Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17-12-2018, 02:14 AM   #1
truth seeker 09
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,844
Likes: 1,734 (1,002 Posts)
Default Moon landings happened but Kubrick was hired to direct a "backup" film

NASA whistleblower: We did go to the Moon but Stanley Kubrick was hired to direct a "backup" film in case the Moon landings would fail.

The Moore Show:

Ken Johnston Sr was one of four Civilian Astronaut Consultant Pilots from the Apollo Moon Program. Ken is a retired aerospace worker, served as a US Marine, and is a well-known NASA Whistle-blower.

Ken is well known because he was a witness to history, to NASA image manipulation, and he saved an archive of early Apollo-era photos that are original to the time before NASA digitized and created an on-line database of images. Johnston used a loophole in the orders he was given to destroy five sets of 10"x8" glossy photo prints from the Apollo program. When he worked in the Data and Photo Control Lab in Houston during the moon missions, he saved a set for his own records.

His archive is prized by researchers and lunar anomaly hunters because it has been discovered that there has been an intentional, systematic, physical and digital manipulation of NASA imagery and media in order to cover up what was found on the moon and recorded in film and photos by the Apollo astronauts.

NASA Whistle blower, Moon Landings Revealing The "Dark Mission" of NASA, Structures On The Moon

Skip to 14:30


Last edited by truth seeker 09; 17-12-2018 at 02:26 AM.
truth seeker 09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2018, 02:49 AM   #2
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,954 (2,159 Posts)
Default

This video has already been posted elsewhere ...I guess ts thought it deserved a thread of it's own ... He's probably right .

This is a man who was active in NASA at the time of the landings ... says he Knows Kubrick made a back up film "in case something went wrong" ... but it was never used .

He says photos like these are proof that we went to the moon ....



lol ... photos a child could fake !

Luckily the interviewer is very smart and asks some very awkward questions , in the 5 mins from 14:30 onward his story falls apart , 15:40 he squirms and fumbles ... very embarrassing ..... his story is full of logical inconsistencies which I can go into in more detail if required ....

There are two possibilities...

Either he believes what he's saying ( but is a bit stupid) he doesn't want to believe Apollo was fake ... he stumbled upon kubrick's fake film , but supervisors told him "oh we never used it" .... lol

Or he's knowingly being deceptive ....he's put out there by NASA to add confusion , and chip away at the increasing number of people who know Apollo was faked.

@ 25 mins onward he covers 'alien bases on the back side of the moon' ... he saw technicians airbrush them out from the pictures before being released to the public .... Of course there ARE bases on the moon , and people who are aware of this are also the type who believe Apollo was fake , so NASA put this into the mix to make Ken's story more believable to conspiracy type people....

The more I watch of the video , the more convinced I am this is a deliberate NASA operation to confuse people ...

Kubrick did fake the film ... there are alien (and human) bases on the moon ... Apollo did not put men on the moon.

@ 48:40 he talks about the SSP !! He says some images from Apollo indicated human constructions ... that humans were already on the moon with the Secret Space Program ... He's correct they were!

@ 50:00 ... he covers Eisenhower's meeting with aliens!

This interview is a maze of truth and deception ... It shows the controllers are preparing us for disclosure ... they don't mind us knowing about aliens , bases on the moon , the SSP .... but they don't want us knowing Apollo was faked!
Likes: (1)
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2018, 06:59 PM   #3
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Spam thread: I answered this in post 405 on the other thread.

https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=405

So, about "doctoring the photos", I asked an expert on the subject Gonetoplaid, here is his reply:

"There are several reasons why it would be impossible to doctor the LROC images. I will list the various reasons, in no particular order, as I think of them:

1. The LRO Team, not NASA, controls the LRO. The LRO mission control center is on the campus at Arizona State University. Thus it is the LRO Team who schedules what targets the LRO shoots, and when. Not sure, but I believe that these target commands are uploaded to the LRO on a daily basis.

2. There is no way to upload images to the LRO.

3. Jarrah believes that the LRO images of the landing sites are doctored after they are transmitted to earth. The problem with that theory is that the LRO transmits around 280 GB of data back to earth every day. This data is transmitted as analog data by the LRO's Ka band antenna, is received at White Sands and converted from analog to digital data on-the-fly, and then the data is piped directly to the LRO mission control center at ASU. If NASA or any other entity were to take the time to doctor LRO images of the landing sites, then the LRO team would certainly notice the delay when receiving LRO images of the landing sites.

4. Let's imagine the impossible -- toss out 1 through 3 -- and assume that the LRO images of the landing sites somehow are doctored before they arrive at ASU. Here are the technical hurtles which would have to be overcome. They could be overcome, but only if you took a lot of time, as in a couple of days:

4a. All fake Apollo hardware must be positioned with sub-pixel accuracy. It would be very easy to tell if this wasn't done, simply by 2x or 4x bicubic resampling LRO images of the landing sites and then overlaying the images.

4b. The LRO almost always has to be slewed towards the east or west in order to look at the landing sites. This is because the LRO rarely passes directly over a landing site. This now imposes the need to make sure that viewing perspective of the fake Apollo hardware overlaid on the LRO images is correct.

4c. And now one would have to fake the shadows cast by the fake Apollo hardware. That would be very difficult to accurately accomplish since of course the lunar terrain is far from level at the half meter scale.

4d. Even after all of the above, faking the Apollo hardware -- especially the shadows of said hardware, becomes very difficult. Why? Because each NAC CCD is read out by first reading out all of the even numbered pixels (called the A channel) and then reading out all of the odd numbered pixels (the B channel). The problem is that this readout method (which is slightly faster than reading out the entire row of pixels) introduces the pattern of dark 1 pixel wide bands seen in the LRO images. This banding pattern is non-linear in terms of brightness for a variety of reasons, but my point is that trying to overlay a "correct" banding pattern on top of the fake hardware now becomes virtually impossible due to issues which I will describe further below.

5. Each of the LRO's Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) optical systems consists of an 8" aperture 700 mm focal length Ritchie-Chretien telescope with a group of field corrector lenses placed ahead of the focal plane. The field corrector lenses are mounted in a metal assembly in similar fashion to the way that lenses are mounted in older camera lenses which featured all metal mechanical construction. Temperature changes which occur when the LRO passes from the sunlit side to the dark side of the moon cause these lens elements to creep around very slightly, on the order of a few ten thousandths of an inch. This results in very slight random optical decentering.which in turn produces a very slightly different PSF function for LRO images taken each time the LRO's orbit shifts back to the sunlit side of the moon.

5a. It would be impossible for me to get the results which I do when deconvolving and enhancing the LRO images of the landing sites if the PSF function for the "fake" overlaid Apollo hardware didn't match the PSF function for the rest of the image. There is no getting around this issue. If a somewhat incorrect PSF function was applied to the "fake" image data to be overlaid, then the fake image data would stand out like a sore thumb as showing either an obviously incorrect deconvolution result or showing slight trailing in a random direction compared to the rest of the image.

5b. Image deconvolution involves the use of a PSF which is either calculated from the image (takes a while to do), or which is present in the image itself. For PSFs, I select and use one of the small pieces of highly reflective Kapton film which was blown off the LM descent stage when the ascent stage lifted off. The PSF of one of these pieces of Kapton film usually involves at least 10 to 20 pixels of PSF data. That is a lot of PSF data which one would need to generate not only for each pixel of the fake image to be overlaid, but which also must be fully merged into the actual PSF data of the original image. This would have to be pulled off with 64-bit depth precision since I perform image deconvolution at 32-bit depth precision. In other words, some serious number crunching would be involved in order to make sure that the fake overlaid image is not detectable.

5c. Assuming that, somehow, issues 5a and 5b are tackled, and after taking the time to test the results, then one would have to tackle the repeating electronic noise patterns which are present in every LRO image. The placement of these repeating electronic noise patterns are random since the noise patterns come from all of the electronics on-board the LRO itself. Want to see the noise patterns? Simply use Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis. The upshot is that the repeating electronic noise patterns, present in the rest of the original image, would have to be incorporated into the fake image of the Apollo hardware which was to be overlaid onto the original LRO image. But wait...one would have to do this, while at the same time factoring in the issues mentioned in 5a and 5b! And each LRO image contains a few hundred repeating electronic noise patterns from transistors, diodes, capacitors, various circuits, other instruments, and the LRO's Ka band antenna. Lots of stuff, all very faint, but readily visible using FFT analysis.

6. Okay, now let's assume that somebody takes the time to address all of issues described in 4 through 5. The best way to actually fake the Apollo hardware would be to, and if you had plenty of time...

-- decompand the original LRO image,
-- then fully calibrate the original LRO image,
-- then to use FFT to identify and remove all of the original electronic noise patterns in the original image,
-- then to simulate the perspective of the fake Apollo hardware which one wishes to overlay,
-- then to simulate the shadows of the fake hardware in the fake image which one wishes to overlay while at the same time taking into account the terrain of the original image and making the shadow patterns correctly match to at least at or better than the image scale which generally is around 0.5 meters,
-- then properly simulate the effects of the A and B channel vertical nonlinear CCD readout patterns in the fake image,
-- then overlay the fake image of the Apollo hardware onto the original LRO image,
-- then reapply the original image's electronic noise pattern,
-- then de-calibrate the image,
-- then re-compand the image,
-- then insert all of the original LRO spacecraft data which was sent along with the original image's data stream,
-- then calculate and apply new but fake checksums for both the image and the data stream,
-- and finally, then send the fake image to the LRO Team's mission control center at Arizona State University,
-- and then come up with a reasonable explanation for the LRO Team as to why, each time the LRO images one of the Apollo landing sites, that the resulting image is mysteriously delayed for several hours or days in order to accomplish all of the above, to simply to keep alive some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax which other countries would be able to prove within a decade, if not much sooner.

7. Obviously the dozens of scientists and researchers involved with the LRO, if one is to believe conspiracy theorists, would have to be "in" on the conspiracy -- more than 40 years later. That is beyond being patently absurd.

8. On average, every year roughly a half dozen research papers are published which reveal new and completely unique findings related to studies of the moon rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts. Findings which are impossible to duplicate, unless one is willing to believe that to this day research scientists are part of some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax conspiracy.

9. You can't bounce data off of the LRO. You would have to bounce data off of the moon itself since LRO's reflectivity in radio wavelengths is several orders of magnitude less than the moon. Any Ka band (since that is what the LRO uses) transmitter strong enough to bounce a fake signal off of the moon in order to simulate the LRO's Ka band transmission to earth would be picked up by radio astronomers around the world, and they would be very pissed off due to the interference with their work.

Every LRO image of an Apollo landing site is unique. By this, I mean that the solar altitude above the terrain, the direction of solar incidence onto the terrain and direction of solar emission off of the terrain, and the LRO's viewing perspective when looking at an Apollo landing site and surrounding terrain always is unique for each image. Thus, I just realized that absolutely everything in the LRO image would have to be faked if the fake image were to somehow be uploaded to the LRO prior to the LRO team commanding the LRO to actually image one of the Apollo landing sites. In order to do this, one would have to have a DTM of the terrain with better than 1/2 meter accuracy in terms of both the position and altitude for every single object in the image. That is one hell of a huge swath of terrain to model down to 1/2 meter accuracy in both position and elevation in a DTM. To do so would require at least several dozen LRO images of each landing site over a several year period, combined with supercomputer crunching of all of the image data. So far the best LRO DTMs produced from NAC images have accuracies in the neighborhood of around 5 meters -- far short of what would be needed to properly simulate the height of every object plus the shadow direction and shadow length cast by every object in the image. The altitude component of a NAC DTM is what has by far the least resolution and thus the most amount of error. And this is just to fake one single LRO image. In a nutshell, I realize now that it is utterly impossible to fake a LRO image and upload it to the LRO beforehand."

You don't get HB experts in fields such as this. If they are experts they know Apollo landed on the Moon
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2018, 07:00 PM   #4
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Oz ignored the reply and said he wasn't going to respond to me...I followed up with...

Of course you aren't. I will just show you up again. You make claims then run away.

So, the pics you claim a child could do? You can't do one

The reasons why it couldn't be done? Totally ignored.

Why Kubrick on a static camera? No response.

How they faked the lunar gravity? No clue, no response.

You are nothing but a repeater of total and utter bilge. You offer nothing but the word of charlatans. As I said, "oz says diddly squat".

Which ironically says everything
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2018, 05:58 PM   #5
spoiltvictorian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 300
Likes: 136 (74 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
....

There are two possibilities...
There are 4 possibilities.
3. He's mad as a brush
4. He's attention seeking, probably for money.

I go for 3+4
__________________
“Objection is when I say: this doesn’t suit me. Resistance is when I make sure that what doesn’t suit me never happens again.” ~ Ulrike Meinhof
spoiltvictorian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2018, 07:34 PM   #6
hokuspokus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,457
Likes: 449 (272 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
This video has already been posted elsewhere ...I guess ts thought it deserved a thread of it's own ... He's probably right .

This is a man who was active in NASA at the time of the landings ... says he Knows Kubrick made a back up film "in case something went wrong" ... but it was never used .

He says photos like these are proof that we went to the moon ....



lol ... photos a child could fake !

Luckily the interviewer is very smart and asks some very awkward questions , in the 5 mins from 14:30 onward his story falls apart , 15:40 he squirms and fumbles ... very embarrassing ..... his story is full of logical inconsistencies which I can go into in more detail if required ....

There are two possibilities...

Either he believes what he's saying ( but is a bit stupid) he doesn't want to believe Apollo was fake ... he stumbled upon kubrick's fake film , but supervisors told him "oh we never used it" .... lol

Or he's knowingly being deceptive ....he's put out there by NASA to add confusion , and chip away at the increasing number of people who know Apollo was faked.

@ 25 mins onward he covers 'alien bases on the back side of the moon' ... he saw technicians airbrush them out from the pictures before being released to the public .... Of course there ARE bases on the moon , and people who are aware of this are also the type who believe Apollo was fake , so NASA put this into the mix to make Ken's story more believable to conspiracy type people....

The more I watch of the video , the more convinced I am this is a deliberate NASA operation to confuse people ...

Kubrick did fake the film ... there are alien (and human) bases on the moon ... Apollo did not put men on the moon.

@ 48:40 he talks about the SSP !! He says some images from Apollo indicated human constructions ... that humans were already on the moon with the Secret Space Program ... He's correct they were!

@ 50:00 ... he covers Eisenhower's meeting with aliens!

This interview is a maze of truth and deception ... It shows the controllers are preparing us for disclosure ... they don't mind us knowing about aliens , bases on the moon , the SSP .... but they don't want us knowing Apollo was faked!
Good shout Oz.

Don't let the resident shill\troll stop you from putting your
point of view\ opinion across.
hokuspokus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2018, 10:38 PM   #7
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Spam thread: I answered this in post 405 on the other thread.

https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=405

So, about "doctoring the photos", I asked an expert on the subject Gonetoplaid, here is his reply:

"There are several reasons why it would be impossible to doctor the LROC images. I will list the various reasons, in no particular order, as I think of them:

1. The LRO Team, not NASA, controls the LRO. The LRO mission control center is on the campus at Arizona State University. Thus it is the LRO Team who schedules what targets the LRO shoots, and when. Not sure, but I believe that these target commands are uploaded to the LRO on a daily basis.

2. There is no way to upload images to the LRO.

3. Jarrah believes that the LRO images of the landing sites are doctored after they are transmitted to earth. The problem with that theory is that the LRO transmits around 280 GB of data back to earth every day. This data is transmitted as analog data by the LRO's Ka band antenna, is received at White Sands and converted from analog to digital data on-the-fly, and then the data is piped directly to the LRO mission control center at ASU. If NASA or any other entity were to take the time to doctor LRO images of the landing sites, then the LRO team would certainly notice the delay when receiving LRO images of the landing sites.

4. Let's imagine the impossible -- toss out 1 through 3 -- and assume that the LRO images of the landing sites somehow are doctored before they arrive at ASU. Here are the technical hurtles which would have to be overcome. They could be overcome, but only if you took a lot of time, as in a couple of days:

4a. All fake Apollo hardware must be positioned with sub-pixel accuracy. It would be very easy to tell if this wasn't done, simply by 2x or 4x bicubic resampling LRO images of the landing sites and then overlaying the images.

4b. The LRO almost always has to be slewed towards the east or west in order to look at the landing sites. This is because the LRO rarely passes directly over a landing site. This now imposes the need to make sure that viewing perspective of the fake Apollo hardware overlaid on the LRO images is correct.

4c. And now one would have to fake the shadows cast by the fake Apollo hardware. That would be very difficult to accurately accomplish since of course the lunar terrain is far from level at the half meter scale.

4d. Even after all of the above, faking the Apollo hardware -- especially the shadows of said hardware, becomes very difficult. Why? Because each NAC CCD is read out by first reading out all of the even numbered pixels (called the A channel) and then reading out all of the odd numbered pixels (the B channel). The problem is that this readout method (which is slightly faster than reading out the entire row of pixels) introduces the pattern of dark 1 pixel wide bands seen in the LRO images. This banding pattern is non-linear in terms of brightness for a variety of reasons, but my point is that trying to overlay a "correct" banding pattern on top of the fake hardware now becomes virtually impossible due to issues which I will describe further below.

5. Each of the LRO's Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) optical systems consists of an 8" aperture 700 mm focal length Ritchie-Chretien telescope with a group of field corrector lenses placed ahead of the focal plane. The field corrector lenses are mounted in a metal assembly in similar fashion to the way that lenses are mounted in older camera lenses which featured all metal mechanical construction. Temperature changes which occur when the LRO passes from the sunlit side to the dark side of the moon cause these lens elements to creep around very slightly, on the order of a few ten thousandths of an inch. This results in very slight random optical decentering.which in turn produces a very slightly different PSF function for LRO images taken each time the LRO's orbit shifts back to the sunlit side of the moon.

5a. It would be impossible for me to get the results which I do when deconvolving and enhancing the LRO images of the landing sites if the PSF function for the "fake" overlaid Apollo hardware didn't match the PSF function for the rest of the image. There is no getting around this issue. If a somewhat incorrect PSF function was applied to the "fake" image data to be overlaid, then the fake image data would stand out like a sore thumb as showing either an obviously incorrect deconvolution result or showing slight trailing in a random direction compared to the rest of the image.

5b. Image deconvolution involves the use of a PSF which is either calculated from the image (takes a while to do), or which is present in the image itself. For PSFs, I select and use one of the small pieces of highly reflective Kapton film which was blown off the LM descent stage when the ascent stage lifted off. The PSF of one of these pieces of Kapton film usually involves at least 10 to 20 pixels of PSF data. That is a lot of PSF data which one would need to generate not only for each pixel of the fake image to be overlaid, but which also must be fully merged into the actual PSF data of the original image. This would have to be pulled off with 64-bit depth precision since I perform image deconvolution at 32-bit depth precision. In other words, some serious number crunching would be involved in order to make sure that the fake overlaid image is not detectable.

5c. Assuming that, somehow, issues 5a and 5b are tackled, and after taking the time to test the results, then one would have to tackle the repeating electronic noise patterns which are present in every LRO image. The placement of these repeating electronic noise patterns are random since the noise patterns come from all of the electronics on-board the LRO itself. Want to see the noise patterns? Simply use Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis. The upshot is that the repeating electronic noise patterns, present in the rest of the original image, would have to be incorporated into the fake image of the Apollo hardware which was to be overlaid onto the original LRO image. But wait...one would have to do this, while at the same time factoring in the issues mentioned in 5a and 5b! And each LRO image contains a few hundred repeating electronic noise patterns from transistors, diodes, capacitors, various circuits, other instruments, and the LRO's Ka band antenna. Lots of stuff, all very faint, but readily visible using FFT analysis.

6. Okay, now let's assume that somebody takes the time to address all of issues described in 4 through 5. The best way to actually fake the Apollo hardware would be to, and if you had plenty of time...

-- decompand the original LRO image,
-- then fully calibrate the original LRO image,
-- then to use FFT to identify and remove all of the original electronic noise patterns in the original image,
-- then to simulate the perspective of the fake Apollo hardware which one wishes to overlay,
-- then to simulate the shadows of the fake hardware in the fake image which one wishes to overlay while at the same time taking into account the terrain of the original image and making the shadow patterns correctly match to at least at or better than the image scale which generally is around 0.5 meters,
-- then properly simulate the effects of the A and B channel vertical nonlinear CCD readout patterns in the fake image,
-- then overlay the fake image of the Apollo hardware onto the original LRO image,
-- then reapply the original image's electronic noise pattern,
-- then de-calibrate the image,
-- then re-compand the image,
-- then insert all of the original LRO spacecraft data which was sent along with the original image's data stream,
-- then calculate and apply new but fake checksums for both the image and the data stream,
-- and finally, then send the fake image to the LRO Team's mission control center at Arizona State University,
-- and then come up with a reasonable explanation for the LRO Team as to why, each time the LRO images one of the Apollo landing sites, that the resulting image is mysteriously delayed for several hours or days in order to accomplish all of the above, to simply to keep alive some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax which other countries would be able to prove within a decade, if not much sooner.

7. Obviously the dozens of scientists and researchers involved with the LRO, if one is to believe conspiracy theorists, would have to be "in" on the conspiracy -- more than 40 years later. That is beyond being patently absurd.

8. On average, every year roughly a half dozen research papers are published which reveal new and completely unique findings related to studies of the moon rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts. Findings which are impossible to duplicate, unless one is willing to believe that to this day research scientists are part of some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax conspiracy.

9. You can't bounce data off of the LRO. You would have to bounce data off of the moon itself since LRO's reflectivity in radio wavelengths is several orders of magnitude less than the moon. Any Ka band (since that is what the LRO uses) transmitter strong enough to bounce a fake signal off of the moon in order to simulate the LRO's Ka band transmission to earth would be picked up by radio astronomers around the world, and they would be very pissed off due to the interference with their work.

Every LRO image of an Apollo landing site is unique. By this, I mean that the solar altitude above the terrain, the direction of solar incidence onto the terrain and direction of solar emission off of the terrain, and the LRO's viewing perspective when looking at an Apollo landing site and surrounding terrain always is unique for each image. Thus, I just realized that absolutely everything in the LRO image would have to be faked if the fake image were to somehow be uploaded to the LRO prior to the LRO team commanding the LRO to actually image one of the Apollo landing sites. In order to do this, one would have to have a DTM of the terrain with better than 1/2 meter accuracy in terms of both the position and altitude for every single object in the image. That is one hell of a huge swath of terrain to model down to 1/2 meter accuracy in both position and elevation in a DTM. To do so would require at least several dozen LRO images of each landing site over a several year period, combined with supercomputer crunching of all of the image data. So far the best LRO DTMs produced from NAC images have accuracies in the neighborhood of around 5 meters -- far short of what would be needed to properly simulate the height of every object plus the shadow direction and shadow length cast by every object in the image. The altitude component of a NAC DTM is what has by far the least resolution and thus the most amount of error. And this is just to fake one single LRO image. In a nutshell, I realize now that it is utterly impossible to fake a LRO image and upload it to the LRO beforehand."

You don't get HB experts in fields such as this. If they are experts they know Apollo landed on the Moon
I really think that all truth seekers should listen to solid independent experts. I cannot think of any legitimate reason not to.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2018, 03:01 AM   #8
kaito9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 612
Likes: 278 (182 Posts)
Default

Humans secretly went to the moon way before Apollo moon missions ever took place. Apollo spacecraft never went to the moon as it would be suicide with 60's technology. Even today's technology available to the public is not advanced enough to get man on the moon. Rockets will never take man beyond low earth orbit. You need electrogravitics and aether based technologies for space travel which are largely kept undisclosed.





__________________
Time is Knowledge.
From Knowledge comes Wisdom.
Wisdom leads to Action.

Last edited by kaito9; 25-12-2018 at 03:03 AM.
kaito9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2018, 06:07 AM   #9
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,954 (2,159 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
I really think that all truth seekers should listen to solid independent experts. I cannot think of any legitimate reason not to.
Oh yeah !... brilliant ! Don't think for yourself , just believe the 'experts', the professionals ....

The doctors who tell you vaccines and chemo is the way to go ... the dentists who tell you fluoride is wonderful , the global warming professionals.

And above all the politicians ... they know best , and if they want to bomb Syria or some other country , there must be a good reason which we mere mortals don't get .

The experts are no smarter than anyone else , and have been programmed by the Cabal's dogma .... most of them believe it themselves , the few who do have doubts immediately self sensor .. their career is at stake , any doctor or dentist not towing the line would be struck off ...

Ridiculous to suggest that moon picture couldn't be faked ... it's just pixels in a very low quality image ... In fact with advanced computers high def videos can be faked beyond detection ... no images can be trusted ...

Our best evidence comes from people .. video evidence , watching their body language ,going on your gut feeling , does it all fit together .... and when scores of NASA/government insiders all paint the same picture , there is only one reasonable conclusion.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2018, 08:05 AM   #10
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

I actually made that post quite quickly in response to my resident stalker, and to reiterate the analysis from an expert that the HBs ignore. But if oz wants to elongate its context.....whatever!

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Oh yeah !... brilliant ! Don't think for yourself , just believe the 'experts', the professionals ....
Wow, you're the last person to make such a claim. You listen to some of the most batshit crazy people on the planet You don't think for yourself at all, you're led by the nose-ring attached by charlatans and liars.

Quote:
The doctors who tell you vaccines and chemo is the way to go ... the dentists who tell you fluoride is wonderful , the global warming professionals.
Oh no, not the alternative medicine route. I've seen first hand what damage "alternatives" do, the biggest crock of bollocks going. Please tell me you're not into homeopathy

Quote:
And above all the politicians ... they know best , and if they want to bomb Syria or some other country , there must be a good reason which we mere mortals don't get .
Not experts

Quote:
The experts are no smarter than anyone else , and have been programmed by the Cabal's dogma .... most of them believe it themselves , the few who do have doubts immediately self sensor .. their career is at stake , any doctor or dentist not towing the line would be struck off …
BULLSHIT

Quote:
Ridiculous to suggest that moon picture couldn't be faked ... it's just pixels in a very low quality image ... In fact with advanced computers high def videos can be faked beyond detection ... no images can be trusted ...

Our best evidence comes from people .. video evidence , watching their body language ,going on your gut feeling , does it all fit together .... and when scores of NASA/government insiders all paint the same picture , there is only one reasonable conclusion.

Last edited by screamingeagle; 25-12-2018 at 03:17 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2018, 08:21 AM   #11
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaito9 View Post
Humans secretly went to the moon way before Apollo moon missions ever took place.
No, really they didn't. If it's a secret, how do you know? Did somebody tell you? Did they offer any evidence

Quote:
Apollo spacecraft never went to the moon as it would be suicide with 60's technology.
What the fuck do you know about it? The technology was just fine

Quote:
Even today's technology available to the public is not advanced enough to get man on the moon.
Err yes, really it is.

Quote:
Rockets will never take man beyond low earth orbit.
Yes they will and already have.

Quote:
You need electrogravitics and aether based technologies for space travel which are largely kept undisclosed.
Made up shite. Got any evidence for these? How do you know if they are largely undisclosed?

Off topic bollocks. Clickbait tagline, did Martian refugees settle in Antarctica 60,000 years ago? The video starts off with one of the fakest pieces of footage imaginable

Haha, yeah those wily alienz picked the coldest sodding place on the planet The soopah secret space program that never provides any evidence

Then we are treated to some half arsed psyco-babble anal-isis about the Apollo astronauts. Oooooooooh.

Then the same snake oil salesman treats us to more bullshite about the soopah secret space program. As always, no evidence whatsoever.

Last edited by truegroup; 25-12-2018 at 08:22 AM.
Likes: (1)
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-12-2018, 12:31 PM   #12
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,954 (2,159 Posts)
Default

The videos from kaito are excellent , particularly the last one , great to see richplanet is on board with the SSP , he's nobodies fool.... That last video is cued at a discussion of anti-gravity technology , and it ties in with SSP whistle blowers have said , that on asteroid and moon bases they have gravity increasing flooring ... modular type panels that clip together to make a floor surface , they're driven by electricity . have a coil of wire inside .. very simple..

I disagree with kaito on a few points ... there should be no problem using rockets to get to the moon , they do have the required energy, and musk has demonstrated he can land rockets butt first on Earth ,which is a lot trickier than doing so on the moon due to air currents and greater gravity on Earth , so I think a return manned mission probably would have a good chance of success with today's surface tech.

.......And a very Merry Xmas to you too tg.....
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2018, 02:55 AM   #13
elpressiedente
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: near beachtralia
Posts: 4,070
Likes: 274 (196 Posts)
Default

moon landings are a hoax,,,

the numbers do not add up

Its physically impossible to take that many pictures in the allotted time and do ANY thing else.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-photo...pollo-missions



How many photos were taken on the surface of the moon during the six Apollo missions?
2 Answers
Ken O'Neill
Ken O'Neill, Astrophysicist, Cosmologist, Astronomer (1998-present)
Answered Feb 5 2015 · Author has 72 answers and 19.8k answer views
NASA wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in the combined time of 4834 minutes over an alleged six missions!

This equates to;

Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds

Given all the facts, was it possible for two men to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done.

Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel.

As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites.

Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas.

Each perfectly exposed and perfectly framed picture was taken on a chest mounted camera WITHOUT a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 perfectly exposed and perfectly framed photographs were taken in 4834 minutes!

IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts.

Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon – that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!

The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame.
elpressiedente is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2018, 03:23 AM   #14
elpressiedente
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: near beachtralia
Posts: 4,070
Likes: 274 (196 Posts)
Default

How ya gonna dig for rock when taking them photos takes up all the time?
all them crisp clean pics and such dirty laundry in ones cupboard

Never happened and never will. 10 feet thick lead isnt enough to shield the Van Allen Belts as it goes through EVERYTHING. (takes Magnetic Shielding and Man hasnt got that yet Oh thats right Magnetics have nothing to do with anything.... apart from everything.)

Where are all the post Apollo studies on this deadly radiation? Why are they only beginning to study it Now?"

Doesnt add up.. The degree to which a sheeple is brainwashed is the degree to which they believe all these photographs are real and no one suffered radiation exposure.

Last edited by JumpRogue; 30-12-2018 at 12:54 PM. Reason: Attacking forum member
elpressiedente is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2018, 03:54 AM   #15
elpressiedente
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: near beachtralia
Posts: 4,070
Likes: 274 (196 Posts)
Default

6 landings and 18 men and not one radiation exposure study. waiting until Aug.30, 2012 to investigate how to survive it

With this SPACE Radiation exposure which is entirely different from man made radiation studies. Its NASA's business to study its long term effects. They knew it was a problem in 1969 but didnt do any studies or followups? With the Astrolyingnuts living long lives and nothing reported about SPACE Radiation health effects?

Doesn't add up. Never will. Trying to prove something with photographs when its impossible to even take that many, is well ludicrous. And of course they had to set up videoing equipment to prove they were there along with taking piccies for the Sheeple Family Album.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c46_...600&theme_id=1


Oh and all this about flying around the belts would have seen them way off course with such limited fuel.... Where's the flight data and trajectories to prove this... I wanna see it, not just some Fake NASA report. The fuel was SOOOO limited IF they attempted it it was a slingshot shortest route trajectory. Right through the equatorial worst region. Its all about the Spin of the earth and just getting into orbit from the launch pad, much less escaping it after doing so.... Morons.....

Controlled Firecrackers going to the moon...... Really? Show us the Math of payload verses fuel. Aint going to happen. because it didnt. NASA such a Military secret. They did it again with 911. and they'll do it again and again with sheeples IQ taught to EXPECT IT...

Who cleaned the camera lens and solar panels on mars rover is another NASA (omitted) lie.

Sheeple.... thinking like this will get us to the moon in double quick time as Sheeple are the smartest life form the universe has created out of some primordial soup....
elpressiedente is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2018, 04:02 AM   #16
elpressiedente
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: near beachtralia
Posts: 4,070
Likes: 274 (196 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
anti-gravity technology , and it ties in with SSP whistle blowers have said , that on asteroid and moon bases they have gravity increasing flooring ... ...
Yes its all about Magnetics.

but does one want to live and walk all day on electric coils and iron boots? Adding to the magnetic radiation exposure?

And do you know about the permanent life destroying health issues humans experience from long term (months) of even Low Earth orbit flights?

Space the final frontier for Human Brainwashing.
Likes: (1)
elpressiedente is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2018, 08:47 AM   #17
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpressiedente View Post
moon landings are a hoax,,,
Oh god, He's googled some spam and put it up.

Quote:
the numbers do not add up
Oh yes they do.

Quote:
Its physically impossible to take that many pictures in the allotted time and do ANY thing else.
This total shite has been debunked hundreds of times.

Quote:
NASA wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in the combined time of 4834 minutes over an alleged six missions!
Well, there were 2 astronauts with mostly two cameras

Quote:
This equates to;

Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds
Double that for starters(except Apollo 11 covered below).

Quote:
Given all the facts, was it possible for two men to take that many photos in so short a time?
Dead easy. They were taking panoramas, photographing bits of the surface etc. On Apollo 15/16/17 on the rover, they were taking a picture every couple of seconds....like this....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPWbDlnX228



That figure doesn't include the time in the lunar module where they shot out the window!

Quote:
Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done.
A total lie. A professional will tell you that it is exactly what people with cameras do. They shoot as many as possible.

Quote:
Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel.
Another lie. There were numerous panoramas, multi photographed areas.

Quote:
As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites.
Another lie. Apollo 17 was the biggest distance in total over 3 days....

Distance covered?: ?35.74 kilometers

Quote:
Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas.
So what.

Quote:
Each perfectly exposed and perfectly framed picture was taken on a chest mounted camera WITHOUT a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.
Ah the other ignorant claim. There were 3 settings for UP sun, ACROSS sun and DOWN sun and the rings had raised paddles for dead easy movement. The metering was worked out in advance, you know it being a frickin' KNOWN constant in photography

They were all perfect were they? Another piece of total bullshit!! Here is a whole magazine of images with at least half ruined and many badly framed, there are hundreds more NOT perfectly framed. It's like you go round somebody's house and they show you their holiday snaps. They don't show the shitty ones , blurred, over exposed

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/H...A17_Mag133.jpg

Just look at the sheer number of pictures taken on or around one area on this Apollo 16 magazine!!

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/a.../magazine/?107

And this Apollo 15 magazine - 164 B&W pictures OBVIOUSLY taken really quickly!

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/a...m/magazine/?89

Quote:
The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 perfectly exposed and perfectly framed photographs were taken in 4834 minutes!
An appalling lie, and badly manipulated figures! The 4834 is the total EVA minutes for all missions.

Here is just ONE magazine from Apollo 11 showing about 100 photos taken INSIDE the fucking LM!!!

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/a...m/magazine/?37

And another from Apollo 11 showing 107 taken inside the LM again!!

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/a...m/magazine/?39


Quote:
Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon – that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!
Imagine how dumb that figure is when you consider that apart from Apollo 11 they had a camera each and you can double that figure! Then you can add the significant number of pictures taken from inside the LM, minutes the deceptive HBs haven't added in to the equation!

Here is the only magazine from Apollo 11 during EVA, I count 106 pictures taken during the entire 151 minute EVA. So the bullshit 15 seconds doesn't cut it!!

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/a...m/magazine/?40


Quote:
The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame.
This claim is nearly 15 years old, and you plagiarised it without providing a link! The ALSJ actually has a completely accurate catalogue of when every single picture was taken on the surface an the timestamp. There are no discrepancies. It works just fine

Last edited by truegroup; 30-12-2018 at 10:11 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2018, 09:05 AM   #18
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpressiedente View Post
How ya gonna dig for rock when taking them photos takes up all the time?
This is where you run away. You have taken on the wrong person, you see I actually know what I am talking about and you just got owned above.

Quote:
And think of the stinky pee n shit accumulating in them suits... all them crisp clean pics and such dirty laundry in ones cupboard
They wore large diapers. Fully functional and disposable. They had a dump before EVA.

Crisp clean suits?





Quote:
Never happened and never will. 10 feet thick lead isnt enough to shield the Van Allen Belts as it goes through EVERYTHING. (takes Magnetic Shielding and Man hasnt got that yet Oh thats right Magnetics have nothing to do with anything.... apart from everything.)
Piffle. prove any of it. prove they needed 10ft lead shielding, the height of ignorance. They went around the weaker areas of the belts on a 30 degree trajectory.

Quote:
Where are all the post Apollo studies on this deadly radiation? Why are they only beginning to study it Now?"
What deadly radiation? How can anyone who requests I go and look at their levitation shite, not know how to do simple searches on google - just a few....

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514...ournalCode=jsr
https://www.apollophotos.ch/media/63...266a426365.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9730010172.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19730010172

Go look at all the citations - read them

Quote:
Doesnt add up.. The degree to which a sheeple is brainwashed is the degree to which they believe all these photographs are real and no one suffered radiation exposure.
Then you just pigeon holed yourself in the list of ignorants. I just totally kicked your arse with the plagiarised photographs. I will do this with any claim you make. You know less than nothing.

Scuttle back to your "levitation" thread

Quote:
come on truegroup lets have another one of your rants.... and abusive adjectives...
after all we know you gonna do it... its ALL you do.
I go after the content. You just came after ME - reported.

Last edited by truegroup; 30-12-2018 at 11:05 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2018, 09:36 AM   #19
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elpressiedente View Post
6 landings and 18 men and not one radiation exposure study. waiting until Aug.30, 2012 to investigate how to survive it
Well if you go to NASA's NTRS and enter Apollo and Radiation, you get 10,663 hits, is that enough

Quote:
With this SPACE Radiation exposure which is entirely different from man made radiation studies. Its NASA's business to study its long term effects. They knew it was a problem in 1969 but didnt do any studies or followups? With the Astrolyingnuts living long lives and nothing reported about SPACE Radiation health effects?
So, ignorant.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0...ollo+radiation

Quote:
Doesn't add up. Never will. Trying to prove something with photographs when its impossible to even take that many, is well ludicrous. And of course they had to set up videoing equipment to prove they were there along with taking piccies for the Sheeple Family Album.
You just got owned on that, quit whilst you are grovelling in embarrassment.

Quote:
Oh and all this about flying around the belts would have seen them way off course with such limited fuel.... Where's the flight data and trajectories to prove this... I wanna see it, not just some Fake NASA report. The fuel was SOOOO limited IF they attempted it it was a slingshot shortest route trajectory. Right through the equatorial worst region. Its all about the Spin of the earth and just getting into orbit from the launch pad, much less escaping it after doing so.... Morons.....
OH.....MY....GOD. You have not got the slightest clue what you are talking about. Go to apollohoax.net and tell them all about your claims

Quote:
Show us the Math of payload verses fuel. Aint going to happen. because it didnt. NASA such a Military secret. They did it again with 911. and they'll do it again and again with sheeples IQ taught to EXPECT IT...
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0...pollo&Ntx=mode matchallpartial

Quote:
Who cleaned the camera lens and solar panels on mars rover is another NASA (omitted) lie.
No, it is just you flailing your arms around in ignorant bewilderment.
They use open and shut dust covers and the solar panels are expected to give up after a certain period because of accumulated dust and insufficient power.

Quote:
Sheeple.... thinking like this will get us to the moon in double quick time as Sheeple are the smartest life form the universe has created out of some primordial soup....
You're out of your depth here fella. Try not to keep calling people names, there's a good chap, you really aren't in any position to do so
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2018, 10:47 AM   #20
oz93666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK citizen living in Thailand jungle
Posts: 8,132
Likes: 3,954 (2,159 Posts)
Default



Oh look .... here's some of the pictures. That thing that looks like a big upside down bucket is a the Luna Lander engine just inches from the surface . On landing it blasted the surface ... if aimed at the wall of your house it would blow it down no problem ... But it doesn't seem to have made the slightest impression on the powdery surface ....

It's just like someone lifted up the Lander and placed it there , not the slightest hint of a blast crater...


Give me a frigging break!!

Something else I've just thought of ..... the moon's surface is covered with a layer of very fine dust ... see foot prints above ... this has come from cosmic dust and all the meteor impacts , the dust and fine particles rains imperceptibly down over billions of years covering every part of the surface ... Even big rocks like this should be covered inches thick in this material...



No atmosphere , so no wind to move it ... but we see no evidence of any dust on these big rocks.



This is the weathered surface of a bolder we might expect to find on Earth , if on the moon all those fine cracks would be covered , as if someone had put some flour in a flour sieve and shaken it for years to build up an inches thick layer.

Last edited by oz93666; 30-12-2018 at 11:31 AM.
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ken johnston, kubrick, moon landing hoax, nasa, stanley kubrick

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.