More Moon fakery

reply to post by Komodo


Can you demonstrate what the bombardment rate of cosmic rays is at that spot?

Can you show us the amount of degradation to nylon and other various materials that make up the flag after 1 year of cosmic ray bombardment?

Can you demonstrate the rate of micro meteor bombardment in that area in a one year period? 10 years? 47 years?

After showing us that rate, can you then show the odds are of a object the size of that flag being hit by said micro meteor?

Can you in fact, post anything other than the same statement over and over in this thread?

CaptainBeno
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I just knew it.

Now we are going to have a crap conversation debating satellite imagery vs Aircraft.

YOU KNOW SATELLITES ARE CAPABLE OF PHOTOGRAPHING THE SURFACE OF THE MOON....CLEAR AS A BELL.

Don't bother arguing, it's a wasted cause.

The LRO pics of the Moon are very clear we can see very small objects that only the ASTRONAUTS have seen and taken pictures of MORE evidence they landed.

Just because YOU didn't have the smarts to find out about how Google Earth images are taken doesn't mean others don't, read up about the optical systems used for various images when you have a problem understand RESOLUTION (which YOU obviously have) post back many members on here into photography and even ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY which you can see in the link below will be happy to EDUCATE you on the subject.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

CaptainBeno
reply to post by CaptainBeno

 

Here is the proof...............apparently.

Please stop, it hurts, I can't take any more...............

It is such a terrible joke, isn't it?

And we all know who the laugh is on.

We mustn't overlook JFK and his role in the moon landings hoax. He was
a bitty player/actor in this greater game and if you look into his 'death' with
fakery in mind, you just might be surprised.
Onwards and upwards from there, all the way to the shuttle and ISS fakery and
now to Mars. The sky really is the limit for their BS.

spartacus699
reply to post by expatwhite

 

he filmed eyes wide shut then was killed. He was one of the few to be let into that world and even work for them ie moon landing.

He filmed 2001 and that was full of errors of the kind that Moon hoax believers think are true the
IRONY of that is a classic!!!!

spartacus699
reply to post by expatwhite

 

he filmed eyes wide shut then was killed. He was one of the few to be let into that world and even work for them ie moon landing.

I think Kubrick's death was faked! I think he did fake the moon landings footage and was rewarded with almost free reign over his movies and access to technology unavailable to other directors. It is easier for these people to just disappear from the scene and off the stage, all being just small parts of a much greater game.
Regarding Eyes Wide Shut, I think it was also all about fakery in a sense! Everything was staged in order to entrap Dr. Bill into a future of covering up for the crimes of the elite (especially regarding children; as can be seen in the final scene where his own child wanders off into the 'bear' section of the toystore). Dr. Bill's wife was the honey-trap (mk-ultrad military operative) - do you remember when Dr. Bill's wife looks in the mirror (while cosying/sizzying up to her husband) and gives a knowing/satisfied smile? He is continuing to be set up and she is playing her part...When you have everything, you want to be able to indulge freely and have your ass completely covered. You do this by completely compromising your mark! Money and effort are no problem. Freedom, and freedom to indulge in comfort without repercussions, is the motivation.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


How could you possibly see it any other way Topsy?

You're like grandpa Simpson, except where he sees death behind every lampshade, underneath every armchair, at the bottom of every mug of tea, in the smile of every toddler, you see a bleeding conspiracy, isn't that right?

I'm still on the fence about landings but i'm sure that these guys didn't go on the Moon.





There is a thing called common sense.These guys look like they came back from funeral , not from greatest human achievment in human history.

seabhac-rua
reply to post by OneFreeMan

 

How could you possibly see it any other way Topsy?

You're like grandpa Simpson, except where he sees death behind every lampshade, underneath every armchair, at the bottom of every mug of tea, in the smile of every toddler, you see a bleeding conspiracy, isn't that right?

Less of the 'bleeding', rua. No-one gets hurt in the production
of these productions. Health and Safety, and all that.

You on the other hand see no conspiracy, anywhere, ever.
I am telling you that fakery is their M.O. and it pervades the
decades, even the centuries. And the television is their greatest
tool for mass deception.
With all these cases of fakery (moon landings, 9/11, Sandyhook etc.),
so much special pleading has to come from the Official Story defenders
that they becomes transparent pretty quickly.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


Not true Topsy.

I am very aware that conspiracies are a reality in this world, in fact there are probably a lot of topics where you and I would concur.

Where you and I differ is evident in both of our post histories, and I don't mean which topics we differ on, I'm talking about your penchant for presupposition, and your perpetual contention that those who argue against your views are in the employ of nefarious dark powers.

(Re edit: I was actually going to type 'bleedin' in my last post but I reckon you probably hate Dubs enough already)

I don't hate anyone, rua. I just want a better world for all.
I have high hopes that it might be on it's way.

I am weary of all the lies, necessary as some might be.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


I'm sure you don't actually hate the Dubs, but just find them to be annoying 'know it all's', like most people from outside the pale And I would probably agree with that sentiment.

Yes, you are right, lies from above are commonplace, but let me ask you, why do you find Bill Kaysing to be credible?

seabhac-rua
reply to post by OneFreeMan

 

I'm sure you don't actually hate the Dubs, but just find them to be annoying 'know it all's', like most people from outside the pale

And I would probably agree with that sentiment.

Yes, you are right, lies from above are commonplace, but let me ask you, why do you find Bill Kaysing to be credible?

I don't especially, but when combined with all the other evidence I have
seen for the fakery, what he has to say as one of the first to suspect it and
publish on it is very interesting.
I think the moon hoax was made to be exposed eventually though. Maybe now
with China attempting the same 'endeavour', the truth will finally out. Did you
see the video of the supposed Chinese spacewalk with the obvious air bubbles
rising? A little too obvious, methinks.

Who knows what they are capable of with real technology? They just didn't go
to the moon with manned rockets. I love to go back to believing anything else,
but alas...

reply to post by Komodo


And how does that go against what I said? Satellite pictures are taken from space, obviously, and those are the ones that show streets with little to no detail. Then you have aerial pictures represented by the one you provided and street view pictures that show the streets themselves. Please answer to the fact that:

- Here on Earth most aerial pictures are taken, at most, at an height of 9 and 12km (and that's for comercial flight)
- Moon pictures are taken at an height of 24km.
- Is the resolution for LRO pictures unexpected? NO.

JameSimon
reply to post by Komodo

 

And how does that go against what I said? Satellite pictures are taken from space, obviously, and those are the ones that show streets with little to no detail. Then you have aerial pictures represented by the one you provided and street view pictures that show the streets themselves. Please answer to the fact that:

- Here on Earth most aerial pictures are taken, at most, at an height of 9 and 12km (and that's for comercial flight)
- Moon pictures are taken at an height of 24km.
- Is the resolution for LRO pictures unexpected? NO.

Sorry but your very wrong about aerial pictures most are taken from lower altitudes.

Most commercial aerial photography is done between 1,500 and 4,900 m. altitudes

The bulk of them from the lower altitudes.

reply to post by wmd_2008


If you know how to read you'll notice that I said "at most", since I have no data for google pictures altitude I used the max average altitude for comercial flight. Nevertheless, your data just reiterates what I said.

JameSimon
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

If you know how to read you'll notice that I said "at most", since I have no data for google pictures altitude I used the max average altitude for comercial flight. Nevertheless, your data just reiterates what I said.

if YOU know how to read you will see NONE are taken the the altitudes you claim!

wmd_2008

JameSimon
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

If you know how to read you'll notice that I said "at most", since I have no data for google pictures altitude I used the max average altitude for comercial flight. Nevertheless, your data just reiterates what I said.

if YOU know how to read you will see NONE are taken the the altitudes you claim!

There seems to be an understanding problem here.
- I took AS REFERENCE the comercial flight height (average) to calculate the highest altitude a picture could be taken from a plane here on earth: 9 to 12Km
- I compared that same height with LRO's altitude when taking landing site pictures: 24Km
- Conclusion? It's normal that a street picture taken from a plane, EVEN IF IT WAS A COMERCIAL FLIGHT, has more resolution than a picture taken from the LRO and therefore more details.
- Knowing that google "plane" pictures are taken much lower gives even more strength to my argument that states that it's not possible to take better pictures of the landing sites

JameSimon

wmd_2008

JameSimon
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

If you know how to read you'll notice that I said "at most", since I have no data for google pictures altitude I used the max average altitude for comercial flight. Nevertheless, your data just reiterates what I said.

if YOU know how to read you will see NONE are taken the the altitudes you claim!

There seems to be an understanding problem here.
- I took AS REFERENCE the comercial flight height (average) to calculate the highest altitude a picture could be taken from a plane here on earth: 9 to 12Km
- I compared that same height with LRO's altitude when taking landing site pictures: 24Km
- Conclusion? It's normal that a street picture taken from a plane, EVEN IF IT WAS A COMERCIAL FLIGHT, has more resolution than a picture taken from the LRO and therefore more details.
- Knowing that google "plane" pictures are taken much lower gives even more strength to my argument that states that it's not possible to take better pictures of the landing sites

RESOLUTION is dependant on equipment NOT just altitude the LRO pictures are great and MORE than prove we went there but google earth pictures of peoples house etc are from very low heights if fact a helicopter flew over the area were I live with a camera on a boom on each side for 3d no doubt at about 500 FT

xavi1000
I'm still on the fence about landings but i'm sure that these guys didn't go on the Moon.

There is a thing called common sense.These guys look like they came back from funeral , not from greatest human achievment in human history.

I tend to agree. When I'm watching my gut instinct is telling me they're lying, and or they're not sure in what they're saying. Because I suspect what happened is even the astronaught might have actually been told they're going to the moon. But what happened was they did some strange thing at the time of the launch. Like they drugged the astronaughts I'm not sure how it would have all played out, but say you're hi, or drunk or whatever. You're now being told "you're on the moon" or you're going to the moon. And then by the time the drugs wear off you're trying to recall what exactly happened? You're an astronaught, you're mission was a moon landing. You recall what looked like moon scape? You recall a lot of bits a pieces. But for some strange reason it's all foggy. Like as if you were drunk. But everyone contradulating you, telling you great job, you made it etc etc. So you just sort of go along with it. You figure that you must have went. What are you gonna say? "No I'm not sure I went????" "no I'm not an american hero who deserves all this fame and money??".... and only because "you're not sure?". Then maybe you tell someone, or you tell a DR or someone that you're not sure what happened? They tell you "oh don't worry that's normal, because you were sucking back all the oxegyn and it messed with your mind". so you figure....ohhhh okay hmmmm he's a dr so he must be right. And again you just go along with it. a year goes by now the memory is faded even more. Decades go by and now you can barely remember much about it. And now 30 years has gone by and now people are coming out and you're reading about how "you might not have gone?" But you can barely remember any of it now because it's been 30 years!!!!

And if you think I'm joking about this... all you have to do is next time you're at the dentist ask for the oral sedation. It's basically the date rape drug. It turns you into a zombie. You barely know what's going on during the time it's happening. Then you tend to forget most of the time frame when you eventually come to. I'm pretty sure that's what they might have given the astronaughts. Ya it could easily be done!

Anyway that's my theory. And they seem so confused in the press conference that they seem like this would be a natural reaction. Like "what just happened. Did we really go the moon?".

reply to post by wmd_2008


And then again you seem to be misreading what I'm saying. I'm stating that the LRO pictures can't be any better and prove the moonlanding, that's it. Let's take this:

Camera with X resolution, Y ISO and F aperture
- Google picture taken from 9Km
- LRO picture taken from 24Km
Obviously the google picture will have better resolution

What am I saying that goes against the moonlanding? It actually proves the LRO argument FOR the moonlanding RIGHT, that's it. Stop trying to pic a fight when we are actually trying to prove the same.