Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 41
105
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
My post will be deleted.

9/11 and the moon hoax are the same subject.

Both the war on terror and the Apollo landings are just cash cows for the Elite.

The same background are a problem because they have been scaled in impossible ways.

Do you mean this picture ? That you don't see the problem?


[img]
[/img]




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I gather you don't want me to show the next one with a another impossible mountain range joined on to this one?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss

My post will be deleted.

Then try not to break the rules.


9/11 and the moon hoax are the same subject.

No, they're not, don't go off-topic.


Both the war on terror and the Apollo landings are just cash cows for the Elite.

Ah, so you want to propose a general economic conspiracy that covers everything from Apollo to 9/11. Then go propose it in general conspiracies or skunk works. This is the space exploration forum.


The same background are a problem because they have been scaled in impossible ways.

I see nothing wrong with the scaling. You posted a whole bunch of stitched panoramas covering a variety of angles with varying numbers of pictures comprising them. You then make a claim about it but fail to support that claim at all.


Do you mean this picture ? That you don't see the problem?

Nope.


jra

posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
The same background are a problem because they have been scaled in impossible ways.


What's impossible about the scaling?


Do you mean this picture ? That you don't see the problem?


Yes, that picture. I don't see a problem with them. And here's why...

Try lining the mountains up with one another from the two photos. Because you might finding it difficult. The mountains might be the same in both panorama's, but they are not perfectly identical.

One of the panorama's was taken at Geology station 1 and the other at Geology station 5. The Geology stations are roughly 2km apart from one another. All the mountains have names, just take a look at one of the annotated panorama's versions to learn what they are.

Lets take a closer look at a mountain called "North Massif". The mountain is approximately 4km from both GS1 and 5. With the two Geology stations being 2km apart, you can see a noticeable change in the perspective of the mountain.



Note the position of the craters and how they change in relation to one another between the two shots. Your identical backgrounds claim doesn't hold up to a basic examination.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


What? You mean moon hoaxer "proof" that falls apart the second you look at it? Say it ain't so! Their entire MO is spam a site with absurd stories and when they're confronted on it they stick their fingers in their ears and hum.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


The other poster wrote they didn't know the landing site exactly. Is that poster wrong? Did they know the landing site exactly?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


These are great posts rolf. Obviously the backgrounds had to come from somewhere. I think yours is great work. Please keep it up.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

These are great posts rolf. Obviously the backgrounds had to come from somewhere. I think yours is great work. Please keep it up.


So, in your opinion, these photographs match up exactly, with no parallax effects? That the missions were filmed in a huge vacuum chamber with fly ash standing in for the regolith?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by filbert
 


The First Lunar Landing landed in the Sea of Tranquility. This is a mostly Flat area on the Lunar Surface. The area they were to set down upon was Loaded with large boulders. Buzz Aldrin...the Lunar Landing Pilot...almost spent all the fuel need to land as the Astronauts had to alter their angle of decent and burn additional fuel in order to land in an area without large rocks.

Their Landing Zone was not where they intended but it was in the area. Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I think the exact location was not determined for a couple of weeks. But I am not sure.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by filbert
 


Filbert, you write like the famous Italian CT and HB enthusiast "pomegranate". Are you the same guy? I love your photography work. Assuming it is you, could you say more about Rolf's photos posted above. Afterall, you're il uomino(the man) as my brother in Rome likes to say.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


I agree rolf, looks like Mauna Kea to me as well. I was up on that hill last December with an HB group doing some photo work. Very similar to what you've presented here.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


They say the 16mm ascent film was not fully analyzed until July 30, 31st, and first LRRR light report 08/01, so they did not have the landing site until then. Or the make believe landing site is the best way to say it.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by marcomichael
 



Filbert, you write like the famous Italian CT and HB enthusiast "pomegranate". Are you the same guy?


Are you?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


I want to see it rolf. These are great. My theory is there were two arms to the hoax. The guys that did these things with phony pictures and what have you. Then the more scientific side where they sent probes into space for the ham radio people and what have you to pick up a signal. The most interest ing aspect to have been privy to would be the training on how to act. I would give everything to be a fly on the wall then and listening to them coach /armstrong.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by smartypanties
 


How did you find this thread? It hasn't been active in two days. Oh, wait, you've been posting on it before. Time and time again. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 


"MO" amounts to a heckofa lot more than than that. The official story is one very complicated and one very bad movie.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


If you are curious, I searched for rolf's posts. Hope that is not a problem for anyone as rolf just happens to be correct.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by smartypanties
 



If you are curious, I searched for rolf's posts. Hope that is not a problem for anyone as rolf just happens to be correct.


Why did you search for rolf's posts? He hasn't posted in two days.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


I agree rolf, they are the same subject. I think one aspect of all this that many do not understand is that 9/11 is defended with much greater enthusiasm than is Apollo for obvious reasons. But this is true only in a superficial sense. Both scripted events were essentially media productions. Apollo is the much easier to crack and for a fact has already been cracked. Once the general public comes to know Apollo as make believe, then the door is open for 9/11 to be explained similarly. Apollo really is the key to exposing US media bull hockey. We should all keep working hard on it and with ever more vigorous attacks the rest will fall like a row of dominos.



new topics
top topics
 
105
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join