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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 24-05-2018, 08:34 PM   #21
polyhedron
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,176
Likes: 862 (576 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
The Hasselblad cameras had auto winds.....duhhhh. The x-rays from the Sun wouldn't even pass through paper.
What do you mean, no x-rays from the sun? Is the sun a thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen or an electric light bulb? If a little tiny Hiroshima bomb which wasn’t even fusion but fission can produce high energy gamma rays to such high strength that it lingers for years afterwards, I should have though that the sun, which is one gigantic hydrogen bomb should produce enough gamma rays to fry an egg, so obviously its going to produce X-rays. If it doesn’t then it can’t be a thermonuclear fusion can it?

There’s a solar wind. Something somewhere is wrong.
I don’t think the sun is a thermonuclear explosion at all, and given that they’ve lied about that, causes further doubt about the authenticity of the moon landing.
polyhedron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2018, 08:38 PM   #22
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyhedron View Post
The Hassle lads had autowind? Then what was Kubrick up to with his manual wind cameras, how did he cock that one up? Something is wrong here. If it was an autowind camera, Kubrick should have used an autowind in 2001. Perhaps it was more dramatic having the actor rotate the camera.

We still don’t know why the boy was wearing a jumper with an apollo picture on it.

Anyway, we haven’t been back, not officialy. Seems a bit strange. Why haven’t we been back? There are plenty of mysteries up there, but we haven’t been back. They claim the moon is hollow due to sound testing, that it “rung like a bell.” We actualy know fuck all as to what went on up there.

They’re supposed to have taken a battery car up there. So there is a car on the moon. Well imagine how much more stuff they could put on the moon now we’ve got miniaturised electronics and carbon fibre. I don’t see too many rockets makin the journey there, so why accept that they ever went there in the first place. Why bother with all their so-called evidence. You’re clearly convinced it happened. I am not at all convinced we went there. I know I certainly didn’t. So who the hell did?
How can anyone in this day and age fail to be able to use a search engine? Money and motive is why they never went back....it was horrifically expensive. The big rocket being the major cost.

Since Kubrick had fuck all to do with the Moon landings, what he did with cameras and jumpers is just a tad irrelevant.

Their "so called" evidence includes 842lbs of analysed and peer reviewed lunar samples and the other stuff I listed. You don't get to wave it away because you didn't know about any if it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2018, 08:40 PM   #23
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyhedron View Post
What do you mean, no x-rays from the sun? Is the sun a thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen or an electric light bulb? If a little tiny Hiroshima bomb which wasn’t even fusion but fission can produce high energy gamma rays to such high strength that it lingers for years afterwards, I should have though that the sun, which is one gigantic hydrogen bomb should produce enough gamma rays to fry an egg, so obviously its going to produce X-rays. If it doesn’t then it can’t be a thermonuclear fusion can it?

There’s a solar wind. Something somewhere is wrong.
I don’t think the sun is a thermonuclear explosion at all, and given that they’ve lied about that, causes further doubt about the authenticity of the moon landing.
The Sun emits no gamma rays. They cannot escape. The x-rays are weak as crap. Prove me wrong if you say otherwise.

Your guesswork about the Sun doesn't interest me
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2018, 08:52 PM   #24
polyhedron
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,176
Likes: 862 (576 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
The Sun emits no gamma rays. They cannot escape. The x-rays are weak as crap. Prove me wrong if you say otherwise.

Your guesswork about the Sun doesn't interest me
Cannot escape from where? Do you think the gravity of the sun stops them from escaping? Really, that’s a first,and what special rule do gamma waves abide by that the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum doesn’t?

My guess work about the sun does not interest you, and apparently that’s funny? Well, thank you for crediting me with the idea, but even my over inflated sense of grandeur doesn’t quite permit me to take such credit. I don’t suppose you’ve read anything about the electric universe? Na, didn’t think so. Ah, go back to your clockwork train set.
Likes: (1)
polyhedron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2018, 09:04 PM   #25
polyhedron
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,176
Likes: 862 (576 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
How can anyone in this day and age fail to be able to use a search engine? Money and motive is why they never went back....it was horrifically expensive. The big rocket being the major cost.

Since Kubrick had fuck all to do with the Moon landings, what he did with cameras and jumpers is just a tad irrelevant.

Their "so called" evidence includes 842lbs of analysed and peer reviewed lunar samples and the other stuff I listed. You don't get to wave it away because you didn't know about any if it.
Yeah? And where is this 842lbs of lunar samples? Have you seen it? Must be a very common type of rock, probably commonly found on Earth. So what is there to differentiate this particular type of rock to any down here? None, I believe, because the “moon samples” were not of interest to anyone. No one said, “gosh, this is unusual.” I should know. I went to the National geological museum in London where they had a tiny bit on display, and it said bugger all. Couldn’t differentiate it from a meteorite.

Now onto this “huge cost” Remember Moores law that every 18 months memory doubles? Yes, well it applies to cost as well, otherwise microchips would never have dropped in price, but they did. So what is the special exception with a rocket engine then? Oh no! We can’t allow those to have a price drop, a new moon rocket must cost exactly the same as it did half a century ago. It’s the exception.

What?? Like a car, the rocket is just a piece of scrap powered by hydrogen. Not very difficult to make hydrogen and oxygen, is it? They seem to be able to make everything else, why do they go all fairy over the moon rocket? I think somebody is pulling your leg. Somebody is hiding something.
Likes: (1)
polyhedron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2018, 11:55 PM   #26
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyhedron View Post
Cannot escape from where? Do you think the gravity of the sun stops them from escaping? Really, that’s a first,and what special rule do gamma waves abide by that the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum doesn’t?
Does the word google confuse you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

"Although the Sun produces gamma rays as a result of the nuclear-fusion process, internal absorption and thermalization convert these super-high-energy photons to lower-energy photons before they reach the Sun's surface and are emitted out into space. As a result, the Sun does not emit gamma rays from this process, but it does emit gamma rays from solar flares."

As I said no major solar flares Apollo.

Quote:
My guess work about the sun does not interest you, and apparently that’s funny? Well, thank you for crediting me with the idea, but even my over inflated sense of grandeur doesn’t quite permit me to take such credit. I don’t suppose you’ve read anything about the electric universe? Na, didn’t think so. Ah, go back to your clockwork train set.
Listen carefully, I've been involved in numerous bullshit electrickery universe threads. I don't have a train set, but I do have an arse kicking set though.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 12:02 AM   #27
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyhedron View Post
Yeah? And where is this 842lbs of lunar samples? Have you seen it? Must be a very common type of rock, probably commonly found on Earth. So what is there to differentiate this particular type of rock to any down here?
Zero terrestrial weathering, solar isotopes, micro-meteorite impact craters, dry as a bone(water carried in volcanic beads).

Quote:
None, I believe, because the “moon samples” were not of interest to anyone. No one said, “gosh, this is unusual.” I should know. I went to the National geological museum in London where they had a tiny bit on display, and it said bugger all. Couldn’t differentiate it from a meteorite.
You can't differentiate anything related to geology, doesn't stop you from making lots of noise though. Apollo samples show evidence of low gravity formation and several other things...

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Quote:
Now onto this “huge cost” Remember Moores law that every 18 months memory doubles? Yes, well it applies to cost as well, otherwise microchips would never have dropped in price, but they did. So what is the special exception with a rocket engine then? Oh no! We can’t allow those to have a price drop, a new moon rocket must cost exactly the same as it did half a century ago. It’s the exception.

What?? Like a car, the rocket is just a piece of scrap powered by hydrogen. Not very difficult to make hydrogen and oxygen, is it? They seem to be able to make everything else, why do they go all fairy over the moon rocket? I think somebody is pulling your leg. Somebody is hiding something.
Thanks for sharing your inside knowledge on spacecraft design and your theory on what is being hidden. This theory about...."oooh they haven't been back, therefore all the proof they went doesn't count".....a little on the ignorant side huh?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 12:13 AM   #28
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyhedron View Post
To whom is my knowledge a problem? Is it a problem for you?
Nope, you. It means you make stupid claims and know bugger all about anything related to space travel then or now.

Quote:
Are you into Stanley Kubrick then? Is that why you are here, to discuss Stanley Kubrick?
Nope, it appears you have hijacked this Kubrick thread into another idiotic hoax thread.

Quote:
Okay, let’s discuss Stanley Kubrick but, ah, no, clearly below is not about Stanley Kubrick.
I did already, people ignored it as usual.

Quote:
Nothing Kubrick related here, just a sentence about people who are gullible.
In response to your off topic rambling.

Quote:
The rocks, for starters, oh yes, they are real solid evidence of a moon landing arn’t they?
Yep. Rock solid.

Quote:
How could you know if you have never been to the moon to make the comparison?
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

They show evidence for low gravity formation. They contain micrometeorite impacts, strong exterior helium-3 and weaker interior helium-3. They also contain other solar isotopes from unprotected solar bombardment. They have no terrestrial weathering or fusion crusts, they cannot be meteorites for a number of reasons, or Earth rocks for a number more.

Ergo, and agreed by the many thousands of geologists over 50 years, they come from the Moon from the Apollo missions.

Quote:
Yes it’s a real gut buster isn’t it? The mystery of the rocket, an electro mechanical device powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, that insists on bucking the trend of Moores law, while all other technology abides by it.

Do people not want to go to the moon? Ah, maybe they can’t find any recruits. That could be it.
Gibberish.

Quote:
I enjoyed watching a documentary which went to great lengths to explain why it was impossible to shoot high quality cine camera footage in space during the 60’s and 70’s. Pitty what I said was a complete lie. There is no such film.
Ahhhh, now you see there most certainly is! We're back to this no knowledge problem thing. The Apollo missions shot their EVA footage in video format which had to be transmitted down S-band comms. The bandwidth and speed limitations and the early video cameras gave a reasonable picture on the later missions.

But during the missions, they also shot CINE film and that is top quality:





Quote:
Moon landing? Piffle.
Thanks for sharing your extensive knowledge
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.

Last edited by truegroup; 25-05-2018 at 12:13 AM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 09:35 AM   #29
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 1,321 (782 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
The x-rays from the Sun wouldn't even pass through paper.
What kind of paper are you talking about (with added lead?)...
Quote:
If you or your children are getting an X-ray, ask whether a lead apron or other shield should be used.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/...dical-x-rays#1


Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
The Sun emits no gamma rays. They cannot escape. The x-rays are weak as crap.
Quote:
X-rays can cause mutations in our DNA and, therefore, might lead to cancer later in life. For this reason, X-rays are classified as a carcinogen by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United States government. However, the benefits of X-ray technology far outweigh the potential negative consequences of using them.
It is estimated that 0.4 percent of cancers in the U.S. are caused by CT scans. Some scientists expect this level to rise in parallel with the increased use of CT scans in medical procedures. At least 62 million CT scans were carried out in America in 2007.
According to one study, by the age of 75 years, X-rays will increase the risk of cancer by 0.6 to 1.8 percent. In other words, the risks are minimal compared to the benefits of medical imaging.
(...)
While X-rays are linked to a slightly increased risk of cancer, there is an extremely low risk of short-term side effects.
Exposure to high radiation levels can have a range of effects, such as vomiting, bleeding, fainting, hair loss, and the loss of skin and hair.
However, X-rays provide such a low dose of radiation that they are not believed to cause any immediate health problems.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/219970.php
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=28

Last edited by st jimmy; 25-05-2018 at 09:38 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 12:04 PM   #30
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
What kind of paper are you talking about (with added lead?)...
Once again the blithering fizzix comes blundering out.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Stars/Sun/X-ray_sources

"Although the more energetic X-rays, photons with an energy greater than 30 keV (4,800 aJ) can penetrate the air at least for distances of a few meters (they would never have been detected and medical X-ray machines would not work if this was not the case) the Earth's atmosphere is thick enough that virtually none are able to penetrate from outer space all the way to the Earth's surface. X-rays in the 0.5 to 5 keV (80 to 800 aJ) range, where most celestial sources give off the bulk of their energy, can be stopped by a few sheets of paper; ninety percent of the photons in a beam of 3 keV (480 aJ) X-rays are absorbed by traveling through just 10 cm of air."


Fuck all to do with the sun.


Epic fail. It's like you went and googled x-rays but forgot to add from the sun
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.

Last edited by truegroup; 25-05-2018 at 12:05 PM.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 12:09 PM   #31
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,321
Likes: 4,572 (2,570 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polyhedron View Post
Yeah? And where is this 842lbs of lunar samples? Have you seen it? Must be a very common type of rock, probably commonly found on Earth. So what is there to differentiate this particular type of rock to any down here? None, I believe, because the “moon samples” were not of interest to anyone. No one said, “gosh, this is unusual.” I should know. I went to the National geological museum in London where they had a tiny bit on display, and it said bugger all. Couldn’t differentiate it from a meteorite.

Now onto this “huge cost” Remember Moores law that every 18 months memory doubles? Yes, well it applies to cost as well, otherwise microchips would never have dropped in price, but they did. So what is the special exception with a rocket engine then? Oh no! We can’t allow those to have a price drop, a new moon rocket must cost exactly the same as it did half a century ago. It’s the exception.

What?? Like a car, the rocket is just a piece of scrap powered by hydrogen. Not very difficult to make hydrogen and oxygen, is it? They seem to be able to make everything else, why do they go all fairy over the moon rocket? I think somebody is pulling your leg. Somebody is hiding something.
Imagine the same tech, modified and produced by the Germans..in 21st century
They would be so much more efficient and they would likely have payment plans so that even the most poor nations could afford them.

But they have 'lost' the tech now lol
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 12:14 PM   #32
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,321
Likes: 4,572 (2,570 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Nope, you. It means you make stupid claims and know bugger all about anything related to space travel then or now.



Nope, it appears you have hijacked this Kubrick thread into another idiotic hoax thread.



I did already, people ignored it as usual.



In response to your off topic rambling.



Yep. Rock solid.



http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

They show evidence for low gravity formation. They contain micrometeorite impacts, strong exterior helium-3 and weaker interior helium-3. They also contain other solar isotopes from unprotected solar bombardment. They have no terrestrial weathering or fusion crusts, they cannot be meteorites for a number of reasons, or Earth rocks for a number more.

Ergo, and agreed by the many thousands of geologists over 50 years, they come from the Moon from the Apollo missions.



Gibberish.



Ahhhh, now you see there most certainly is! We're back to this no knowledge problem thing. The Apollo missions shot their EVA footage in video format which had to be transmitted down S-band comms. The bandwidth and speed limitations and the early video cameras gave a reasonable picture on the later missions.

But during the missions, they also shot CINE film and that is top quality:







Thanks for sharing your extensive knowledge
In fairness the thread is titled with moon hoax in it so there is no thread hijacking going on here, it's totally on topic
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 12:38 PM   #33
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,321
Likes: 4,572 (2,570 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
The Sun emits no gamma rays. They cannot escape. The x-rays are weak as crap. Prove me wrong if you say otherwise.

Your guesswork about the Sun doesn't interest me
Well this is from your own NASA
Quote:
The Sun as an X-ray Source
The Sun has a surface temperature of approximately 6,000 Kelvin, or around 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The solar surface emits most of its electromagnetic radiation as visible light, or the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum we can see with our eyes. A 6,000 K star should be an extraordinarily weak source of X-rays.

In the late 1940s, sounding rocket experiments showed that the Sun is, in fact, a very strong X-ray emitter. Astronomers were surprised! What's going on?

The X-rays we detect from the Sun do not come from the Sun's surface, but from the solar corona, which is the upper layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Only very hot gases can emit X-rays, and the corona, at millions of degrees, is hot enough to emit X-rays, while the much cooler surface of the Sun is not. Thus, the Sun's atmosphere is an excellent source of X-rays.
source

Hope this helps
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine

Last edited by the nine; 25-05-2018 at 12:39 PM.
Likes: (3)
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 12:50 PM   #34
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Well this is from your own NASA

source

Hope this helps
Wow, it's like a team of children go looking for a toilet and pee their pants. The Sun emits x-rays is not in dispute....so no your Google fumblings are not helpful. Go find out how strong when not emitting strong DIRECTIONAL solar flares.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 12:53 PM   #35
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
In fairness the thread is titled with moon hoax in it so there is no thread hijacking going on here, it's totally on topic
In fairness? You? I have yet to see one single post from you where you had the balls to concede or agree with me.

It is specifically about how Kubrick supposedly did it The irony is that the video quoted was a confessed actor doing it. Any discussion not connected to Kubrick doing this impossible hoax is off topic...in all fairness
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 01:19 PM   #36
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,321
Likes: 4,572 (2,570 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
In fairness? You? I have yet to see one single post from you where you had the balls to concede or agree with me.

It is specifically about how Kubrick supposedly did it The irony is that the video quoted was a confessed actor doing it. Any discussion not connected to Kubrick doing this impossible hoax is off topic...in all fairness
We have differing opinions, that's healthy for discussion

I would assume that any talk of moon fakery is on topic considering
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
Likes: (1)
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 01:22 PM   #37
the nine
Senior Member
 
the nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,321
Likes: 4,572 (2,570 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
Wow, it's like a team of children go looking for a toilet and pee their pants. The Sun emits x-rays is not in dispute....so no your Google fumblings are not helpful. Go find out how strong when not emitting strong DIRECTIONAL solar flares.
Were there no solar flairs happening on any of the alleged moon missions?
__________________
"Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled;
The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason… - Albert Pike Sharpen & Use your reasoning daily - the nine
the nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 01:41 PM   #38
polyhedron
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,176
Likes: 862 (576 Posts)
Default

Interesting, must be the mandella effect. I seem to remember something about weight restrictions and limitations to what could be carried to and from the moon, but suddenly out pops from nowhere stacks of 16 mm cine footage, and an extra two moon buggies for good measure.

Not to show anything of interest on the moon in sufficient clarity, but just to “proove” that the landings really did happen.

Then suddenly, from a few kilos of samples, it jumps to a tonne? Oh so the rockets could carry all that extra weight after all. Must be how they managed to take an entire film set up there. Still no sign of the moon though.

And finaly, instead of investing huge expence in trying to proove the landings happened, why not just go back to moon?? Duh. Too expensive errr.... Really??

Now, I do believe we did discover antarctica because there reallt is good evidence for the existence of antarctica, yet I see no one trying to prove that we did in fact discover antarctica. Maybe there is sufficient evidence to cast aside doubt in such a case.

But also I find it interesting why anyone would be so concerned at my “lack of knowledge” as to feel the hot passions of altruism to go to such lengths to inform another human being of their apparent gap.

Truegroup must be one busy fellow, the last defender of Alexandria. So keen, like some fanatical religious zelot to make sure everyone is on the proscribed narative.

Apparently my “lack of knowledge” is my problem? Doesn’t seem to be does it? Seems to be truegroups problem. He’s the onewho is name calling and putting out addhominems, the sheer arogance of his sense of righteousness, his beating his breasts as soon as anyone dares to question the authenticity of the moon landing. Oh no! We mustn’t do that, the world might fall assunder! Ah, the hoaxers! The fall of Rome!

Face it truegroup, your opinion is your opinion, which I don’t agree with. Do you ever bother to read any of David’s work by any chance? Ever seen any of his videos? Ever noticed that this is the David Icke forum and not the NASA forum? Or is Nasa so incapable they can’t even get the technology together to create one for themselves?

Go on, what’s your motive for comming here?
Likes: (2)
polyhedron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 02:05 PM   #39
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
st jimmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 1,321 (782 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Stars/Sun/X-ray_sources

"Although the more energetic X-rays, photons with an energy greater than 30 keV (4,800 aJ) can penetrate the air at least for distances of a few meters (they would never have been detected and medical X-ray machines would not work if this was not the case) the Earth's atmosphere is thick enough that virtually none are able to penetrate from outer space all the way to the Earth's surface. X-rays in the 0.5 to 5 keV (80 to 800 aJ) range, where most celestial sources give off the bulk of their energy, can be stopped by a few sheets of paper; ninety percent of the photons in a beam of 3 keV (480 aJ) X-rays are absorbed by traveling through just 10 cm of air."
That’s a nice trick you perform, whenever you’re caught talking out your a$$; you (try to) cover this up with (more) lies and blatant insults.
Nowhere in your link does it say that ALL of the X-rays are "in the 0.5 to 5 keV (80 to 800 aJ) range", that "can be stopped by a few sheets of paper".
No on the contrary: it talks about "most celestial sources give off the bulk of their energy"; in other words there are also X-rays coming from the sun with a higher energy (lower wavelength) that can't be stopped by your "sheets of paper"...

The following quote from "your" link explains the difference in "soft" X-rays and "hard" X-rays (gamma rays):
Quote:
"X-rays span 3 decades in wavelength, frequency and energy. From 10 to 0.1 nanometers (nm) (about 0.12 to 12 keV) they are classified as soft x-rays, and from 0.1 nm to 0.01 nm (about 12 to 120 keV) as hard X-rays."[2]

The following page from the "independent" Wikipedia shows that the CORONAS-F recorded X-rays/gamma rays in the 60-100 keV range (so higher than 5 keV)...
Quote:
Solar flares usually follow the solar cycle. CORONAS-F was launched on July 31, 2001 to coincide with the 23rd solar cycle maximum. The solar flare of October 29, 2003 apparently showed a significant degree of linear polarization (> 70% in channels E2 = 40-60 keV and E3 = 60-100 keV, but only about 50% in E1 = 20-40 keV) in hard X-rays,[16] but other observations have generally only set upper limits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrop...ray_source#Sun

Maybe you can use your sheets of paper to dry your eyes...
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...8&postcount=28

Last edited by st jimmy; 25-05-2018 at 02:11 PM.
Likes: (2)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2018, 02:19 PM   #40
truegroup
Senior Member
 
truegroup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: You cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 1,217 (958 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
Were there no solar flairs happening on any of the alleged moon missions?

Bugger off and prove there were! Flares are not all powerful omni-directional things.....none occurred during Apollo. Small ones yes. The dangerous ones no.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Windley
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sts60
The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
An analysis of Apollo Landing Sites. Truther: Search for truth means not defending a belief system at all costs! It means not ignoring solid contradictions.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 11:50 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.