Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 42
105
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


How many accounts is this guy going to open, anyway we know what panties are used to cover up an he seems to be a real big one




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Jeez...
I think Patrick's hands must smell like feet with all those sock puppet accounts.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by seigfried
 



Both scripted events were essentially media productions.


Yes those collapsing towers, piles of rubble and dead people were obviously fake. If you must be obsessive, please try to exercise a bit of respect.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by marcomichael
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


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


I do know that the landing area was based on approximates...as this was prudent in the event of miscalculations.
Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hoggiedoggie
 

NASA was known to piece together film for documentary purposes but the Lunar Landing was and has 100% undeniable PROOF by HAM RADIO OPERATORS all over the Earth who triangulated the Landers Signal.
Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


That doesn't make sense. In the case of none of the landings were they able to even tell with the big dishes where the LMs set down. It took lots of effort to find them after they landed. The HAM operators didn't find the LMs on the moon. That is wrong.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by electricity
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


That doesn't make sense. In the case of none of the landings were they able to even tell with the big dishes where the LMs set down. It took lots of effort to find them after they landed. The HAM operators didn't find the LMs on the moon. That is wrong.


YES THEY DID. Thousands of HAM Operators followed each and every APOLLO MISSION in REAL TIME. As did the SOVIETS, MOST OF EUROPE, AUSTRALIA, CHINA AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES.

To think the Lunar Landings were Faked is shear stupidity. Every single Conspiracy Angle raised over the Landings has been addressed. To fake them would actually be HARDER THAN LANDING ON THE MOON!

Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by electricity
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


That doesn't make sense. In the case of none of the landings were they able to even tell with the big dishes where the LMs set down. It took lots of effort to find them after they landed. The HAM operators didn't find the LMs on the moon. That is wrong.


Ah, even though he's been banned (again....and again....and again...), let's clear up some obvious Disinfo put out by this poster:

No one said that HAM operators were able to "pinpoint" the LMs on the moon. YOU said that.

What we said was: HAM operators were able to LISTEN to the Apollo astronauts.

Here's a account of that:


In July of 1969 a ham radio operator and amateur radio-astronomer by the name of Larry Baysinger, W4EJA, accomplished an amazing feat. He independently detected radio transmissions from the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface. Fortunately, his accomplishments were recorded by Glenn Rutherford, a young reporter for the Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal. “Lunar Eavesdropping: Louisvillians hear moon walk talk on homemade equipment,” sporting Rutherford’s byline, appeared in the Wednesday, July 23, 1969 issue of that paper — front page of section B, the local news section (see Figure 1).


National Association of Amateur Radio Operators

Here's another link, with articles RIPPING the Moon Hoaxers apart that involves radio operators, people might find it interesting:

HAM Radio Nation



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


Forgive us, we're a little new at this, my son Danny and myself. We wanted to post something on Apollo and couldn't find anything active that jumped up at us. We searched "Apollo" , this thread came up and looks appropriate enough for us, so here we go. Most of this has to do with my son Danny. He got in sort of a fight with some people at the Kennedy Space Center. It was a good fight. He's pretty much convinced me the moon landings were contrived. At first my wife and I were a little scared for him, but ultimately we thought we'd post this kind of like a family experience thing to share with others what happened at Kennedy recently. Our way of supporting him a little.

We live in Daytona. My son is 16, straight A+ student , AP star student but nerd he's not. He's been going over to the Kennedy Space Center fairly often the last year. Spending the weekend at times with a friend's family. The kids got into the space thing. I thought, "great!" He told me he started to lean toward thinking the thing was faked about 5 months ago. He's very sophisticated scientifically but interestingly enough he would point things out like why were they hawking Buzz Aldrin autographs at 1200 bones a pop, or a framed collection of all 12 Apollo astronaut autographs(that were said to have walked on the moon) for $30,000 if the thing was on the up and up. Of course it would take a lot more to convince me that Apollo was contrived than that. I only bring this up to emphasize my son was operating on multiple levels of analysis. Now that I know what I know, I see he was on target with that. We'd paid for this crap and now they are asking us to pay for it some more? Danny was emphasizing that had the astronauts done what they claimed then their post moon landing comportment would have been and would be different. Selling Apollo moonwalker autographs for $30,000 right there at the space center doesn't make sense. Doesn't make any sense if the thing was real. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Here's a little more, I could now write a book and perhaps we shall.

Recently my wife and I brought our two younger children to Kennedy. We hooked up with Danny and we attended a lecture together about space flight. Danny asked a question of a modern astronaut having to do with celestial navigation and it became clear the guy didn't understand Danny's points about the requisite precision/accuracy of accelerometers/gyros for translunar navigation. They actually brought in some higher level guy like they do with tech trouble shooting to deal with Danny's question. The higher level guy was equally confused and so they brought in a third guy who claimed Danny's point was irrelevant as there was no need for the accelerometers and gyros to function at such and such a level given the performance of the dish tracking system. But this wasn't Danny's point at all. Danny agreed with that. "So what?", he said, "NASA claimed the accelerometers and gyros and the inertial system in general did as well as the tracking dishes." The two systems backed one another up and Danny's problem was with NASA's claims as to the inertial system's accuracy. That would be the MIT system, the same affair generally they were using in the polaris missiles of the time, at least conceptually.

The whole thing escalated into a fight more or less. My son was polite the whole time and the Kennedy people got progressively more rude. I feel a little silly writing here, but hope to continue to do so regardless, with the encouragement of my son, for our son. My wife and I were really proud of him. He took those folks down a rung or two or four or one hundred. More of us need to be involved in speaking out on this. We need a ground swell on this thing. Buzz asking us for $1200 for his signature under the auspices of Kennedy Space Center? You bet this is contrived.

edit on 28-1-2013 by TheDaytonaFlinstones because: clarified with this (that were said to have walked on the moon)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


That does not mean the astronauts themselves were on the moon. A transmitter could have sent the signals the HAM operators listened to. This point proves nothing.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDaytonaFlinstones
 


Patrick, in one post you question "the requisite precision/accuracy of accelerometers/gyros for translunar navigation" and in the very next post you state that a spacecraft with a transmitter could fly to the moon.

Can't you keep your story straight?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Well, bottom line....

youtu.be...



edit on 28-1-2013 by amkia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDaytonaFlinstones
 


There is to much evidence it was done to keep up the hoax stories there is a 600+ page thread that debunks every theory hoax believers push on here.

So have a look it shouldn't take you to long to read 600+ pages and all the links!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So we should here from you again in a few weeks



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


That video is very damning and yeh looking closely at the earth it looks like its a partial view of he earth to produce the effect of looking at the earth from far out. Well done the first man to the fake moon.
edit on 28-1-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDaytonaFlinstones
reply to post by onewithall
 

Recently my wife and I brought our two younger children to Kennedy. We hooked up with Danny and we attended a lecture together about space flight.


Which lecture was that and what date? Also welcome back



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


The only problem is, with an illusion like that the earth is still rotating. If that were actually taken in orbit, you'd see the planet moving at a very fast pace out the window, which you don't. Also, the cloud patterns have been matched to meteorological records of the time so that's two strikes. If you add to that the fact that Sibrel outright lies by claiming this is some super secret footage that was sent to him by accident, when it's been part of the public record since the 70's, it kind of falls apart from all the holes.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDaytonaFlinstones
"NASA claimed the accelerometers and gyros and the inertial system in general did as well as the tracking dishes."

Welcome back, I smell an old troll here. We went over this exact point already. The forum ate my previous response, so let me sum up my reply to the autograph nonsense with this; supply and demand. KSC Visitor Center is contracted out to a private company who run it to make a profit and in doing so NASA gets the benefit of not having to pay a dime for the visitor center (it used to be a money hole when I was a kid that NASA had to supply funds for to make ends meet). Yes, there are space enthusiasts out there with money, and some are willing to pay big bucks for astronaut autographs, particularly when it's not even possible to get one or more of them after the astronaut has passed. I got Fred Haise's signature for free, but I didn't get it at the visitor center. I got it when meeting him and Guenter Wendt (who's now passed) in person at a small event at a local mall near there. No, Haise wasn't a moon walker, but he was part of what was probably the second most famous Apollo mission, Apollo 13. He was also the first to land the prototype of the shuttle. Wendt got a mention in the Apollo 13 film and his involvement with NASA through its early years is extensive. I have both their signatures, and the only thing I paid for was Wendt's book (which was entirely optional). Once Fred Haise passes on I could resell both for big cash, but that wouldn't make his flight fake or make the white room a hoax.

Now onto the inertial system. The astronauts performed star sightings as well as sightings on the earth or moon to keep their inertial system properly aligned. Yes, it experienced drift, yes they corrected for it with those sightings. THAT is why they were able to navigate to the moon as accurately as state vector updates would allow anyway. You've been told all of this already, you ignored it, so it doesn't surprise me that you got into a fight at KSC. Wish I could have been there to help explain it to you myself, not that you would have listened. Here, go test it for yourself in this high fidelity simulator which uses the actual Apollo guidance computer software and ties it into an accurate simulation of all the spacecraft's systems including the inertial system (complete with drift):
nassp.sourceforge.net...
You can do the star and planet sightings yourself. They work.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


We attended an "Astronaut Encounter" session. Highly recommended for those skeptics with the courage of their convictions. Seriously, go. If you are an HB you can eat these guys for breakfast lunch and dinner.


Here's the thing-0-mo-jig with framed patches and then all 12 "moonwalker" John Hancocks. $30,000





I suspect the autographs are the genuine article, but honestly one never knows. These guys know no shame.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
What date was it? I want to see if it's one of the ones that have video. You give only your word. Biased word at that.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDaytonaFlinstones
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


We attended an "Astronaut Encounter" session.

Yes, I've been to those many times. I've asked plenty of questions, and received more than satisfactory answers.


I suspect the autographs are the genuine article, but honestly one never knows. These guys know no shame.

I already explained it to you, you have chosen to ignore the truth.





new topics
top topics
 
105
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join