand.. fake pictures and such..

the fakest pictures I came across thus far were in relation to the so-called Surveyor 3 probe

and its encounter with Apollo 12 astronauts

on the pictures officially released (but carelessly faked) by NASA

- in one picture we're treated to a badly contrived and impossible landing mark this craft allegedly made on the lunar surface - the circular pattern to the right that must have been long disturbed by the craft's movement says it all
- other pictures which show other footpads of this probe (which also must have the same marks) are inconsistent
- in another few pictures, yet another one of these footpads is lodged firmly inside a crater making it even more impossible for it to have made those "picturesque" marks with the back one
- the angle at which this vehicle sits in different scenes, and its position in relation to the LEM in the background (which probably is a model) make it quite obvious to one who pays a great deal of attention to detail
and been in and out of movie sets
knows there's no business like showbusiness
that these props have been moved around somewhat in between the pictures and therefore are a dead giveaway of the fact that they are props.

they are all classical continuity errors

they're not for everyone to see

and for most to disregard (at their own expense)

but they exist nevertheless




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Well, at least in all this you have learnt about the Surveyor missions.


Might want to use some pics to make a little more sense.

Either way, the Apollo 12 mission actually fiddled with the Surveyor probe, even brought some bits back to Earth I think. Perhaps explaining the changing dirt around the place.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
OXO, you never did respond to the following from the other thread:
quote:
Quote from OXO: if you don't believe me you are not a sane person.. I know what I'm talking about soon I will have a real probe sent to moon and beam minutes and minutes of images showing you plenty of nothing where armstrong's footsteps and remnants of LEM launches etc should be seen and you will be saying oxo is faking it and people will surely take it the wrong way and that's your story there my friend

Ok Oxo, this really does not make sense. Here you are debunking thousands of video / stills along with hundreds (if not thousands) of eye witnesses (myself included as I lived only a few miles from Kennedy back then).
Now you state that you have the facilities to launch a mission to the moon to prove everything above is a hoax. What irrefutable proof will you be able to present? Not video / stills / eye witnesses / visible tech left on the moon (IE the Mirror for the laser that they are using for distance calculations).
What are you going to use to prove yourself that would not stand the test of time as not being faked. remember, you are debunking something that occured 35 years ago. Will your "proof" be enough to stand the debunking of people 35 years from now?
I love good debates but, if you are going to make statements like the above, you will need to back them up a bit.
Note, I am not trying to be nasty, but you left the door open on this one.


[edit on 2-8-2004 by Kenshiro]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:27 PM
link   
OK, oxo, I’ll play your game. Just what part of the Lunar module ) LM) is “wrong.” Please give a technical analysis of the specific reasons why the LM could not have worked. Be precise, be detailed, and above all use complete sentences.

To help you I have a list of links about the LM that can provide you with all sorts of technical specifications.

vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov...

vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov...

www.wordiq.com...

www.fi.edu...

www.campusprogram.com...

I await your response (but I am not holding my breath)



 
0

log in

join