Arouet wrote:Misha: its the practical joke version, made popular by Ashton Kutcher's MTV show:
Geezzzz!!! Thanks, Arouet. I'm not up on pop-culture.
Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
Geezzzz!!! Thanks, Arouet. I'm not up on pop-culture.
And how would we "know" that? The astronauts saw it coming in? Schmitt didn't have the instruments with him to do any kind of analysis of the make-up of that rock.
The difference in terrain between f/g, m/g and b/g seems even more striking in this photo, and it's not just an artifact of receding distance. The f/g looks like a 'real' pic probably taken on earth of real soil and rocks -- suspiciously broken down in size from weathering effects that are not possible on the moon -- to the smoother and eerily lit m/g and b/g.
Available in your choice of sepia or B&W, apparently...
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 23 Dec 2012, 05:57, edited 1 time in total.
oh sorry, i meant we'd all been punked by David Harland. The 2nd definition from the urban dictionary, altho the first is reasonably close as well... anyway, nothing the average Republican candidate doesn't like doing in their secret and special "time off" after church service...
Thanks, SydenyPSIder. New York has its drawbacks, especially when it comes to the vernacular of a word.
There's a fairly complex treatment at Aulis of more strange artifacts with scale of mountains at:
I don't subscribe to the constant 'whistle blower' refrain so much as sheer incompetence and assumption no-one would check any details.
As they point out,
This is a pretty incriminating pic of how dust REALLY blows up under the force of a 10,000 lb thrust rocket. This was the test firing of a 7,500 lb rocket on earth, which kicked up a huge amount of dust. With the moon's 1/6 G gravity and lack of air resistance, you would expect dust to be blown even higher and further, not the tiny amount of dust we see in the landing sequences, presumably produced by a fan. No blast crater either -- or, more accurately, a necessary blast trench -- or a landing area cleared of dust, and an astronaut on the 'second' mission even comments 'no blast crater, just like Armstrong', an amazing piece of scripted BS to attempt to cover up physics problems by repetition.
I note also in that final picture that the contact probe looks more like it's sitting in wet sand, and, of course, the gold foil wrapped landing pads are suspiciously clean in all the shots we see.
Some more dramatic BS spun out by NASA from the Apollo 17 mission:
The 'astronauts' whinged that their hands were red, raw, bleeding messes from the pressurised gloves, that they had chafing, blisters, the skin on their knuckles was gone and all their fingernails removed in one case! However, footage of the return flight and splashdown shows absolutely no damage whatsoever. One colour pic appears to have been doctored to show 'nail bruising', although there was no nail bruising evident in pics at splashdown. Nor any evidence of blisters, chafing, red rawness or fingernails missing.
They complained throughout the 'mission' of this problem and one of the astronauts spun it out into a dramatic saga in his memoirs released in 1999. All BS, all faked. Why would you spend one sou or one second of time listening to any of the 'adventures' of these guys when they never left earth, except to go up in a plane for the splashdown fakery?
It's a little like the 'footage' we've seen of the plane that hit the Pentagon! 5 blurry shots from one camera with no plane, with footage from 82 other cameras missing and never to be released!
OK, once more into the fray. Models this time. Does anyone know the original provenance of these pics of very large lunar models being made, apparently accurate copies based on unmanned lunar topographic surveys before the Apollo missions. These are meant to be at the Langley Research Center complex.
(For some reason some JPEGs won't display here, so I've just provided the image URLs along with the source page.)
Note the 20' globe and slightly curved panorama board (with camera rail tracks) about to be filled in with moon topography artwork:
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... b31b80.jpg
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... c59b80.jpg
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... dcb680.jpg
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... ecb680.jpg
Once it was finished it was backlit from inside:
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... 0868c0.jpg
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... ff48e0.jpg
More pictures and explanation on the website.
Then there is this plaster cast of Hadley Rille made *before* Apollo 15 landed there. Complete with Hasselblad reticules??? (Unlike the Apollo 17 pic that was somehow released *without* reticules.)
http://apolloreality2.atspace.co.uk/ind ... ca3c20.jpg
"Plaster cast" of Hadley Rille
Faked space pics using the models above?
http://apolloreality2.atspace.co.uk/ind ... 11cae0.jpg
See treatment at http://apolloreality2.atspace.co.uk/
Some unrealistic videos of these models to follow, if I can find the footage...
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 23 Dec 2012, 19:20, edited 1 time in total.
Where's the reticules on this one?
Just an interesting intermission movie while I look for the other vids:
glad some Americans can investigate other Americans...
This short footage of the ascent module supposedly approaching the orbiter for docking is extremely suspect from a physics perspective:
While it may seem like an innocuous 37 s clip, the acceleration and deceleration shown by the module at 0:20 and 0:36 is just not possible -- that is not how things work in reality. It is like a model being rotated on a stick by an electric motor. You cannot start and stop rotation with near infinite acceleration and deceleration and constant velocity of a massive object with vernier rockets in that fashion without any overshoot. It's worth watching a couple of times. Then consider how you would use the fake lunar models above to construct this footage.
There's at least three problems with the footage of the Apollo 11 LM ascent video below:
One is that the LM, as we know, or have seen in other footage, took off straight upwards. However, here we see the LM flying quite low over the lunar landscape at a fixed distance and for a long time -- not quite sure how it achieved that trajectory or fixed low orbit. Second, there appears to be a bug flying in at 1:14 and landing on the fake moon model. Finally, the shadows look a wee bit fake on the revolving model also -- I mean, why are the shadows the same length all the way round, as though the moon is rotating towards the sun at the same rate as the ascent module is flying over the moon?
I guess I;m not understanding your question, Syd. First, only a casual look shows the LM was taken at a different angle which would obviously produce a different background.
Also, your post was plagiarised from this forum:
http://alienanomalies.activeboard.com/t ... generated/
I'm sorry, but the credibility of your post is zero. If you are wanting to have an accurate discussion without bias, then the posts we make should be our own thoughts based on what we consider credible. If you really think your sources are credible, then there really isn't anything else to discuss. Wasting our time by making us examine forged photos and unresearched posts is rather rude, wouldn't you say?
Last edited by ProfWag on 23 Dec 2012, 21:53, edited 1 time in total.
Wow. You are willing to put your life on the line because of what Jarrah White says on a website that has already been shown to have misrepresentations? C'mon Misha, you appear smarter than that.
ProfWag, my belief is not solely based on Jarrah White's research. And this is not about being smart. Much of it is about wisdom and how the world really works. When you finally come to terms that what has been fed to the masses on this planet is about control then your world will truly open up. Tommy Lee Jones is correct when he said to Will Smith in MIB (first film) - "Can you handle it." Are you prepared to handle your world being turned upside down?
I hope to put you on a park bench for hours at a time in consideration of this.
I totally agree with this statement.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests