Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 19-07-2010, 12:17 PM   #21
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianw View Post
If the stars and the earth was in any footage you would see the constellations and through trigonometry and math could calculate the time the footage was taken.
This would be difficult for the continuity people to have the right stars in the right place to match the live footage.
And people would have done it to shut the moon landing deniers up.
see previous post
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 12:18 PM   #22
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moving finger View Post
I entirely agree, it's a lame argument that holds no water whatsoever.

I was merely responding to someone else who brought it in.
OK Laters - got a dental checkup...
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 12:29 PM   #23
truthseeker512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: near/on/in/under a Pyramid (no hills)
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The Apollo moon landings were faked. Next...


I cant believe people still dont have their heads around this one.
truthseeker512 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 12:58 PM   #24
rreeve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Still trying to work that out
Posts: 5,319
Likes: 37 (17 Posts)
Default

Personally I think much of the other evidence holds more weight than this footage speed theory. I'm not saying your not right but it's a dead end theory because none of us have been on the moon and they can always throw back an arguement that the masses will believe.
This is the key to it all, 'what the masses believe'

Like I said, the flag, perspective, stars and rock positions hold more weight as theories of prooving the landing was faked because ALL OF THESE should correspond with how things work on earth so we can proove it's a lie. The speed, movement issue is the least convincing and easiest of the theories to dismiss because the environment is different on the moon to earth.

You should ditch any thoughts that one piece of evidence will convince the masses once and for all because it would never happen. Like I said before, the only way the masses will really question the moon landing would be either through a combination of many different issues or if buzz and neil speak up.

I'm not saying what your doing is a waste of time because it isn't however it's only a small piece of what will be a big lump of evidence needed for everyone to believe it.
__________________
You can never know if quotes on the internet are genuine -Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a white army battles Indians and wins, it is called a great victory, but if they lose it is called a massacre. Chiksika/Cheeseekau
rreeve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 01:10 PM   #25
thesloth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 181
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
I guess one could tweak the speed until it looks most natural - but that would be a subjective view.
What is the "scientific" hypothesis on this, that can be verified. It appears to me that one should be able to move (jump up) faster if there were less gravity, and probably fall slower... at least intuitively it looks to be that way, but would be a killer to fake on film with 70s technology.

On the other hand, the guy who did the experiment with the glove in vacuum concludes that it would be extremely difficult to even move in a vacuum with a pressurized suit on. What say deep-sea divers and maybe people who fly to high altitudes? Is it easy for them?

Then there is a whole problem of the astronauts doing ridiculously dangerous activities on the "moon" as many of the videos show. Pushing the rod (or whatever) into the surface of the moon is one of them. Isn't there a risk of damaging the suits? What would happen in case of a puncture? Another is driving the rover at relatively high speeds... if it turned over, wouldn't that be bad? How could these things even be contemplated and allowed? (I asked this question elsewhere too).

Having done all these dangerous actions, they come back without even a single picture of the stars, which would have actually been a snap...
thesloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 02:11 PM   #26
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rreeve View Post
Personally I think much of the other evidence holds more weight than this footage speed theory. I'm not saying your not right but it's a dead end theory because none of us have been on the moon and they can always throw back an arguement that the masses will believe.
This is the key to it all, 'what the masses believe'

Like I said, the flag, perspective, stars and rock positions hold more weight as theories of prooving the landing was faked because ALL OF THESE should correspond with how things work on earth so we can proove it's a lie. The speed, movement issue is the least convincing and easiest of the theories to dismiss because the environment is different on the moon to earth.

You should ditch any thoughts that one piece of evidence will convince the masses once and for all because it would never happen. Like I said before, the only way the masses will really question the moon landing would be either through a combination of many different issues or if buzz and neil speak up.

I'm not saying what your doing is a waste of time because it isn't however it's only a small piece of what will be a big lump of evidence needed for everyone to believe it.
With respect you are incorrect IMO in every respect

1) the flag movement COULD be theorised to be due to electrostatic attraction - like what sticks a ballon to a wal - in fact it probably is. i thimnk this sequence was shot inside a vacuum chamber but that's just an educated guess

2) The non parallel shadows argument is a dead end



3) No stars can be argued away as an exposure issue, and moving rocks as an effect of persepective

4) However, the mob know what speeded up film looks like, and if the see film speeded up x2 and it doesn't LOOK speeded up - they can understand it was slowed down in the first place.

Its why I keep my proof of the 911 demolition as simple as possible - to educate the brainwashed masses
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 02:24 PM   #27
badtv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,719
Likes: 8 (7 Posts)
Default

if they can pull off an inside job like 911 then faking the moon landings was prob a piece of piss.
badtv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 02:44 PM   #28
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by badtv View Post
if they can pull off an inside job like 911 then faking the moon landings was prob a piece of piss.
Except the science community KNOWS 911 was a false flag - hence Architects for Truth etc.

So far the defence of Apollo has been much more resilient - they should have used Kubrick on 911 too maybe...

OK here's a challenge for the claim of this thread to meet - that speeded up footage was used and all was shot under Earth gravity - in or out of a vacuum.

How did they fake this?

rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 02:48 PM   #29
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
Except the science community KNOWS 911 was a false flag - hence Architects for Truth etc.

So far the defence of Apollo has been much more resilient - they should have used Kubrick on 911 too maybe...

OK here's a challenge for the claim of this thread to meet - that speeded up footage was used and all was shot under Earth gravity - in or out of a vacuum.

How did they fake this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=namBU...layer_embedded
A Clue here


can you see what is wrong with the above picture?
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 03:25 PM   #30
frenat
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 934
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizzy View Post
I do totally dispute any tin can has ever made it through the van Allen radiation belt.
Good thing they only went through the edge of them then.
frenat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 05:06 PM   #31
dolores1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Over the hill and round the bend
Posts: 14,891
Likes: 15 (13 Posts)
Wink The Shining!

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another dude View Post
We can't see any stars, that's what always bugged me most.

I remember seeing a video of Buzz Aldrin and the boys, very recently after the landings, being asked by the press why there was no stars in the video. Buzz was thrown off guard, blushed and looked very uncomfortable, he then shrugged it off laughing saying how would I know, they all laughed and then another question was asked.

Cinema God Stanley Kubrick is suspected of directing the moon landing video, hard to believe he forgot that we actually see a glittering galaxy from the moon, not blackness.


I'm not disputing man going to the moon, but I'm almost certain that footage was staged cold war propaganda.
Stanley Kubrick left all sorts of clues on the film The Shining as he had been threatened I believe.

Last edited by dolores1; 19-07-2010 at 05:07 PM. Reason: Add
dolores1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2010, 05:13 PM   #32
luther_gravy
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 40
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Apollo was faked by the '26-Mile' or 'Lemon' Order. I thought everyone knew that? Why is there even a discussion about this? It's as if you've never seen the inside of a cake.
luther_gravy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2010, 12:58 PM   #33
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luther_gravy View Post
Apollo was faked by the '26-Mile' or 'Lemon' Order. I thought everyone knew that? Why is there even a discussion about this? It's as if you've never seen the inside of a cake.
eh? I know Sheppard hung a lemon in his window... what are you on about?

I am sure that you cannot speed film up x 2 and yet it is absent 'jerky motion' effect. 100% sure. No matter some Apollo footage was shot at normal speed - the fact some has been faked by running film at slow speed damns the mission.

Many attempts to prove the fake to the extent you can demonstrate it to lay people have failed. If only researchers and experts can understand the nuances then I am afraid it is who shouts loudest whose view prevails

http://www.desitwist.com/freedom-cas...fake-2282.html

This one has I think more chance
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2010, 01:44 PM   #34
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 rodin View Post
A Clue here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYb...1&feature=fvwp

can you see what is wrong with the above picture?
Nope. Please enlighten me.

Here's a calculation of height:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5s7yEQ3C5E

Here is a debunk of those who think wires were also used and slowed down:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAqF3MOKDTg

btw. You jump up with minimal knee bend and tell me how far you get off the ground. Not as far as he did, and he wasn't giving it full welly.


Rodin, watch this. Vast distance, single light source, massive mountain, never gets nearer. This could NOT be on Earth.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc

Last edited by The Tealady; 31-08-2012 at 09:27 AM. Reason: rude
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2010, 02:00 PM   #35
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 dolores1 View Post
Stanley Kubrick left all sorts of clues on the film The Shining as he had been threatened I believe.
Stanley Kubrick and his pathetic attempt at simulating the Moon, with special effects and a film budget, and multiple takes:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...95&postcount=7

Stanley Kubrick and his 'CLUES':
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...postcount=1606

Stanley didn't do it. NASA landed on the Moon.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2010, 04:02 PM   #36
rreeve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Still trying to work that out
Posts: 5,319
Likes: 37 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
With respect you are incorrect IMO in every respect

1) the flag movement COULD be theorised to be due to electrostatic attraction - like what sticks a ballon to a wal - in fact it probably is. i thimnk this sequence was shot inside a vacuum chamber but that's just an educated guess

2) The non parallel shadows argument is a dead end



3) No stars can be argued away as an exposure issue, and moving rocks as an effect of persepective

4) However, the mob know what speeded up film looks like, and if the see film speeded up x2 and it doesn't LOOK speeded up - they can understand it was slowed down in the first place.

Its why I keep my proof of the 911 demolition as simple as possible - to educate the brainwashed masses

Fair comments I guess. Thanks for putting me straight.
Well, I say COME ON BUZZ OR NEIL DO THE RIGHT THING
__________________
You can never know if quotes on the internet are genuine -Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a white army battles Indians and wins, it is called a great victory, but if they lose it is called a massacre. Chiksika/Cheeseekau
rreeve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-07-2010, 09:19 PM   #37
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 rreeve View Post
Fair comments I guess. Thanks for putting me straight.
Well, I say COME ON BUZZ OR NEIL DO THE RIGHT THING
Happy 1001 posts!

Neil Armstrong Interview - lovely bloke, very sincere and humble:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoQm0labM5Y

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqzbnSymE2w
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2010, 07:02 PM   #38
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 rodin View Post
Many attempts to prove the fake to the extent you can demonstrate it to lay people have failed. If only researchers and experts can understand the nuances then I am afraid it is who shouts loudest whose view prevails

http://www.desitwist.com/freedom-cas...fake-2282.html

This one has I think more chance
That article was soundly thrashed around forums. It is pish and completely kicked to death here:

http://www.clavius.org/bibmilne.html
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2010, 06:44 PM   #39
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 ianw View Post
If the stars and the earth was in any footage you would see the constellations and through trigonometry and math could calculate the time the footage was taken.
This would be difficult for the continuity people to have the right stars in the right place to match the live footage.
And people would have done it to shut the moon landing deniers up.
Nonsense. If the stars were in sky the difference in relative trigonometry would so infinitessibly small, you probably wouldn't be able to resolve it with Hubble.

The stars weren't visible by the TV cameras because the apertures were set for the bright surface and suits of the astronaut.
The stars weren't visible by the still photography, because they were exposing for the same things, astronauts, surface, LM, LR etc.
The stars weren't visible to the astronauts, because the surface glare was quite intense. Light pollution in town centres will stop stars being visible, and that's just a few street lights. If the whole ground was lit, and your eyes were adjusted for it, you would NEVER see a star.

Now, anybody else still think stars would be visible by tv,camera or man? Go and try it out on Earth. get your camera out, get your video out and stare at a torch for 2 minutes. You won't see jack.

It was a moronic argument to start with and it is propogated by ignorance.
truegroup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2010, 07:19 PM   #40
porridge
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: emigrating to Scotland..
Posts: 10,947
Likes: 1,651 (822 Posts)
Thumbs down

Give it up true,everyone knows it was faked.
porridge 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 05:35 AM.


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