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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-03-2009, 07:05 PM   #81
endlessvista
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: County Wicklow, Ireland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
What questions do you claim I have not answered? And what precisely are your credentials in science?
30 years in Astronomy. Next question?
endlessvista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 07:07 PM   #82
hugolast
Senior Member
 
hugolast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 226
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Originally Posted by dreamweaver
T Thousands of geologists have examined the moon rocks and confirmed that they are not of this earth. Obviously they must all be in on the conspiracy too

couldn't it be meteorites, it's a possibilty surely especially if the rocks are not from this earth
__________________
If your Religion is worth killing for........


Please start with yourself...
hugolast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 07:09 PM   #83
endlessvista
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: County Wicklow, Ireland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post

Bye for now, otherwise I'll be here all bloody week.

Really? I thought you were going stay to easily debunk the Apollo hoax with your microscope and science?
endlessvista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 07:17 PM   #84
jiffy
Senior Member
 
jiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,513
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
re film passing through VA belts.

Actually, airport scanners don't fog film. I've had plenty of films passed through them without any effect.

The astronauts were exposed to no more radiation in the craft than a chest X-ray. I've posted the guy's calculations on that - if you want to dispute him, the only sure way of knowing is to educate yourself in the necessary maths and physics and do the calculations yourself.

I can't see the issue of films in canisters being problematic.

:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiffy View Post

How did the film survive the radiation belt? given that the old luggage scanners used to wipe films
You just happened to miss the OLD LUGGAGE SCANNER, maybe your to young to remember, but when scanners first came out you had to remove films from camera's otherwise they were wiped blank not fogged. Luggage scanners now use much less radiation than body X-Rays.

I have no need to do the maths, if by your own words the belt is no more radioactive than a chest X-Ray I would suggest you take a film next time you have one and see what happens!!!!!!!

Also please answer the other questions regarding lighting, overlaid backgrounds and temperature's that normal 35mm film allegedly withstood.

Correct me if im wrong but I'm lead to believe that the Maximum surface temperature is 123°C and Minimum surface temperature -233°C ?

If this is true try putting a film in the oven, then a freeze, and see what happens.
jiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 07:18 PM   #85
endlessvista
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: County Wicklow, Ireland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

They earth is filled with Moon and Mars rocks. They can be easily collected in Antartica. They were blasted off the moon by meteor impacts and floated around in the solar system before falling to earth. They find them on the Antartic as they stand out against the white ice and snow. Literally thousands of them fall to earth every day. Getting moon rocks on earth is fairly easy.

Even if this was not the case, unmanned probes had already brought them back before Apollo.

I am amazed that people who "debunk" the moon hoax by saying "but they have moon rocks" are so blantantly ignorant of the dynamic of astrogeology but then claim to have "science" on their side.

I have found time and time again that the Moon hoax "debunkers" are often incredibly ignorant of the "science" they claim to represent, and just assume that because the saw it on TV then it happened when you really get down to the nitty gritty.

Or they are on the NASA payroll or are hoping to get work from them. Like the mole who runs Bad Astronomy who when all else fails resorts to calling people "nuts" and "kooks" when they coner him on issue such as how did they get the Lunar Rover off the LM and assemble it and why no technical documents relating to this procedure were ever produced. Let alone showing how it was even squeezed into the LM. If it was it would make if impossible for the astronauts to even get into their spacesuits due to the lack of space to move.

Last edited by endlessvista; 06-03-2009 at 07:21 PM.
endlessvista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 07:27 PM   #86
endlessvista
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: County Wicklow, Ireland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jiffy View Post
temperature is 123°C and Minimum surface temperature -233°C ?
and the Apollo film was run of the mill Kodak film with no special modifactions and they took some of the most beautifully exposed and composed photographic images in the history of photography with a camera mounted on their chests that had no view finder.
endlessvista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 07:30 PM   #87
runciter
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,998
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

endlessvista your titanic thread is one of my all time favourites and this one is great too.

runciter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 07:54 PM   #88
coco
Senior Member
 
coco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bitchin' Rockstaritude from Mars
Posts: 14,719
Likes: 3 (2 Posts)
Default

I'm here to make one statement. I watched man walk on the moon and all that. Not very exciting to child. Anyway, I have to admit when they took off from the moon it looked fakey and still does to me today. Looked like an advanced sort of photo imagery for the time. Somewhat cartoony.

Last edited by coco; 06-03-2009 at 08:19 PM.
coco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 08:18 PM   #89
allure
Senior Member
 
allure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Isle of Everywhere
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 25 (18 Posts)
Default

Can anybody link the original video from the first post? Its not showing up for me.
__________________
When you seek happiness for yourself, it will always elude you.
When you seek happiness for others, you will find it in yourself.
allure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 08:31 PM   #90
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
dreamweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by endlessvista View Post
30 years in Astronomy. Next question?
What questions do you claim I haven't answered? Not that I was inviting you to flood me with multiple posts in between me answering other posts anyway, I was inviting you to give it your best shot and have a meaningful discussion rather than a pie-flinging contest. But it seems you are only interested in the latter.

And "30 years in astronomy" could mean anything from someone who occasionally glances up at the sky and can name a few constellations up to a university professor. Which is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by endlessvista View Post
Really? I thought you were going stay to easily debunk the Apollo hoax with your microscope and science?
I invited you to give it your best shot and you really haven't come up with anything remotely troubling so far. Why are you having so much trouble debating facts rather than attacking the messenger?

Quote:
Originally Posted by endlessvista View Post
and the Apollo film was run of the mill Kodak film with no special modifactions and they took some of the most beautifully exposed and composed photographic images in the history of photography with a camera mounted on their chests that had no view finder.
Hasselblad cameras don't have a viewfinder but they do have a rangefinder which is visible from the top, as any photographer knows. I don't know if the Hasselblads used by Apollo had rangefinders or not, but that's definitely their 'style'.

They also took hundreds of 'duds' that didn't make it to general release. Unsurprisingly, NASA chose the best ones.

Quote:
Or they are on the NASA payroll or are hoping to get work from them. Like the mole who runs Bad Astronomy who when all else fails resorts to calling people "nuts" and "kooks" when they coner him on issue such as how did they get the Lunar Rover off the LM and assemble it and why no technical documents relating to this procedure were ever produced. Let alone showing how it was even squeezed into the LM. If it was it would make if impossible for the astronauts to even get into their spacesuits due to the lack of space to move.
Aha! So far from being someone who has just recently "reached the conclusion" that these missions were faked, you have in fact believed it for a long time and got into slanging matches with the 'Bad Astronomy" guy, haven't you? Gave yourself away there.

And surely the concept of folding things up isn't beyond you? Right now, I have a tent folded up in a package that measures about 18" long and 6" in diameter. Yet after a few minutes of work, hey presto, it's a four-man tent with dimensions (H)190 max/140 min, (W)470, (L)255cm.

Oh, and please link to the Bad Astronomy forum threads in which someone (you?) was called a "nut" and "kook" when they were "cornered" about the Lunar Rover, so we can all judge for ourselves who was in the right.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!

Last edited by dreamweaver; 06-03-2009 at 09:19 PM.
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 08:36 PM   #91
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
dreamweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coco View Post
I'm here to make one statement. I watched man walk on the moon and all that. Not very exciting to child. Anyway, I have to admit when they took off from the moon it looked fakey and still does to me today. Looked like an advanced sort of photo imagery for the time. Somewhat cartoony.
The thing is that they were there to land on the moon, get a few snapshots, gather a few samples and make a speech (in which the lines were either fluffed or - as Armstrong claims - the word "a" was blotted out by static). They weren't there to make it "look good".

What people think "looks good" and "sounds good" on screen doesn't always correspond with the real thing anyway. People who have only ever heard gunfire in movies think real gunshots "sound fake" for example. And think how many people are convinced that spacecraft make "whooshing" sounds in space after watching all those sci-fi movies and TV shows...
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 08:42 PM   #92
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
dreamweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugolast View Post
Originally Posted by dreamweaver
T Thousands of geologists have examined the moon rocks and confirmed that they are not of this earth. Obviously they must all be in on the conspiracy too

couldn't it be meteorites, it's a possibilty surely especially if the rocks are not from this earth
Good question. Geologists can tell the difference though. See http://www.meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm for example. The differences are very clear and any geologist worth their salt could easily tell the difference between a meteorite and a rock taken from the moon. For a start moon rocks won't have any of the charring that meteorites found on earth would. This is also why tales of Werner von Braun secretly grabbing meteorites from the Antarctic and passing them off as moon rocks are complete rubbish.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:27 PM   #93
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
dreamweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Re the heat question raised by gracht and others. I said I would go away and research it and this is what someone who believes the Apollo missions were real says: "The temperatures quoted are surface temperatures. Remember that on the Moon, in a vacuum, there is no such thing as an ambient temperature. It's not like walking outside on a hot day or a cold winter's night. There is no heat to deal with except incoming solar radiation, and the ability to deal with that was well-known by Apollo. That's why the spacesuits were white: it reflects most incoming light and heat. The spacesuit design devoted more effort to keeping the astronauts from overheating due to the heat from their own bodies in a sealed rubber suit than to keeping them from frying in the solar heat."

Now I'm not claiming to be the fount of all knowledge, I prefer to write about what I know about rather than make shit up. The above sounds plausible enough to me but I'll be the first to admit I'll need to research this particular question in greater depth to be certain about it.
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!

Last edited by dreamweaver; 06-03-2009 at 09:34 PM.
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:32 PM   #94
grachtengordel
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,401
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
And think how many people are convinced that spacecraft make "whooshing" sounds in space after watching all those sci-fi movies and TV shows...
are you serious? there can't be many people that dumb. thinking that "spacecraft make "whooshing" sounds in space" is as daft as believing that those men were actually on the moon
grachtengordel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:36 PM   #95
endlessvista
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: County Wicklow, Ireland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by runciter View Post
endlessvista your titanic thread is one of my all time favourites and this one is great too.

cheers mate - the truth will set us all free.
endlessvista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:44 PM   #96
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
dreamweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grachtengordel View Post
are you serious? there can't be many people that dumb. thinking that "spacecraft make "whooshing" sounds in space"
Producers do it precisely because they think the average viewer wouldn't understand that there are no noises in space (at least external to the vessel).

You can probably blame Gene Roddenberry for that one, he insisted that TV viewers wouldn't "get" a silent spaceship, as they were used to craft making noises.

Having seen the quality of programmes on a friend's TV (I dumped mine years ago), I'm not sure he was wrong about viewers' intelligence.

Quote:
is as daft as believing that those men were actually on the moon
You missed out the word "not" between "were" and "actually".
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!

Last edited by dreamweaver; 06-03-2009 at 09:46 PM.
dreamweaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:49 PM   #97
lightgiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,291
Likes: 228 (182 Posts)
Default NASA Masons

Quote:
Originally Posted by endlessvista View Post
Having looked at all the evidence now I am totally convinced that the Apollo Moon programme was a complete sham. The evidence ffrom numerous angles and fields is so overwhelming at this point. I tend to be very cynical about all popular conspiricy thories, but I am nailing my colours firmly to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax mast. It was a huge con job.

Everytime I stumble upon something which proves this to me, another little gem of real truth comes along. Check out this Neil Armstrong speech on the 25th aniversary of the "moon landings".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NQ3U...e=channel_page

Be like Pele being awarded for his sporting life and failing to mention he ever kicked a ball.
Neil Armstrong, Jr. is not a freemason; his father, Neil Armstrong, Sr. is an active freemason. (Ohio Grand Lodge of Freemasons records).
Flight information cited from Spaceflight: A Smithsonian Guide. Valerie Neal, Cathleen S. Lewis, Frank H. Winter, in Association with the National Air and Space Museum, The Smithsonion Institution, Washington, D.C., New York, 1995. Image detail from NASA photo of Aldrin, modified by Stanley Q. Woodvine in 1998.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ex...olitics_ZI.htm

Last edited by lightgiver; 06-03-2009 at 09:52 PM.
lightgiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:49 PM   #98
endlessvista
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: County Wicklow, Ireland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post

"Last updated 10 September 2007."

Do you not find it strange that NASA are still modifying technical details from stuff desinged nearly 40 years ago?

Were are the original assembly manuals from 1970? Apprently the standard excuse from NASA was it was "Top Secret" - which is pretty funny as the LR was essentially a golf buggy. I know because I have stood next to one of them and it look pretty massive compared to the tiny wee LM it had to share with 2 astronauts. Then in the last few years NASA puts up a webpage saying "this is how we did it now shut up" - very odd?

And get this...why did they even need a wee moon car? Think about it. It was a massive danger to the astronauts on so many levels. One crash on the moon suface or its battery to fail miles form the LM would be death for the Apollo Spaceman Car Driving dudes. Even getting the thing off the LM was a suicide risk.

Here is a clue, the Lunar Rover made good TV. It looked like something from a SCi-Fi movie. That's the only reason it made its magical appearance. The NASA fakers got carried away with themselves and got too ambitious. I also suspect that the whole playing golf on the moon was an inside joke about the LR.

Still was some feat for the astronauts to assemble this thing on the moon with their big chubby gloves.

After a while the NASA moon landings, when you really look at them start to look like a Carry On movie.

Last edited by endlessvista; 06-03-2009 at 09:50 PM.
endlessvista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:55 PM   #99
lightgiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 36,291
Likes: 228 (182 Posts)
Default Alternative 3

Interesting if you have not seen it

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?doc...native+3&hl=en

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?doc...67471860&hl=en

Last edited by lightgiver; 06-03-2009 at 09:56 PM.
lightgiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:58 PM   #100
dreamweaver
Senior Member
 
dreamweaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,882
Likes: 24 (13 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by endlessvista View Post
"Last updated 10 September 2007."

Do you not find it strange that NASA are still modifying technical details from stuff desinged nearly 40 years ago?
So you don't know the difference between updating a web page and updating the technical details?

Quote:
Were are the original assembly manuals from 1970? Apprently the standard excuse from NASA was it was "Top Secret" - which is pretty funny as the LR was essentially a golf buggy. I know because I have stood next to one of them and it look pretty massive compared to the tiny wee LM it had to share with 2 astronauts. Then in the last few years NASA puts up a webpage saying "this is how we did it now shut up" - very odd?
It didn't take long to find this "non-existent" document that you are trying to dismiss. How hard were you looking?

Quote:
And get this...why did they even need a wee moon car? Think about it. It was a massive danger to the astronauts on so many levels. One crash on the moon suface or its battery to fail miles form the LM would be death for the Apollo Spaceman Car Driving dudes. Even getting the thing off the LM was a suicide risk.
No, they didn't need a moon car. Like you said, it was to make good TV. The American public were getting bored and wondering why they should keep on funding these missions, remember?

And yes, the Apollo missions took risks that would not be acceptable today. They were from a different era, of "can do" rather than the culture of "elf n safety" and "where there's blame, there's a claim" of today.

Oh, and please... can you link to the Bad Astronomy forum threads in which someone (you?) was called a "nut" and "kook" when they were "cornered" about the Lunar Rover, so we can all judge for ourselves who was in the right?
__________________
Congratulations, you found the secret message. Shhh!

Last edited by dreamweaver; 06-03-2009 at 09:58 PM.
dreamweaver 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 12:57 AM.


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