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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-09-2009, 11:14 PM   #1001
alexis1111
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,807
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stockstalker View Post
Watch the video a few posts back from this before you continue. When you are already in Earth orbit, it's pretty easy to transmit phony radio broadcasts to the world, is it not?
Easy as pie. Btw, orwell has nothing but contempt for the truth. Trying to get him to see the logic of elementary physics is like NASA trying to put a visual sign on the moon we can see with a cheap telescope. They just can't deliver.
alexis1111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:20 PM   #1002
orwell101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 198
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stockstalker View Post
How can you be sure it came from the moon and not a transmitter on a space shuttle orbiting the Earth? Better yet, why can it not come from the radio transmitters already on the ground (the group of conspirators are multi-national corporations after all)?
Because the changing frequency of a radio signal tells you if something is moving towards or away from you. Its called the Doppler effect. Therefore you can't fake the location of a radio signal moving away from you 200,000 miles in space using a transmitter on Earth. You can be sure it didn't come from an object stuck in Earth Orbit.

Last edited by orwell101; 11-09-2009 at 11:21 PM.
orwell101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:20 PM   #1003
alexis1111
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,807
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stockstalker View Post
(the group of conspirators are multi-national corporations afterall)?
Plenty of NASA loot to buy testimonials and pay conspirators. Once NASA had the money flowing by the billions they could not be stopped. The same way mobsters become legitimate businessmen once they have the cash in pocket.

THe taxpayers fell asleep and let those liars and cheats have unfettered access to the public purse without once having to provide irrefutable proof for their outrageous claims.
alexis1111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:21 PM   #1004
stockstalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 467
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orwell101 View Post
Because the changing frequency of a radio signal tells you if something is moving towards or away from you. Its called the Doppler effect. Therefore you can't fake the location of a radio signal moving away from you using a transmitter on Earth. Therefore you can be sure it didn't come from an object stuck in Earth Orbit.
Ah, but you assume that something has to be moving in order to get a change in frequency. What if the change of frequency is man-made? Remember, the conspirators supposedly worship the Devil. And, it is said that "the Devil's in the little details." With-holding the technological limits at the time, there wouldn't be anything the hoaxers hadn't thought of, or overlooked.

Last edited by stockstalker; 11-09-2009 at 11:24 PM.
stockstalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:22 PM   #1005
orwell101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 198
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexis1111 View Post
Plenty of NASA loot to buy testimonials and pay conspirators. Once NASA had the money flowing by the billions they could not be stopped. The same way mobsters become legitimate businessmen once they have the cash in pocket.

THe taxpayers fell asleep and let those liars and cheats have unfettered access to the public purse without once having to provide irrefutable proof for their outrageous claims.
Why couldn't they afford to put stars in the photographs then? Do you need more than billions to do that?
orwell101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:23 PM   #1006
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stockstalker View Post
That picture is not to be taken literally. It's simply the film maker's way of inserting the following subliminal message: "I know you can spot something wrong with the picture, but I can't tell you what, or how I did it, but here's a clue to guide you to the correct, larger conclusion, and the awry shadows are but a small piece of it."


Is this a genuine Apollo image?

edit

I will be offline for about 20 mins

Last edited by rodin; 11-09-2009 at 11:25 PM.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:28 PM   #1007
orwell101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 198
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stockstalker View Post
Ah, but you assume that something has to be moving in order to get a change in frequency. What if the change of frequency is man-made? Remember, the conspirators supposedly worship the Devil. And, it is said that "the Devil's in the little details."
No, you can send a wave out yourself and bounce it back. Hence the radio transmissions went both ways, as I'm sure you know.

Thus, if your transmissions are sent at a constant frequency then you can establish the speed of a moving object on the basis on the frequency of the signal that bounces back.

Seems to me it would be easiest just to send a craft to the moon, as the sort of technology you are talking about, and the sort of massive organisation it would need clearly paints NASA as far more brilliant than previously thought.

Last edited by orwell101; 11-09-2009 at 11:29 PM.
orwell101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:29 PM   #1008
stockstalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 467
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orwell101 View Post
Why couldn't they afford to put stars in the photographs then? Do you need more than billions to do that?
They had to capture images to use in the front-projected backdrop. To get stars, they would actually have to capture the images at night. But if you do this, then the landscape isn't well-lit (the pictures they produced are bright and crisp). Also, I don't know much about scotchlite screens, but I'm assuming that small speckled stars either wouldn't work on the screen, or would reveal the glass beads in them via diffraction, and hence reveal the method of the artist.

Last edited by stockstalker; 11-09-2009 at 11:31 PM.
stockstalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:29 PM   #1009
orwell101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 198
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post


Is this a genuine Apollo image?

edit

I will be offline for about 20 mins
No idea, and don't care really.
orwell101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:31 PM   #1010
orwell101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 198
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stockstalker View Post
They had to capture images to use in the front-projected backdrop. To get stars, they would actually have to capture the images at night. But if you do this, then the landscape isn't well-lit (pictures they produced are bright and crisp). Also, I don't know much about scotchlite screens, but I'm assuming that small speckled stars either wouldn't work on the screen, or would reveal the glass beads in the screen.
That just made no sense at all. Sorry.

You appear to be crediting NASA with amazing feats, yet they can't paint stars on a screen now?

Last edited by orwell101; 11-09-2009 at 11:31 PM.
orwell101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:33 PM   #1011
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orwell101 View Post
No idea, and don't care really.
Well, if it is....



edit

typo -ground is lit...

Last edited by rodin; 11-09-2009 at 11:35 PM.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:33 PM   #1012
stockstalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 467
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orwell101 View Post
That just made no sense at all. Sorry.

You appear to be crediting NASA with amazing feats, yet they can't paint stars on a screen now?
The nature of the screen won't allow for the painting of small stars.

Last edited by stockstalker; 11-09-2009 at 11:35 PM.
stockstalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:38 PM   #1013
stockstalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 467
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orwell101 View Post
No, you can send a wave out yourself and bounce it back. Hence the radio transmissions went both ways, as I'm sure you know.

Thus, if your transmissions are sent at a constant frequency then you can establish the speed of a moving object on the basis on the frequency of the signal that bounces back.

Seems to me it would be easiest just to send a craft to the moon, as the sort of technology you are talking about, and the sort of massive organisation it would need clearly paints NASA as far more brilliant than previously thought.
Ok, this is my last post. How can you be sure the guy sending the wave out is genuine, and not some goon hired by the conspirators to record false measurements?
stockstalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:38 PM   #1014
orwell101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 198
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stockstalker View Post
The nature of the screen won't allow for the painting of small stars.
Well if you had some evidence that scotchlite screens can't show projected images of a starry sky it would help.
orwell101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2009, 11:41 PM   #1015
orwell101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 198
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stockstalker View Post
Ok, this is my last post. How can you be sure the guy sending the wave out is genuine, and not some goon hired by the conspirators to record false measurements?
Because any amateur astronomer and radio enthusiast can do it. And many, many did. There is lots of independent evidence and NASA could do nothing to stop anyone tracking the journey.

I must say. your opinion of human beings appears to be rather terrible.
orwell101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 12:56 AM   #1016
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orwell101 View Post
Because any amateur astronomer and radio enthusiast can do it. And many, many did. There is lots of independent evidence and NASA could do nothing to stop anyone tracking the journey.

I must say. your opinion of human beings appears to be rather terrible.
What about the last image I presented?
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 01:16 AM   #1017
bsmurph83
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: a foreign jurisdiction
Posts: 649
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orwell101 View Post
Because any amateur astronomer and radio enthusiast can do it. And many, many did. There is lots of independent evidence and NASA could do nothing to stop anyone tracking the journey.

I must say. your opinion of human beings appears to be rather terrible.
orwell, do you believe that when billions of dollars are at stake, not to mention egos and reputations (and political agendas), that you are actually going to be told the truth, especially when these clowns have billions of reasons to not tell it?

don't assume everyone functions with your level of ethics...
bsmurph83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 02:20 AM   #1018
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stockstalker View Post
This video, mistakenly leaked by NASA, should settle the debate once and for all:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer...52848542315216

Summary: The moon landing was a hoax. They went up to Earth orbit to fool the Russians and mission control, and faked the rest.
When in doubt about anything, take the middle ground: 50% they did not go to the moon + 50% they did go to the moon = They made it 50% to the moon.
How is a video that is available to anyone who asks for it, has been available for years on video through spacecraftfilms.com, and which most of was broadcast on live television "mistakenly leaked by NASA"? Because Sibrel et al say it is?
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

Last edited by frenat; 12-09-2009 at 02:39 AM.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 02:38 AM   #1019
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexis1111 View Post
Circuits would have fried soon after going into the earth's magnetosphere. Radio signals cannot penetrate the belts.
Then how do the hundreds of satellites (anything in a geostationary orbit; communications, weather, satellite TV, etc.) that orbit completely within the Van Allen belts work in your theory?
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 07:07 AM   #1020
elton
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 24 (16 Posts)
Default

Heres a LROC photo of the Apollo 12 site at last. Anybody notice the obvious fakery?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR..._apollo12.html
elton is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
moon landing hoax, nasa apollo fakes

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 03:11 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.