Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash waste product from coal power stations (Earth bound!)

page: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The Chinese and Russians fell out because the Chinese believed the soviets were working with the Americans.

There was a Rothschild spy involved will fwd docs.




posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 

Ok, I'm just saying. We can have ruskie translated in a wiff. So post ahead. Sorry for the reply. I can't resist.
edit on 6/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



What can I say you must be a really bad man



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Yes, please posts these documents, and their source too.

There are plenty on here that can translate them, and plenty of ways to translate them.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Exactly the reason why we did the whole "translator db" thread. It's outdated but a good place to start.


jra

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
...they never found the solution to pass the Van Allan belt.


Absolute nonsense. The Van Allen belts are toroidal in shape. It's incredibly simple to navigate around the strongest parts. Which is what they did for Apollo




Remember the dog they sent up there? it never came back alive.


Which one? The Russian's sent a bunch of dogs into space. Most of them survived, but some died through technical failures.

As for your light and shadows discussion. Take a look at these:

example 1
example 2
And many more here: link

You really need to stop and take a look at the world around you. All your 'anomalies' are things that normally happen in Earth based photography.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I noticed that you completely overlooked my statement which pertained to the thread.

And that was about NASA not being the only one with lunar samples. The us of a is not the only ones with lunar samples.

What about the lunar samples that other countries have. Why have they not dropped the "they faked it bomb"?

Is NASA the only ones with a microscope?

I noticed you went way off topic from the headline in the thread.

It was originally about the ash, remember.

I agree with another poster when they stated you are anoher member. Keep rehashing the already debunked topics other than the original post.
edit on 6-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: phone spelling, sorry



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Logic being used:

This stuff on earth looks like the stuff on the moon.

Therefore, it is the same thing.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


No I can't read Russian.

Are you claiming that the Soviets were aware that the moon landings were faked?

Are these documents pertinent to the claim that the Soviets were aware that the landings were faked?

Like the other guys said if you want to post them somebody will translate them. If these documents are what you say then it could be very interesting.






edit on 6-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints
Yeah,
That top secret powder that they truck out of coal plants in the wee hours of the morning so nobody sees it.
It all goes to a giant vacuum chamber where actors drive around in moon buggies?
O.K. Case closed.
Good job.


I know...right?!?!
They may as well claim it's coc aine that was destroyed by the ATF. Or it's where all the talcum powder goes that floats away.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Russian is my first language. I'll happily translate stuff for you, provided it's not too long.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by touchdowntrojans
 



I am sure this has all been discussed here but worth going through the exercise for myself. Visible light imaging from the moon would give smaller star images.


False. Stars are essentially point sources of light. Their size on photographic film is a function of their brightness, not size.


Would give bluer star images.


Not exactly. More UV would get through from the stars, hence the UV telescope.


Would give different aberration displacements.


If you were capable of measuring it. 1/180th of a degree is essentially undetectable without sensitive photometric equipment.


The common center of gravity of the earth-moon system travels pretty much the same as the earth itself around the sun for the purposes of my assessment. But the camera points differently with respect to the barycenter and the moon rotates differently vs earth?


What practical difference would it make? The parallax would be practically non-existent.


Light travel time to the moon for the planets would be different than for the planet light to earth travel time so the planets would be displaced a little from their earth perspective.


If you had equipment sensitive enough to detect that.


No atmospheric refraction so stars would photo a little different there too.


They would not scintallate and have more UV.


The atmosphere filters out a lot of UV but I am writing about visible light here. Maybe that is why they went for UV photos.


They went for UV precisely because it cannot be adequately observed from the Earth's surface.


Let's assume we can come up with a good motive and so then let's say Apollo was a hoax , maybe they take UV photos because of all these visible light issues.


You yourself have said that you cannot come up with a good reason. In fact, they took the UV photos, in part, to have photos of the Earth in UV light to compare with similar images taken by space probes of other planets.


Maybe that would be hard to hoax.


It would certainly be dangerous, because if they got it wrong, other nations would spot the mistakes when they sent up their own UV telescopes.


Get everything just right so the stars look a little bit smaller and a little bit bluer and less refracted without an atmosphere and with different aberration because the moon rotates differently and the camera needs to point in a different direction to take into accout the change in position of the camera's aperture with respect to the direction of the earth-moon barycenter direction of travel. And the moon rotaes differently vs earth so tiny aberrational effect there. And the planets are slightly displaced because of altered light travel time to the moon vs earth. All of this added up would be hard to hoax?


Take a deep breath. None of those points would be discernible unless the equipment were specifically designed to look for it.


I don't know that, just a hypothesis. So then they do UV photos which gets around not all of it but perhaps a little of it. How well have the UV photos been scrutinized for this kind of thing? If you don't know exactly where the camera is then it would not really be assessable. Maybe if they were not really on the moon that is what they would argue. They would say the camera is near here, but not exactly here. That way they could avoid most of this.


As usual, your conclusion does not follow from your premise. You are, of course, welcome to request prints of the UV photographs and examine them with a micrometer.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Russian is my first language. I'll happily translate stuff for you, provided it's not too long.


It's long, really really long, i am trying to make it smaller to squeeze in the important issues, right now working on the contract they made in 1955. some if it translated "Merger of technological and economic resources of the Soviet Union and the United States in their efforts to achieve Selena were the work of "big politics" and conducted in an atmosphere of high secrecy" My god it's huge, this could take me months to put together. (selena is the spy satellite they were working on)

Ill put it together, just give me some time


I just got lost from coming back here where i was T_T, i was gonna give you the Russian version, ill be back.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
...so you're not going to post the unedited one at any place? Or a source to that. Yep, legit



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 



It's long, really really long, i am trying to make it smaller to squeeze in the important issues, right now working on the contract they made in 1955.


Just scan it and post it on a picture hosting site.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by r2d246
 


TOTAL and UTTER BS the pictures have been posted here many times will dig some out for the LAZY hoax believers!


Well prove it then.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 



can we have a civilized conversation without taking anything on a personal level?


can we ? - can you ????????



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by r2d246
 


TOTAL and UTTER BS the pictures have been posted here many times will dig some out for the LAZY hoax believers!


Well prove it then.


You quoted one of the lines from the POST the pictures were on remember this "lateral movement!!!" which shows others that YOU don't look at links



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Stars are "theoretically point sources of light, but they photograph as tiny but nevertheless measurable discs. Of course scientists measure star dimensions in their pictures. Read about it pretty often.

This here is from NASA;


articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

The most important part of the article;




So when we take seconds long exposure pictures of stars, which is what they would have done back in the 1960s, just like the NASA article says here, the fixed star acquires fairly large dimensions.


The star of course is not a "disc" of light, nor is it in reality a "point" of light. But as you read here, stars "acquire comparatively large dimensions" owing to the fact we cannot image them instantaneously.


Because their images are less spread out when photographed from space, they look smaller. Of course the angular measurements are tiny. You can look them up for yourselves.

So one argument would be that in lunar orbit or from the lunar surface with a 1.6 inch aperture sextant, 40mm, you'd see 50,000 stars instead of of the 6 thousand you'd see with the human eye. The stars would be more blue, "smaller" in the sense just mentioned, their aberration would shift them by arcseconds from their earth POV positions. The planets would be smaller too. The planet's positions would reflect parallax, light to camera time differences and small aberrational effect as well. So there would be 4, 5, 6, 10 times the stars given scope or camera aperature difference and the stars would be moved and different sized and different colored. Since this might simply be an overwhelming task to hoax such a picture, one could suggest this as an explanation for why the astronauts say they don't see very many stars so very well and they never try to take pics of them. Too hard to hoax with all of this going on.

I think that is how a better argument for the star thing might go as I laid it out there. Better than saying they couldn't navigate given the aberration problem. I already said that doesn't make sense and believe the poster is wrong on that altogether.
edit on 7-11-2012 by touchdowntrojans because: left out some words



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
"German philosopher, Hegel. He laid down the dictum that to rule the world, you create a problem; you find an antidote to that problem; and you throw the two conflicting theses against each other, to result in a consensus or resolution. This diabolical and cynical formula reached its apogee in the Cold War. Hopefully, we will not see another such travesty of history."

If we can prove both sides of the cold war were funded by the same people, we prove the space race was a sham.

www.whale.to...

If you look at a country like Vietnam, the people of that country just wanted to be free and to live in peace.. If you consider 'the war of terror' it is exactly the same 'you are either with us or against us.' The cold war and the current war of terror are business ventures. The top- 20 US defense contractors firms posted revenues of $339.2 billion in 2011. The war on terror is the new space race cash cow.

War is business ! Just like the space race and apollo hoax! Slick sophisticated marketing to keep us the public doing the hard work whilst the elite cash in.

www.deloitte.com...

UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/AD/us_ad_ADPerformanceWrap-up_04032012.pdf


"Perloff agreed, "Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., heavily bankrolled the [Communist] revolution. This was reported by White Russian General Arsine de Goulevitch in his book Czarism and the Revolution." "According to his grandson John," described Allen, "Jacob Schiff ... long-time associate of the Rothschilds, financed the Communist Revolution in Russia to the tune of $20 million." He continued, "According to a report on file with the State Department, his firm, Kuhn Loeb and Co. bankrolled the first five year plan for Stalin," and added, "Schiff's descendants are active in the Council on Foreign Relations today."

jeromekahn123.tripod.com...

Nothing changes, the general population remain slaves to an elite. If we carry on to believe such nonsense as the Apollo landings it will carry on this way.





top topics
 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum