Fake Moon Landings

[Comedy Time]

17 minutes ago, alexa said:

@Comedy Time

 

What do you think about these lot ? I reckon they have it right!

 

 

They and you have one thing in common. Total ignorance of the subject mater.

[alexa]

8 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

They and you have one thing in common. Total ignorance of the subject mater.

 

What do you actually mean by this ???

[Comedy Time]

1 hour ago, alexa said:

 

What do you actually mean by this ???

 

It was written in English, how can it confuse you? 

 

Apollo is the subject matter. Total ignorance of it, means they know nothing about it. You agree with them and you too know nothing about it. If there was anything specifically captivating about those 4 rather useless people talking, point me to it and I'll explain why they are wrong. 

 

I don't anticipate you being able to understand.

[Diesel]

 

[Steph]

On 10/10/2020 at 5:01 PM, Comedy Time said:

 

It was written in English, how can it confuse you? 

 

Apollo is the subject matter. Total ignorance of it, means they know nothing about it. You agree with them and you too know nothing about it. If there was anything specifically captivating about those 4 rather useless people talking, point me to it and I'll explain why they are wrong. 

 

I don't anticipate you being able to understand.

Ignorance and naivity both have regard to not knowing about something. The naive are not ignorant nor are the ignorant naive. To be ignorant of a matter, one muse be ignoring it. There is a verb imbedded in the word expressing some deliberation on the part of an ignorant person. A naive person doesnt know about the earth being round or flat, all they see if what they see with their own eyes. They dont have any specialist information from military organisations like NASA to tell them the world is different shape from how it appears.

 

If they were shown this information and they ignored it, you could then say they were ignorant but could you condemn someone just because they ignore this evidence? What about the victim of an alient abduction who shows a photograph they took with their camera which they managed to conceal from the aliens who abducted them showing a flying saucer which took them above the height of the ISS and the earth look like it was completely flat even from there. You be ignorant to ignore the photo of the flying saucer. Perhaps you notice that this supposed space craft has a bit of flaking paint and you can clearly see the kellogs corn flakes box picture showing up in a corner of the image revealling the flying saucer is actually made of cardboard and you are within your rights to ignore this evidence since it is to your perception a hoax.

 

What about those then who look at astronaughts onboard the ISS being held up by fine strings which are difficult to see but none the less there if you look closely in some of the scenes and theres no explanation for them other than the obvious one that independent fact checkers and all forms of censorship before it would never allow people to talk about too openly if they noticed it. Who is ignorant. The naive person who sees the world as flat as it appears to his eyes. The naive person who sees the world as a big ball as shown to him on TV? The naive person convinced that all questioning the moon landing is false because of one fake video which was revealled to be fake has been seen by them.

 

Ignorance isnt just a lack of information, its a wilful ignoring of information, and if I can see reptiallians and others can see reptillians and theres a whole world out there who say they cannot see anything of such a thing at all, the words of Ben Kenobi come to mind, The truth is very much dependent on the perspective of the speaker.

 

This is ickes forum. In terms of reptillians, your an outsider if you dont believe in them. Would you like some more information or would you like to destroy the community that believes that there are indeed creatures which have a human like skin over them who are green venomous monsters underneath that skin. People who dont believe in reptillians dont believe in vampires either. So long as they cast a reflection in the mirror, that doesnt worry me but as for those I dont see in the mirror who are on this side of the mirror pointing fingers at people saying "vampire vampire" - well that makes some interesting things to look at in a mirror that cant be seen by those so lost within their own self-induldence, they might not realise there are other conscious beings inside those meat suits they keep threatening all the time and its not so easy waking up the people they bully due to their behaviour let alone to giving anything the bully ones other than what the bully deserves.

 

Would you like a silver bullet? What is ignorance really and what is naivity. To be ignorant is to be without an open mind. I am ignorant to things that Tony the phoney and the BBC have to say for themselves. I spent far too long waiting for those people to explain themselves that it came to the point that the silence itself over such a long period of waiting is all the explanation I need and it had gone past time when explanations will be of any use to them even if they did decide to start. They will start at the bottom and for a corporation, the botton is eternal death. As for a man, its life imprisonment with his family fortune fallen to the crown. I am ignorant to anything they have to say anymore. I have good reason though.

 

Who is ignorant of the idea that there is some truth to the story of reptiallians, interdimensional energy beings, global warming hoaxes and Neil Armstrong being the man on the moon when when I look up, the man on the moon has a much fuller face than Neil Armstrong and his face is much more white. May as well laugh at the naive people who call people ignorant while they do not even know the things they do not know and suspect the mysteries of creation are solved already by science but if this was so, then what further need is there for any scientists? Real scientists dont know shit. Its the fact that we are fools that drives us to discover the things we do not know we do not know. Strange there are people who say "science says" and then go on to express the views of a chosen group of scientists, often politically funded or even motivated scientists to back up a very false narrative. By Grabthars Hammer, I will make the sun go dark at the next eclipse with all the conjury in regard to the nature of reality which is the thing that real science studies. Not text books. Not statitstics as chosen by those who present misleading statistics. Science is the art of collecting the statistics, forming the hypothesis, tossing the hypothesis in the bin when it doesnt fit the actual reality itself.

 

Funny how when people says "our best alchemists say the world is flat" everyone believed it because thats what everyone was told. Is it not the same thing when people say "our best scientists say the world is round" and everyone believes it because thats what everyone is told. Theres nothing scientific about this just believing whatever you are told. The ISS has a section on it called Galileo. He is less famous for discovering heliocentrism and more famous for almost being burned at the stake for believing the provable truth about heliocentrism and who amongst those who IGNORED his proof can be recounted as valuable today? They knew nothing about science but with the greedy vain noses stuck firmly up the butt of the Sir Isaac Newtons, they made it appear that their credentials based on cleeky friendships were more valuable than credential based on actual ability to do science itself.

 

Nothing much has changed since galilee where the high priests swan about like the holiest men but the truly holy are amongst the rejects and unsung heros described by the parable of the samaritan. Who wrote MS DOS? It was a computer scientist called ....... No it wasnt that business guy with loads of money who was doing business deals with IBM to sell someone elses code at extortionate prices, it was ......... funny how no one knows that guys name isnt it. His name is known in some circles just like the coronahoax can be seen to be so by anyone blessed with the gift of reason and in those circles, whats the sense of attracting those who are only seeking power as an end in and of itself? As for ignorance of information about the moon landings... thats an interestingly devisive phrase where only the naive could even realise theres any devisiveness in it. Now where are the wolves if we can identify the sheeple?

 

[Comedy Time]

47 minutes ago, Steph said:

Ignorance and naivity both have regard to not knowing about something. The naive are not ignorant nor are the ignorant naive. To be ignorant of a matter, one muse be ignoring it. There is a verb imbedded in the word expressing some deliberation on the part of an ignorant person. A naive person doesnt know about the earth being round or flat, all they see if what they see with their own eyes. They dont have any specialist information from military organisations like NASA to tell them the world is different shape from how it appears.

 

If they were shown this information and they ignored it, you could then say they were ignorant but could you condemn someone just because they ignore this evidence? What about the victim of an alient abduction who shows a photograph they took with their camera which they managed to conceal from the aliens who abducted them showing a flying saucer which took them above the height of the ISS and the earth look like it was completely flat even from there. You be ignorant to ignore the photo of the flying saucer. Perhaps you notice that this supposed space craft has a bit of flaking paint and you can clearly see the kellogs corn flakes box picture showing up in a corner of the image revealling the flying saucer is actually made of cardboard and you are within your rights to ignore this evidence since it is to your perception a hoax.

 

What about those then who look at astronaughts onboard the ISS being held up by fine strings which are difficult to see but none the less there if you look closely in some of the scenes and theres no explanation for them other than the obvious one that independent fact checkers and all forms of censorship before it would never allow people to talk about too openly if they noticed it. Who is ignorant. The naive person who sees the world as flat as it appears to his eyes. The naive person who sees the world as a big ball as shown to him on TV? The naive person convinced that all questioning the moon landing is false because of one fake video which was revealled to be fake has been seen by them.

 

Ignorance isnt just a lack of information, its a wilful ignoring of information, and if I can see reptiallians and others can see reptillians and theres a whole world out there who say they cannot see anything of such a thing at all, the words of Ben Kenobi come to mind, The truth is very much dependent on the perspective of the speaker.

 

This is ickes forum. In terms of reptillians, your an outsider if you dont believe in them. Would you like some more information or would you like to destroy the community that believes that there are indeed creatures which have a human like skin over them who are green venomous monsters underneath that skin. People who dont believe in reptillians dont believe in vampires either. So long as they cast a reflection in the mirror, that doesnt worry me but as for those I dont see in the mirror who are on this side of the mirror pointing fingers at people saying "vampire vampire" - well that makes some interesting things to look at in a mirror that cant be seen by those so lost within their own self-induldence, they might not realise there are other conscious beings inside those meat suits they keep threatening all the time and its not so easy waking up the people they bully due to their behaviour let alone to giving anything the bully ones other than what the bully deserves.

 

Would you like a silver bullet? What is ignorance really and what is naivity. To be ignorant is to be without an open mind. I am ignorant to things that Tony the phoney and the BBC have to say for themselves. I spent far too long waiting for those people to explain themselves that it came to the point that the silence itself over such a long period of waiting is all the explanation I need and it had gone past time when explanations will be of any use to them even if they did decide to start. They will start at the bottom and for a corporation, the botton is eternal death. As for a man, its life imprisonment with his family fortune fallen to the crown. I am ignorant to anything they have to say anymore. I have good reason though.

 

Who is ignorant of the idea that there is some truth to the story of reptiallians, interdimensional energy beings, global warming hoaxes and Neil Armstrong being the man on the moon when when I look up, the man on the moon has a much fuller face than Neil Armstrong and his face is much more white. May as well laugh at the naive people who call people ignorant while they do not even know the things they do not know and suspect the mysteries of creation are solved already by science but if this was so, then what further need is there for any scientists? Real scientists dont know shit. Its the fact that we are fools that drives us to discover the things we do not know we do not know. Strange there are people who say "science says" and then go on to express the views of a chosen group of scientists, often politically funded or even motivated scientists to back up a very false narrative. By Grabthars Hammer, I will make the sun go dark at the next eclipse with all the conjury in regard to the nature of reality which is the thing that real science studies. Not text books. Not statitstics as chosen by those who present misleading statistics. Science is the art of collecting the statistics, forming the hypothesis, tossing the hypothesis in the bin when it doesnt fit the actual reality itself.

 

Funny how when people says "our best alchemists say the world is flat" everyone believed it because thats what everyone was told. Is it not the same thing when people say "our best scientists say the world is round" and everyone believes it because thats what everyone is told. Theres nothing scientific about this just believing whatever you are told. The ISS has a section on it called Galileo. He is less famous for discovering heliocentrism and more famous for almost being burned at the stake for believing the provable truth about heliocentrism and who amongst those who IGNORED his proof can be recounted as valuable today? They knew nothing about science but with the greedy vain noses stuck firmly up the butt of the Sir Isaac Newtons, they made it appear that their credentials based on cleeky friendships were more valuable than credential based on actual ability to do science itself.

 

Nothing much has changed since galilee where the high priests swan about like the holiest men but the truly holy are amongst the rejects and unsung heros described by the parable of the samaritan. Who wrote MS DOS? It was a computer scientist called ....... No it wasnt that business guy with loads of money who was doing business deals with IBM to sell someone elses code at extortionate prices, it was ......... funny how no one knows that guys name isnt it. His name is known in some circles just like the coronahoax can be seen to be so by anyone blessed with the gift of reason and in those circles, whats the sense of attracting those who are only seeking power as an end in and of itself? As for ignorance of information about the moon landings... thats an interestingly devisive phrase where only the naive could even realise theres any devisiveness in it. Now where are the wolves if we can identify the sheeple?

 

 

 

Kerrrist on a bloody bike. Lots of words lots of bollocks.

 

I missed one single salient point there.

 

Sunset. Flat earth done. ISS no wires....just idiotic observation. 

 

 

 

[Comedy Time]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

 

 

Whackamole. An endless conveyor belt of the same shite over and over.

 

Pick one thing in that video then bloody google 15 years of the same hair tearing debunks for it.

 

Or watch this tear some of it to bits..

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Comedy Time

[Steph]

14 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

 

Kerrrist on a bloody bike. Lots of words lots of bollocks.

 

I missed one single salient point there.

 

Sunset. Flat earth done. ISS no wires....just idiotic observation. 

 

 

 

You mean it was tl;dr so you just IGNORED it. Thats ignorant.  I dont condemn ignorance as theres alot of screeds that just waste minutes of your life. But the salient point is, that those who ignore evidence of theatrical things involved in the space race are more ignorant than those who know the space narrative and revisit the flat earth. They ignore nothing but in their stage of belief in the space race narrative they are naive to all evidence which disputes such narrative. Having taken aboard ALL information, both the highly publicised and the suppressed and concealled, true seekers of the philosophers stone might come to some conclusion in an understanding that all true philosphers acknowledge their own stupidity in truly knowing nothing.

 

The sophists are unlike this. They declare themself to be the wisest of the wise but as new evidence arrives and the mere idiots are held up on the hardened fortress of the truth itself, how wise are he wise when the creation of almighty god makes the true philosophers acknowledging their own stupidity in the face of all there is to be the wisest of all the wise. Of course the world is flat, everyone knows that! Of course the world is round, everyone knows that! I dont know what shape the world is. It looks flat to me when I look toward the horizon. Theres people who watch TV who say its round but they dont even notice the way the sunshine hits the moon. Thats beyond weird that. Theres no way that light can be a reflection of the sun, you only have to look at reality to see what I mean, but those people staring at TV, well what do they know? The light will never dawn on them about the basic visible reality beyond their televisions. Theyve never noticed the moon and yet they know everything about landing on it? I think the earth might be a doughnut in a set of dimensions beyond the first three where human belief systems based on lies goes round in circles and circles and circles and no one dares to even look a the actual reality for what it is since the are so busy looking at reality for the way it has been so badly described by people who havent even looked at the sky with their own eyes.

[Comedy Time]

26 minutes ago, Steph said:

You mean it was tl;dr so you just IGNORED it. Thats ignorant.  I dont condemn ignorance as theres alot of screeds that just waste minutes of your life. But the salient point is, that those who ignore evidence of theatrical things involved in the space race are more ignorant than those who know the space narrative and revisit the flat earth. They ignore nothing but in their stage of belief in the space race narrative they are naive to all evidence which disputes such narrative. Having taken aboard ALL information, both the highly publicised and the suppressed and concealled, true seekers of the philosophers stone might come to some conclusion in an understanding that all true philosphers acknowledge their own stupidity in truly knowing nothing.

 

The sophists are unlike this. They declare themself to be the wisest of the wise but as new evidence arrives and the mere idiots are held up on the hardened fortress of the truth itself, how wise are he wise when the creation of almighty god makes the true philosophers acknowledging their own stupidity in the face of all there is to be the wisest of all the wise. Of course the world is flat, everyone knows that! Of course the world is round, everyone knows that! I dont know what shape the world is. It looks flat to me when I look toward the horizon. Theres people who watch TV who say its round but they dont even notice the way the sunshine hits the moon. Thats beyond weird that. Theres no way that light can be a reflection of the sun, you only have to look at reality to see what I mean, but those people staring at TV, well what do they know? The light will never dawn on them about the basic visible reality beyond their televisions. Theyve never noticed the moon and yet they know everything about landing on it? I think the earth might be a doughnut in a set of dimensions beyond the first three where human belief systems based on lies goes round in circles and circles and circles and no one dares to even look a the actual reality for what it is since the are so busy looking at reality for the way it has been so badly described by people who havent even looked at the sky with their own eyes.

 

 

No I read it. It was garbage. So was that one. Make one salient point and I'll kick your butt. Throw a load of daft crap up and well....I'll just tell you it's daft crap.

 

[Red pill taken]

I think maybe a forum rename Comedy time  krushes all! 

Nah  that would be quite a rigid place. 

Not to get personal but I read both of stephs post which I thought were very good.. 

Your reply .. garbage... really 

You seem to be proper straight up fact machine! 

The thing about " free will" is people can believe what they like, believing a completely different thing than yourself or most, may make them an idiot in your eyes but hey the world needs idiots, so you can explain for over 6 months the same thing over and over! 

For all the videos and all the books, the websites, all the research...

 

have you been to space?

 

I would say no?

So you don't really know yourself do.you.

 

[Steph]

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is a bloke from India who believes he (and many others) have the ability to travel to other planets by an innate mechanism inherent in human beingness which works like a startrek transporter... without the electronics, the woo woo noise or any dilithium crystals. When I first read this I thought, 'what a load of rubbish, you need a rocket to get into the heavens'. I was only 16.

 

Ive managed to build a transporter but the problem is I cant get it to transport my body, only my soul. Does anyone have a space travel manual I can borrow as this thing isnt working the way I thought it would.

[Comedy Time]

8 hours ago, Red pill taken said:

I think maybe a forum rename Comedy time  krushes all! 

Nah  that would be quite a rigid place. 

Not to get personal but I read both of stephs post which I thought were very good.. 

Your reply .. garbage... really 

You seem to be proper straight up fact machine! 

The thing about " free will" is people can believe what they like, believing a completely different thing than yourself or most, may make them an idiot in your eyes but hey the world needs idiots, so you can explain for over 6 months the same thing over and over! 

For all the videos and all the books, the websites, all the research...

 

have you been to space?

 

I would say no?

So you don't really know yourself do.you.

 

 

Great post, got any evidence relevant to the topic? I don't need to go to space to analyse evidence of people who landed on the Moon. I actually know a quite substantial amount on this subject and even that is a fraction of all there is to know. But hoax believers know only the daft videos they suck up or comments from people who have sucked them up.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Comedy Time

[alexa]

1 hour ago, Comedy Time said:

I actually know a quite substantial amount on this subject

 You really do remind me of someone else I used to know of, he also thought he knew all there was to know about the Apollo 69 moon landing which by the way was so daft & badly filmed. How anyone can believe this crap is beyond me. 

[Comedy Time]

Just now, alexa said:

 You really do remind me of someone else I used to know of, he also thought he knew all there was to know about the Apollo 69 moon landing which by the way was so daft & badly filmed. How anyone can believe this crap is beyond me. 

 

Ah bless I keep reminding you of someone. You think there was only one landing? You think the video is the only evidence?

 

Everything is beyond you.

 

Type something specific and I shall address it.

[alexa]

5 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

Ah bless I keep reminding you of someone. You think there was only one landing? You think the video is the only evidence?

 

I don't care if they say there were a thousand landings, it still wouldn't change the truth that we have never landed on the moon. 

[Comedy Time]

21 minutes ago, alexa said:

I don't care if they say there were a thousand landings, it still wouldn't change the truth that we have never landed on the moon. 

 

You didn't know. And please, must I repeat myself? You and the truth are not best friends. You have been misled by the oldest deceit in human history.....religion. And now you are being mislead by some of the newest....tin-foil-hattery.

 

Now present a piece of evidence or find another thread to dump your nonsense into?

 

I've seen some cast iron world-ain't-flat posts totally ignored by you with no excuses, so if I offered you anything on this thread it would get the same result. I can prove beyond doubt that we landed on the Moon to a rational intelligent person, or somebody prepared to look at things objectively. Not you though, you have proven yourself unreachable by any debate.

[alexa]

 

A few comments below about this vid;

 

Deborah Birx2 months ago

The biggest lie in human history... Coronavirus has entered the chat.

580

 

REPLY

View 29 replies

P. Nick Brunson7 months ago

Just wait until they visit the sun! Don't worry, they'll go at night when it's cooler.

1K  

 

REPLY

View 14 replies

Brosky 19984 months ago

The fact that this dude has to pretend like he’s joking to discuss a theory shows how bad the state of censorship has gotten on YouTube

118

 

REPLY

View 19 replies

Edited October 16, 2020 by alexa

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

I can prove beyond doubt that we landed on the Moon to a rational intelligent person, or somebody prepared to look at things objectively.

Please explain how the shadows in Apollo Landing Photos converge at different angles when compared to shadows under direct sunlight that run in parallel. 

[Comedy Time]

55 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Please explain how the shadows in Apollo Landing Photos converge at different angles when compared to shadows under direct sunlight that run in parallel. 

 

Certainly. Just one small request first...(after you provide a specific example)...

 

Draw the light diagram from ANY light source that does this. Because nearfield light sources produce shadows that DIVERGE. Only when it gets quite some distance does the divergence angle come close to the parallel of the sun. There is NO studio single source light that illuminates such a vast area evenly.

[Diesel]

13 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Certainly. Just one small request first...(after you provide a specific example)...

 

Sure... 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Draw the light diagram from ANY light source that does this. Because nearfield light sources produce shadows that DIVERGE. Only when it gets quite some distance does the divergence angle come close to the parallel of the sun. There is NO studio single source light that illuminates such a vast area evenly.

Agreed. Only a light source quite some distance produce parallel shadows ie. the sun. A studio light would produce divergence as shown in the above photo

[Comedy Time]

7 hours ago, Diesel said:

Sure... 

 

 

Agreed. Only a light source quite some distance produce parallel shadows ie. the sun. A studio light would produce divergence as shown in the above photo

 

Ok, so all the "examples" on the internet where the rays appear to converge are caused by 1 or both of two things. Variation in the terrain, such as craters or small undulations or by the object itself not being vertical.

 

Anyway, back to your example. It's perspective and variable terrain. The LM shadow is being cast in roughly the same direction as the undulating ground where the rocks are casting theirs.

 

 

Terrain and angle make the shadows change - very brief video:

 

 

Seal the deal? Mythbusters analysed that very photo..

 

 

 

 

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

Seal the deal? Mythbusters analysed that very photo..

 

Mythbusters replicated the photo under artificial light in a studio. They did not replicate it under the sun. I fail to see what they have proved. A single light source can produce divergent shadows but the sun produces parallel shadows. Your other example is better although the angle of the rock is acute.

[Comedy Time]

3 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Mythbusters replicated the photo under artificial light in a studio. They did not replicate it under the sun. I fail to see what they have proved. A single light source can produce divergent shadows but the sun produces parallel shadows. Your other example is better although the angle of the rock is acute.

 

Mythbusters used a light some distance away from the miniature setup. It was basically one light source as it must be, but far enough away so that the angle was close to parallel. There is not a light source in existence apart from the Sun that can evenly light massive areas of terrain whilst still maintaining single crisp shadows that follow parallel paths.

 

Find me another Apollo example with divergent shadows please. You may struggle....but if you do, remember this...

 

 

here's more on that example you gave...

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/05/55-why-arent-shadows-parallel.html

[Diesel]

11 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

Find me another Apollo example with divergent shadows please. You may struggle....but if you do, remember this...

Sure...

 

 

[Comedy Time]

8 hours ago, Diesel said:

Sure...

 

 

 

They are "converging" and that is impossible with a studio light anyway.  The terrain is uneven and perspective is in play.