View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Winston's New Conspiracy Report - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/11

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.

Re: New! My Big Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/1

Postby really? » 26 Nov 2012, 23:25

Scepcop wrote:
Arouet wrote:You think his argument that we had the technology to go to the moon in 1969 but not today is bang on?


(A)Of course it is. That is a strong argument against the moon landings. It's common sense. You skeptics are too ingrained in your religious faith in the moon landings, that you can't see such an obvious things clearly. I've also added this related strong argument:

(1)– Fact: Did you know that so far, 14 astronauts have died in Space Shuttle missions that were 200 miles above the Earth, yet during the Apollo program NASA allegedly sent astronauts six times to the moon, 240,000 miles and back, with no loss of life? In other words: 200 miles = 14 casualties, 240,000 miles = 0 casualties. Do you buy that? Can you fathom the enormous difference between 200 and 240,000 and how big of a stretch it is?

(2)What’s more, NASA could not even keep astronauts safe on Earth. During a test simulation on the launch pad for Apollo One in 1967, three astronauts died during a fire that engulfed the capsule and somehow locked them inside, which was never explained and seemed to be the result of foul play. Whatever the case, if NASA couldn’t even keep astronauts safe on Earth during a test simulation inside a stationary capsule that wasn’t even moving, then how could it keep them safe 240,000 miles away on the moon during a real mission?


(3)To give you an idea of the proportions we are talking about, picture this: The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and the moon is 240,000 miles away. That means that you’d have to line up 30 Earth globes to equal the distance to the moon (since 8,000 x 30 = 240,000). What this means is that in 1969, NASA could send men the distance of 30 Earth globes, but today, it can only send humans barely above the Earth. If you have a model globe in your home, 400 miles would be about an inch above it.

(Here is that first argument again, spelled out and revised)

– Fact: Did you know that since the Apollo Moon Missions in 1969-72, which sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, NO ONE has ever gone 400 miles above the Earth? Even the Space Shuttle missions have gone below that and remained well under 400 miles.

Today, NASA does not have the technology to go higher than 400 miles above Earth, and has indirectly admitted it in a number of ways, by their actions and words. In a press release, NASA stated that the Van Allen Radiation Belts that surround the Earth are too dangerous to send humans through and is trying to figure out how to solve this problem. See here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/ ... 7820080331

This doesn’t make any sense given that none of the astronauts on the six Apollo missions allegedly passed the radiation belts with no problem and no sickness! What this means is that incredibly, NASA was able to send men 600 times farther in 1969 than it can today! How inexplicable is that? Have you ever heard of technology going backward by such an extreme magnitude?! It’s totally illogical and nonsensical.

Listen to this interview with Bart Sibrel. It's his best. Too bad it's not on YouTube yet. I ought to post it on there.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview- ... ep2006.mp3



Here are some facts about the Van Allen Belts.
http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_A ... Allen_belt
(A) By the way if you had read closely I made no comment on the JFK assassination and you might be right. Note: I am not too ingrained.

Only in your mind. Do you realize the only people that take what you say seriously are people that are needlessly distrustful an somewhat paranoid.
(1)Remember Apollo 13 were we almost lost 3 astronauts
(2) No foulplay. NASA did make too many mistakes that they were criticized for back then even before the launch of this prototype command module.

(3) Irrelevant

Like I said before I'd like to see how the world works through your eyes, because in trying to comprehend how your mind works I am absolutely perplexed.

I imagine you pride yourself the ultimate seeker of truth, yet, how can't we be persuaded by your arguments if you can't recognize truth when it's staring you right in the face ?
Last edited by really? on 27 Nov 2012, 12:17, edited 2 times in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby Misha » 27 Nov 2012, 04:04

Hi Winston,

I finished your Apollo thesis. Well done. Yes, it can be fleshed out a lot more, but I understand the overall point and highlights. You are correct in the psychological aspect. The herd and money is a strong pull on why most won't go there with the Apollo anomalies. Again, I have big problems with the radiation issue concerning Apollo. How in the hell can celluloid (film) survive the trip through the Van Allan belts, cosmic radiation (alpha, beta, gamma), and on the moon let alone biologics?

Also, you might want to read Gerhard Wisnewski's book - "One Small Step."

Again, no problems with your critique overall. I'll read JFK and 9/11 soon.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby Misha » 27 Nov 2012, 05:54

Ok, Winston. I read your JFK critique. Well done. Yes, again, there is so much to flesh out with the details surrounding the assassination. This becomes a book and that is not part and parcel to your examination. I completely understand. However, I would like to offer a few points worth considering to you and the readers. I will just put them in bullet points for the sake of expediency:

*Please explore the Mexico City/Oswald connection. This has CIA all over it. Warren Commission omitted this.
*If I am correct, Oswald did not renounce his U.S. citizenship. Yes, he tried, but was kept in stasis. Check on this, please.
*Both Kenny O'Donnell and Bill Powers in the follow up car to JFK's saw the blowout. Pressure made them say otherwise.
*50 witnesses saw JFK's limo come to a STOP or near stop.
*The Zapruder Tape cannot be taken as literal evidence. It has been manipulated by the Kodak Hawkeye Works in Rochester, NY.
*The skull x-rays proves beyond a shadow of doubt that they are of Kennedy's head. They have been altered. Big Smoking Gun!!!!!!!
*LBJ was part and parcel to the assassination. However, he was NOT the brains behind it. The assassination was State sponsored with the CIA being the organizer. Yes, Hoover played his part in the assassination and cover-up. I am by no means mitigating their involvement.
*Only a palm print (Oswald) was found on the alleged assassination rifle. Not fingerprints. You explained the modus operandi quite correctly.

Two must reads: Inside the Assassination Review Board by Douglas Horne. And David Talbots - "Brothers." Wintson, get these books. Again, well done!
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby SydneyPSIder » 27 Nov 2012, 11:36

In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died - six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes.

An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that on November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one. The above comment on the deaths of assassination witnesses was published in a tabloid companion piece to the movie "Executive Action," released in 1973. By that time, part of the mythology of the Kennedy assassination included the mysterious deaths of people who were connected with it. By the mid-1960s, people in Dallas already were whispering about the number of persons who died under strange or questionable circumstances.

Well into the 1980s, witnesses and others were hesitant to come forward with information because of the stories of strange and sudden death which seemed visit anyone with information about the assassination.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.html

Pretty much the same result as China's Tiananmen Square Massacre as a method of hushing people up and retaining totalitarian control of the population. Looks like the US had mastered the method in the 60s rather than the 80s though. Large number of spooks required to be paid off the public purse to maintain this kind of control, of course.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby Arouet » 27 Nov 2012, 13:52

That article also quoted the following:

Such vague accusations as that "more than 10 people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some rational way: e.g., the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the (Warren) Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses - the FBI interviewed far more people, conducting 25,000 interviews and reinterviews - and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected.


This is not a simple statistical issue (at least for the lay person). It's easy to look at a list and think: that's a lot! But how does it compare to any other selection of 25,000 people? The issue isn't: what are the odds that those exact people would have died, but rather what are the odds that a similar number of people will have died with a similar control sample.

That's not to say that foul play wasn't involved. But the analysis doesn't seem complete. Just saying: at what point do we think its foul play is manipulative. There may be something unusual about the number of deaths but this article didn't do that analysis.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby SydneyPSIder » 27 Nov 2012, 14:07

This should say:

An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that commencing from November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967 by chance alone, given their age and health randomised against a standard population, were one hundred thousand trillion to one. The above comment on the deaths of assassination witnesses was published in a tabloid companion piece to the movie "Executive Action," released in 1973. By that time, part of the mythology of the Kennedy assassination included the mysterious deaths of people who were connected with it. By the mid-1960s, people in Dallas already were whispering about the number of persons who died under strange or questionable circumstances.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby SydneyPSIder » 27 Nov 2012, 14:25

Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D of mechanical engineering, has another hypothesis which she claims fits all the data better than the others. She believes that directed high energy beams were what pulverized the WTC and Building 7 to dust so rapidly, which, she says, controlled demotion [spelling - demolition] and thermite[/thermate] could not do. She cites further evidence such as toasted cars and bended metal to support this hypothesis. This theory may sound wacky at first, but her website is filled with a lot of scientific data to support it. Many of her interviews are also available on YouTube, which you can find by searching her name.

I think 'Dr Judy Wood' is a bit wacko, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that such 'DEW's exist at all or have ever been invented, let alone how they could have been deployed on the day, and where. She is looking at pulverised concrete and inventing a weapon to do it. An engineer has analysed her work and pointed out the amount of energy required to do that with such a hypothetical weapon is greater than the total daily energy draw of the entire planet or somesuch. If anyone had such an invisible weapon firing from the heavens they wouldn't be using it just for false flag operations in the US. Similarly, the author with the Stanley Kubrick hypothesis claims the Nazis invented flying saucers with a magical form of propulsion that was not a jet engine -- highly entertaining stuff, you could even make a movie about Nazis on the moon I suppose (!), but beyond the bounds of credibility. Nonetheless his analysis of the Front Screen Projection technique using large Scotchlite sheets is 'illuminating' to say the least.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby Arouet » 27 Nov 2012, 20:27

SydneyPSIder wrote:This should say:

An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that commencing from November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967 by chance alone, given their age and health randomised against a standard population, were one hundred thousand trillion to one. The above comment on the deaths of assassination witnesses was published in a tabloid companion piece to the movie "Executive Action," released in 1973. By that time, part of the mythology of the Kennedy assassination included the mysterious deaths of people who were connected with it. By the mid-1960s, people in Dallas already were whispering about the number of persons who died under strange or questionable circumstances.


No. The analysis should not be "the odds against these witnesses, being dead by February 1967 by chance alone". The analysis should be: given the total number of witnesses, what are the odds that this many witnesses would die by February 1967.

The way they did it is like shuffling a deck of cards and then being amazed that the odds of that particular configuration being dealt is: 8.06582E+67:1.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

New smoking guns in Apollo moon photos!

Postby Scepcop » 28 Nov 2012, 03:21

Skeptics,
Here are some smoking gun photos I found that will make you slap your forehead in embarrassment. You will probably be too embarrassed to speak after this. Take a good hard look at these photos. This will be the clincher that will change your mind if you are on the fence or an Apollo believer.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

4. Buzz Aldrin spotlight photo a smoking gun blunder

The famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing in the spotlight is a giveaway in that he is being lit up in a spotlight from alleged sunlight while the ground around him is in darkness! How can the sun put a spotlight around a particular person like a stagehand pointing a spotlight on an actor or singer on stage?! This was obviously a major screw up, and NASA was reckless for thinking that no one would notice or that they could get away with it. In fact, it was such a blunder that NASA even tried to cover it up by brightening the rest of the surface in subsequent versions of it. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:

Image

Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

Apollo defenders can’t explain this at all, so they’ve resorted to deception by claiming that the edited version is the original. But Jarrah White proved unequivocally that the spotlight version is the original one by showing newspaper clippings from 1969 which showed that one in his YouTube video “Moonfaker: Posing for Portrait”.



5. Distinct line separating foreground from artificial backdrop

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures, and indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example:

Image

Important! Here is a much larger version that I want you to open in a new window and look at closely, because it contains a BIG NEW SMOKING GUN! View this image at its original size, and notice that behind the astronaut the edge of a WHITE CLOTH CANVAS can be seen placed over the dirt! This is a MUST SEE smoking gun that I discovered but don't see mentioned on any other sites yet!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 001114.jpg

8. Sun image on moon turns out to be light bulb in enhanced image

Here is another smoking gun that will make Apollo believers feel foolish and embarrassed. An Apollo image of the alleged sun from the moon’s surface turned out to be a big light bulb upon image enhancement! See images and enhancement below:

Image

Image

9. Lunar rover with no tire tracks on either side

In possibly yet another slip up by NASA are images of the 65 million dollar lunar rovers seen with no tire tracks on either end of it! Was it lowered down from above? It would seem that whoever directed this must have been in a rush on a tight schedule.

Examples:
http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/tracklessrover.jpg
http://www.buckledcranium.com/images/ar ... lo/008.jpg
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo15LunarRover.jpg
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/NASA_Apollo ... ehicle.jpg

Are you guys slapping your heads in embarrassment now? lol
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby Arouet » 28 Nov 2012, 05:27

I'll take a look at what you posted Scepcop, though I honestly haven't looked into the moon landing much. But just to note: its not embarassing to change one's mind based on additional evidence. That's good skepticm - not a cause of shame.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby Arouet » 28 Nov 2012, 06:05

took a quick look at that video - way too technical for me to form an opinon on. But I'm wondering whether they examined whether the added darkness in the newspaper photos could have been an articfact of the copying process into the newspaper? I didn't hear him mention that in the video.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby Misha » 28 Nov 2012, 06:39

I just caught this in Yahoo News. Jarrah White on moonfaker.com goes point by point on the moon rocks issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/mi ... 06269.html
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby Arouet » 28 Nov 2012, 07:45

Believe it or not, people are selling copies of the original newspaper on ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid= ... &_from=R40

Image

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Friday-Aug-1-19 ... 564c30e6e2

Image
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby Arouet » 28 Nov 2012, 07:47

All the pictures (including the one you think was lightened) have darker areas. I'm not sure how the different copiers would deal with it. I know photocopiers can produce dramatically different results of the same image given different settings. But I'm not an expert in this.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New! My Mega Report on Conspiracies - Moon Hoax, JFK, 9/

Postby really? » 28 Nov 2012, 12:45

Why Jarrah White is wrong.
http://as204.blogspot.com/

While looking further for more info on the fellow I noticed scepcop made a few other mentions on other sites.
What perplexes me is why scepcop puts so much faith in Jarrah, a fellow whose age as indicated by photos wasn't even alive until well after the last Moon mission. How can such a self professed expert and youngster have so much knowledge from second hand sources ? It's no different than what scepcop is doing.
Last edited by really? on 28 Nov 2012, 13:16, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

cron