Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



So, lunar geologists and the landing site con, what was the story there ?


The story is that Shoemaker started teaching the astronauts field geology starting in 1963. There was a huge public row over the fact that NASA was sending pilots, rather than scientists, to the Moon. Since the astronaut corp knew that Slayton would select the pilots with the best geological skills to go on the lunar landing missions, they all became quite good at it. So, are you saying that NASA was planning a con all the way back in 1963?




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


i wonder when it was that they decided that they were going to fake it??

some say '68


on a side note i wonder what happened to his lick observatory argument



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
POST out of sequence, see THREE below
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: posted out of sequence and so reposted below.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Genesis Of Contradiction, ONE

reply to post by choos
 


I'll begin to explore the LOST BIRD theme now from a couple of new angles. Stated succinctly, "LOST BIRD" is both at once an observation, and a conclusion, startling and incontrovertible.

The observation is that a serious contradiction exists. In reviewing statements/written accounts made/given by Apollo 11 Mission principals, including statements/written accounts made/given by the astronauts themselves and key flight officers such as FIDO H. David Reed, and in studying official NASA Apollo 11 relevant documents such as the VOICE TRANSCRIPT, APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT, and the APOLLO 11 TECHNICAL CREW DEBRIEFING REPORT, one learns that an OFFICIAL claim was made on the part of NASA to the effect that the landing site of the Eagle was not known with any degree of certainty, that is, not known to within a distance of at best roughly 5 miles from where the Eagle was ultimately claimed to have been parked at 0.6875 north and 23.433 east. These official selenographic coordinates having been announced on 08/01/1969, the day the astronomy/telescope team at Lick Observatory first successfully targeted the LRRR. The stark contradiction stems from one's noticing that despite this official claim, there is evidence within the aforementioned documents, and in particular, within TABLE 5-IV of the APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT(Published November 1969), that contrary to this official and very public general claim of the Eagle having been LOST, its selenographic perch having remained indeterminate for 11 days from the time of its allegedly settling on the lunar surface, that the Eagle had indeed been tracked quite well by MSFN, that tracking being corroborated by MSFN similar landing site solutions provided by both the AGS and PNGS systems. The corroboration , the correlation of the MSFN, AGS and PNGS solutions therefore endorsing the excellent reliability and accuracy of the MSFN numbers. The MSFN (NASA's alleged best system for locating/tracking the ships) had determined the Eagle to have settled roughly 0.75 miles from the 08/01/1969 officially announced Tranquility Base coordinates, this, well within the system's expected "error". Indeed, with the Lick Observatory laser being roughly 2 miles in diameter upon its lunar arrival, were Houston to have provided the observatory with the MSFN coordinates listed in the Apollo 11 Mission Report Table 5-IV, and assuming there were no timing/software problems, the LRRR would have been successfully targeted on the evening of 07/20/1969, based on those MSFN derived coordinates alone.

The contradiction as outlined above, and as discussed in detail in prior posts, leads to the startling and inevitable conclusion that the Apollo 11 Mission was fraudulent, for how can one both know where the Eagle was, per the Apollo 11 Mission Report Table 5-IV, and at the same time, have no meaningful sense as to its location, at least within the 5 miles so referenced above ?

The explanation for this at-first-blush-conundrum begins with one's recognition that the Apollo fraud perpetrators could not have pretended to have lost the Eagle entirely. THAT would simply have been too implausible. Even the most gullible would have become suspicious were such a ridiculous premise pitched, "WE SIMPLY HAVEN'T THE FOGGIEST NOTION WHERE THAT BIRD IS". Wouldn't work. Given the problem with plausibility here, they could not give exact real-time coordinates, as the astronauts were NOT REALLY ON THE MOON. If they did say "0.6875 north and 23.43 east" in real-time, a geologist might have suggested that could not be correct on this that or the other grounds, for example on the basis of the (albeit bad) tv image, or the fact that the astronauts were denying they could see the McDonald Observatory laser from that alleged selenographic vantage, and so forth and so on. If the coordinates were disclosed in real time, the astronauts could be found out to be "Tranquility Truant" and so busted as charlatans. A real-time fraud perpetrator approach, meaning an evening of 07/20/1969, morning of 07/21/1969 approach, is then taken to place the astronauts more or less/probably within in the area encompassed by the LAM 2 flown map landing site ellipse, but that's as close as anyone's gonna' get to finding these guys, somewhere around there. www.hq.nasa.gov...

Once the astronauts return home, and the McDonald Observatory astronomers are no longer trying to pelt them with argon laser photons, and so forth, the Apollo 11 thespians, Collins, Armstrong and Aldrin, are then in the clear. NASA tells us that they had a team of Apollo lunar scientists, including Donald Beattie, whose book I have already had the occasion to quote frequently, subject the photos and flight data to rigorous analysis. This information was then passed to the Lick Observatory staff, and as a result, the LRRR was finally targeted , 08/01/1969. And so Tranquility was "found".
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling, university> observatory, commas, added "fraud perpetrator", added "on the evening of 07/20/1969", added quote marks,added qutes and "albeit", added" for example on the basis of", added "?",added "Given the problem with plausibility here", added hyphens X 3, added "notion"
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: added "begins with one's recognition that "
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: added "have", pretend> pretended, be> have been
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: annot> could not, added "real-time"



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Genesis Of Contradiction, TWO



Heretofore, I focused on the H. David Reed Eagle landing site confusion account vs the Lick Observatory Eagle landing site clarity account, or, and even more so, upon the H. David Reed Eagle landing site confusion account vs the Apollo 11 Mission Report Eagle landing site clarity account, preferring the latter as it emphasizes the existence of a true contradiction. NASA FIDO H. David Reed reporting in his FROM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON book chapter something utterly at odds with the accounting NASA gave by way of table 5-IV in the Apollo 11 Mission Report.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And of course if there is ever any doubt in any one's mind as to whether or not these clowns really did pretend to lose a spaceship, just ask one of the chief clowns and pretenders extraordinare, command module pilot Michael Collins, who stated in the Apollo 11 Technical crew debriefing, Section 11.3, Landmark Tracking;


The problem was I didn't know where the LM was, and the ground didn't either. There is too much real estate down there within the intended landing zone on one, two, three, or four passes. On each pass I could do a decent job of scanning one or two grid squares on the expanded map. That map is the 1:100,000 map called LAM 2. The ground was giving me coordinates in the grid square coordinate system that were as much as 10 grid squares apart. This told me they really did not have much of a handle at all on where the LM had landed.


Each grid square on the LM 2 map is roughly one kilometer on edge and so to give the uninitiated some idea as to what was going on here, Collins was being instructed to look at sites 10 grid squares distant from one another, 10 grid squares one possible landing site solution to the other. This is 6.25 miles. And so the "Collins character" in this play never found the Eagle, and as a matter of fact, the Collins character is given a line which he delivers to us, his rather bewildered audience, to the effect that the ground crew/Houston "really did not have much of a handle at all on where the LM had landed". I say "rather bewildered audience", given one's inevitable response on learning about all of this, "How can they not know where the thing landed? It's simply not credible".

With that rather detailed summary as a background, I would like to more forward here and develop this notion of the LOST BIRD more. Specifically, I would like to now present some references from accounts told by the geologists who themselves were involved in all of this, and in addition, I would also like to present the story about how the Eagle was LOST as it was/is related in popular accounts, such as in Andrew Chaikin's book, or Armstrong's authorized biography and so forth. This will give those new to this subject an all the deeper appreciation for this particularly important aspect of the Apollo 11 ruse. It was/is indeed a lynchpin element of the scam.

A favorite book of many an Apollo history buff is that by Don E. Wilhelms; TO A ROCKY MOON: A GEOLOGIST'S HISTORY OF LUNAR EXPLORATION. Wilhelms was a lunar geologist long before Apollo was even a twinkle in the collective eye of the PERPS, and was a lunar geologist long after the fraudulent tent was folded. During the Apollo era itself, Wilhelms was a major player, one of the more key geologist figures. Very much NOT a PERP, Wilhelm's book is viewed by many as authoritative within the limited scope of the Apollo story that it does address.

Chapter 11 of Wilhelms' book is titled quite simply and appropriately, TRANQUILITY BASE. It's his relatively brief account of the geology of that night, 07/20/1969 , and the beginning of the lunar geology that was to follow. This book is more than a rich source of material for those of my ilk, Apollo historians studying the detailed machinations of the U.S. manned lunar landing fraud. There will be much much much more to say, to write, about that which Wilhelm and the other lunar geologists of the Apollo era wrote and are writing. I will begin with just a little.

But of course, as with much of this sort of thing, a little goes a long long way sometimes when it comes to punching holes in the vacuous fabric of this fraud.



edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing, commas, caps, added "10 grid squares one possible landing site solution to the other. ", their> the, "his rather bewildered audience"
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Genesis of Contradiction, THREE



From page 200 of Wilhelms' remarkable book;


The combined forces of Houston, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins failed to locate EAGLE'S exact position. I was in a television studio in Hamburg, having been enlisted as a scientific commentator by the German "second channel" , Zweites Deutches Fernschen (ZDF). I sat there with my slide rule(we still used those things then) trying to convert all the numbers coming down from the moon into a spot I could point to on a chart. But Tranquility Base was not located exactly until after the astronauts began their return to earth. 5


The "5" there refers to a footnote which reads;


" 5. Gordon Swan furnished the following details of the identification of the landing spot. The field geology team had narrowed it down to either of two locations based on the astronauts' description of a "doublet." In a debriefing during the transearth cost, Armstrong commented on the crater he "strolled to" that was "70 or 80 feet in diameter and 15 or 20 feet deep... [with] rocks in the bottom of pretty good size." The geology team could then pin down which doublet the astronauts had seen. The photographs taken by the 16-mm sequence camera during the LM descent confirmed this location after the return to earth. So the location ultimately depended on photographs and not calculations.


Gordon Swann was a key Apollo geologist, principal geologist investigator for Apollo Missions 14 and 15.

So really a remarkable passage with footnote here as we learn the truth about 0.6875 north and 23.433 east. Its determination was made by the identification of this doublet by the geology team, a team lead by Shoemaker with Gordon Swann here passing the details along to Wilhelms for the latter's book. Keep in mind, at the time of the craters' and so Tranquility Base's being located during the "transearth flight", these geologists had only orbital photos and the astronauts' descriptions to guide them. The Eagle was roughly 4 miles down range, whether the bird had drifted north or south of the ellipse center WAS NOT KNOWN, and so we are expected to believe that with all of these square miles to sort through, the geologists were confident in locating the Eagle to withing 10s of meters while Collins was looking at least 6 miles from this very place at times, and presumably being told to look this far away based in part on information being provided by the geologists themselves ???? LUDICROUS !!! The whole bogus story cannot stand the light of a lunar day, let alone the full light of a late spring day in this year of Apollonian revelation, epiphany no less, 2012.

Much more will be discussed and disclosed as we explore the details of geologist Wilhelms' book, geologist Beattie's book, and perhaps the writings of some others, including Shoemaker himself. But suffice it to say, THE GENESIS OF CONTRADICTION, THE GENESIS OF INCONSISTENCY, THE GENESIS OF INCOHERENCE, is clearly identifiable. As the fraud unfolded in real time, there were difficulties that would have to be dealt with such as the problem of hiding a space ship. ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY HONEST PARTICIPANTS SUCH AS H. DAVID REED WERE BOUND TO LOSE CONTACT AT TIMES WITH ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY THE PERPS, SUCH AS THE ACCOUNT OF THE LANDING SITE ISSUE GIVEN IN THE APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT.

It's important to keep in mind when first reading, then studying, then subjecting this crazy tale to critical analysis, that none of this stuff happened. By that I mean something very specific. That men were not landed upon the moon. As such, NO ACCOUNTING OF THIS CAN BE REAL. NO ACCOUNTING CAN BE AUTHENTIC. CONTRADICTION, INTERNAL INCOHERENCY AND IRRATIONALITIES ARE SO TO BE EXPECTED, INDEED ARE NOTHING LESS THAN INEVITABLE.
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling, spacing, added "roughly" added "LUDICROUS !!!" removed comma,added "epiphany no less", added "geologist" X 2, "book"
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: ADDED "It's important to keep in mind when first reading, then studying, then subjecting this crazy tale to critical analysis that none of this stuff happened. By that I mean something very specific. That men were not landed upon the moon. As such, NO ACCOUNTING OF THIS CAN BE REAL, CONTRADICTION, INTERNAL INCOHERENCY AND IRRATIONALITIES ARE SO TO BE EXPECTED, INDEED ARE NOTHING LESS THAN INEVITABLE.
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: COMMA
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: ADDED, "NO ACCOUNTING CAN BE AUTHENTIC"
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: COMMA, spelling
edit on 19-6-2012 by decisively because: added "THE GENESIS OF CONTRADICTION"



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


seriously TL;DR..

can someone summarise??



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 



can someone summarise??


I'll try. Decisively is of the opinion that if he posts a huge, unreadable block of text, he has done something that will change the nature of reality. Karl Marx he's not.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

"We're not where you think we are. We're not sure where we are", ONE



In this post I'd like to discuss a most revealing LOST BIRD theme relevant passage from Don Wilhelms fabulous book, TO A ROCKY MOON, A GEOLOGIST'S HISTORY OF LUNAR EXPLORATION, University of Arizona Press, 1993. For those unaware, Wilhelm's book along with Donald Beattie's would have to be considered by far the best books written for the general public, and professional geologists as well, on the topic of the Apollo program and its rather unique version of lunar geology.

By the way, for those unaware, it's worth noting before I present and discuss the relevant LOST BIRD quote from Wilhelm's book, a MOON GEOLOGIST like Wilhelms, or the talented pilot/geologist Donald Beattie, or the legendary Gene Shoemaker himself, men who in the words of Wilhelms (Preface, page ix) might describe themselves as scientists "DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE LUNAR PROGRAM BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THE MANNED LANDINGS" are surprisingly NOT men who have studied the moon rocks. I know that sounds crazy, but it is very very true. Here's Wilhelms from his book, now Preface page x;


"neither I nor most of my closest colleagues have studied the samples the astronauts brought back____unless you count viewing them briefly on public display or in someone else's laboratory. Our job, instead, was to assemble an overall picture of the Moon's structure and history by examining it first through the telescope and later in photographs taken by spacecraft. We could then recommend where on the lunar surface the fieldwork that should be conducted and the samples collected, and assess the results."


So these important scientists, indeed, important historic figures, Wilhelms, Beattie, Shoemaker, and the rest, in the words of Wilhelms again, now page xi, did "NOT HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE MOON ROCKS".

Not the main theme of this post, but worth mentioning until we've moved far enough along in all of this to introduce a thread dedicated solely to these two critically important books, the one written by Beattie, TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOON, and the other by Wilhelms, TO A ROCKY MOON, to some not insignificant degree, the success of the Apollo fraud was critically dependent on this. The world of the rocks themselves, the handling, their CHAIN OF POSSESSION, their direct study, and so forth, was conducted by a separate group, and so it was that these key players were INSULATED FROM THE ACQUISITION, HANDLING, AND STUDY OF THE LUNAR STONES. That is not to say the moon rock curators and all those involved in the analysis of the rocks were PERPS. Such was most decidedly not the case. But those geologists of whom we are most familiar, most, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM, were as out of it as we were and as we are when it comes to direct awareness of the rocks; how they were and are kept, how they were and are handled, how they were and are studied.

Another "by-the-way"; anyone with more than a simple passing interest in this Apollo fraud stuff should DEVOUR these two books, the one by Beattie and the one by Wilhelms. By "DEVOUR" I mean read them carefully more than once and take notes as you go. As ATS forum readers will learn from my postings based on these books, they are LOADED WITH FRAUD RELEVANT DETAILS, NOTHING LESS THAN GOLD MINES FOR OUR SIDE. As such, I have plans for a dedicated thread, a thread that will just deal with the fraud relevant findings from these books, but that is a long ways off, much more to do before we get there. Now to our passage.

On page 321 of the Wilhelm's book one finds the following startling statement;



Schmitt commented several times during the EVAs that he had forgotten part of the documentation photography, a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do." Also, the location problem did not go away even during this last, skillfully executed Apollo. At one point Schmitt informed cap com Parker, "We're not where you think we are. We're not sure where we are."


So first of all, something that will be discussed at greater length when PERP Schmitt stands trial in the PERP LIST THREAD, the man is a geologist, a professional geologist, the first and only one to allegedly walk the moon, and HE FORGOT PART OF THE DOCUMENTATION PHOTOGRAPHY ?????!!!!????? Absolutely not credible, almost a proof of Apollo inauthenticity, that one gaffe, in and of itself.

edit on 30-6-2012 by decisively because: added "relevant LOST BIRD"
edit on 30-6-2012 by decisively because: their > the



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

"We're not where you think we are. We're not sure where we are", TWO



But what were they to do ? Careful photographic documentation of where rocks were collected would draw attention to PRECISE LOCATIONS WHERE ASTRONAUTS HAD NEVER BEEN. There was no way orbiter photos could ever be correlated with appropriate rock collection photo documentation. The astronauts were nowhere, nowhere on the moon that is, and so could not draw attention to where they were not. Hence the consistent failure in many, if not most circumstances, to document where rocks were collected. In many circumstances, obviously the ones where the photography was conveniently forgotten, photos astronauts provided documenting rock location sites would have easily been pegged, if attempts to create forgeries had been made, as fake, even by non geologists such as you and me.

And here again, as with Apollo 11, as with Apollo 12 and its "broken camera", as with Apollo 13 which never landed, as with Apollo 14, the crew never finding cone crater, and as I'll present was also the case with Apollos 15 and 16, these guys are supposed to be on the moon ????? And in real-time, no one can tell with any certainty where they are ?????

Again, the real-time element is the critical one. Once home, they can pretend to know with great accuracy where it was they were, but in real time, their presence on the Moon makes them uniquely vulnerable to discovery, to the discovery of their truancy, and so Schmitt, like Armstrong, doesn't know where he was, literally HAS NO IDEA, and neither did Houston.

I'll leave the reader to ponder these unbelievably incriminating words of Schmitt; "WE'RE NOT WHERE YOU THINK WE ARE. WE'RE NOT SURE WHERE WE ARE" .

And if you think this is so called "quote mining", I'd suggest you read the VOICE TRANSCRIPT for the APOLLO 17 MISSION and the transcripts for the other missions yourself. Ask yourself where it is that these guys figure out where it is they have landed in each case. Apollo 12 is a bit unique because of Surveyor 3's presence, and as such, a special " LOST BIRD SOLUTION " to that special Apollo 12 real-time problem was created. They had Bean break the camera.

LOST BIRD is pervasive across all missions, 11 through 17, as one would only expect given the logistics of the Apollo fraud.

edit on 30-6-2012 by decisively because: added TWO
edit on 30-6-2012 by decisively because: removed "ARE"
edit on 30-6-2012 by decisively because: added "that special Apollo 12 real-time"



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



So these important scientists, indeed, important historic figures, Wilhelms, Beattie, Shoemaker, and the rest, in the words of Wilhelms again, now page xi, did "NOT HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE MOON ROCKS".


In other words, they specialized in lunar morphology. They are theoreticians, not experimentalists. They would not necessarily be qualified to perform mass spectroscopy, X-ray crystallography, etc, themselves. That's nothing unusual. As a physician, do you perform CT scans yourself?
edit on 30-6-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Schmitt commented several times during the EVAs that he had forgotten part of the documentation photography, a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do." Also, the location problem did not go away even during this last, skillfully executed Apollo. At one point Schmitt informed cap com Parker, "We're not where you think we are. We're not sure where we are."


There was, in fact, a great deal of concern on the ground about the Apollo 17 astronauts' mental state after such a protracted stay on the Moon:



If it were all scripted and fake, why would the documentation issue even come up?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



But what were they to do ? Careful photographic documentation of where rocks were collected would draw attention to PRECISE LOCATIONS WHERE ASTRONAUTS HAD NEVER BEEN. There was no way orbiter photos could ever be correlated with appropriate rock collection photo documentation.


That is a completely nonsensical argument. All of the rocks were too small to be resolved from lunar orbit. On the other hand:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



And if you think this is so called "quote mining", I'd suggest you read the VOICE TRANSCRIPT for the APOLLO 17 MISSION and the transcripts for the other missions yourself. Ask yourself where it is that these guys figure out where it is they have landed in each case. Apollo 12 is a bit unique because of Surveyor 3's presence, and as such, a special " LOST BIRD SOLUTION " to that special Apollo 12 real-time problem was created. They had Bean break the camera.


For the benefit of readers who jumped to this last page, it has been explained numerous times that:

1. At that time, there was no universally accepted selenographic grid.

2. Each of the methods used to determine the landers' positions had its own systematic errors.

3. It was not necessary to have arbitrary surface coordinates to effect the orbital rendezvous; radar was sufficient.

And, yes, it is quote mining if you take something out of context and use it to support an unrelated contention. Why would Bean need to break the camera? The Hasselblad worked just fine:




posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
My new statement is that also Felix Baumgartner's enterprise is a hoax.

Why the sky is gray during the Felix's descent?

Who is filming him? From what height?



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smartguy
My new statement is that also Felix Baumgartner's enterprise is a hoax.

Why the sky is gray during the Felix's descent?

Who is filming him? From what height?


Here is a little video for you it is a Canon SX40 zooming in on the Moon.



When the video starts you see a small Moon and a light blue sky as it zooms in and the image of the Moon gets larger the camera adjusts EXPOSURE for the Moon and the sky gets darker by the 45 sec mark the sky is DARK BLUE.

When he zooms back out the EXPOSURE switches again to the sky and its light blue.

So what have you learned, exposure can change how the colour of the sky looks!!!!

He was being filmed from the ground

Try and learn about how things work before you make comments that make you look silly sorry to LATE!



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Look at this video:

www.youtube.com...

From minute 4:38 to 6:34 and from minute 7:22 to 8:49 the sky is dark gray with some orange.
WHY???



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smartguy
Look at this video:

www.youtube.com...

From minute 4:38 to 6:34 and from minute 7:22 to 8:49 the sky is dark gray with some orange.
WHY???


That's not the sky you're looking at, it is a large screen in the control room with an image of the sky with Baumgartner in free fall displayed on it. The 'orange' you see are the lights in the control room shining on that screen.

If that is your evidence that the jump was a hoax all I can say is...eh
.....


Back to the funny-farm smartguy.


edit on 23-10-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
What nonsense are you saying? Where is the blue of the sky?

Felix could have a camera on his helmet:

www.directindustry.it...



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smartguy
What nonsense are you saying? Where is the blue of the sky?

Felix could have a camera on his helmet:

www.directindustry.it...


He had a couple or more cameras on his person.

This is way off topic anyway.

smartguy? You should change your name to daftbloke or sillyboy or something.







top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join