|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 13:14:16 GMT -4
Like a good film director can't fix that? 2001 was magical.... When was the last time you saw that film? I suggest you take another look and watch out for those not-so-subtle errors. It is quite interesting that there was absolutely no attempt to emulate lunar gravity in the film at all, nor the vacuum.That is quite a good point. But then, if they did it might have made Apollo more obvious.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 13:10:38 GMT -4
I love how in Star Trek you can beam onto derilict ships with no power and nothing working and yet they still stick to the floor. Apparently artificial gravity generators have really good quality control. Shows how easy it is to deceive the masses with fake science. Also puts a load of nonsense into heads
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 13:01:52 GMT -4
Even when the soviets were allies during the war the amount of cooperation was somewhat limited because the western allies didn't really trust them, and were routinely running intercepts on soviet encoded message traffic. Bletchley park had a team devoted to decoding Soviet transmissions and the cracked German messages the Brits passed on to them was extremely limited. We didn't trust them even when they were 'on our side' pre 1946. Read the Lend Lease inventory. USA gave USSR atomic secrets AND materials during Manhattan.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 13:00:13 GMT -4
Rodin try and understand this, during WWII the USSR was an ally of the USA, the one doing the bulk of the fighting in fact. It was imperative to keep them in the war so the western allies were willing to give them pretty much anything they needed. Ater 1945 another set of imperatives came into play that saw relations with the USSR deteriorate and with the Berlin blockade in 1948 the Cold War was on in earnest. In short the Cold War didn't begin until after 1945, thus that chunk of cut and paste you posted in lieu of an argument is irrelevant. Now how about getting back to trying to back up your claims about the moon rocks? Senator McCarthy certainly believed in the Cold War. He did his duty best he could based on what he knew. He was betrayed, demonised, and eventually (too late) vindicated. He was like the Russian journalists who get too close to the oligarchic truth - taken care of. The truth was both the USSR and USA were being run by the International Jewish mafiya since 1913 and 1917 respectively to add www.iamthewitness.com/books/Douglas.Reed/The.Controversy.of.Zion/41.The.Revolution.Extends.htmDouglas Reed was the prime war Correspondent in the UK between the wars
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 12:54:28 GMT -4
The Cold War was a Hoax. Which is not to say that ordinary soldiers perceived it as such. The higher up the chain of command though the closer the convergence in aims and ambitions. Except it wouldn't work. You cannot have the vast mass of of your people with real weapons and the potential to start a real shooting war and thinking they are in a real conflict if they aren't, that route will lead to disaster. If you read any history you would see the power of politicians and generals to control conflicts is very limited, once they start they tend to take on a life of their own. And as for those generals frankly the notion that the likes of Macarthur and Doolittle would have played along with cozying up to the USSR is laughable. The good generals (like Patton) were murdered
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 12:53:43 GMT -4
Rodin try and understand this, during WWII the USSR was an ally of the USA, the one doing the bulk of the fighting in fact. It was imperative to keep them in the war so the western allies were willing to give them pretty much anything they needed. Ater 1945 another set of imperatives came into play that saw relations with the USSR deteriorate and with the Berlin blockade in 1948 the Cold War was on in earnest. In short the Cold War didn't begin until after 1945, thus that chunk of cut and paste you posted in lieu of an argument is irrelevant. Now how about getting back to trying to back up your claims about the moon rocks? An ally that gets the atom bomb given to them?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 12:52:07 GMT -4
Someone questioned whether I knew what 'cores' were. I do from my interest in mining companies.
Now on to the Moon Rocks
1) We could have all analyses controlled. heck if we can keep the lid on the obvious demolition of WTC we can easily make up Moon Rock stories
2) We could fake Moon Rocks (and Cores). The claim is that the crystalline surface structure must have formed in a vacuum. How about we grab a rocky meteorite. Blast off the outer layer - that would reveal a rough interior essentially similar to the final Moon rock specification with perhaps one difference - the surface layer would not have sharp edges. So how to make sharp edges? Grow fresh crystals on top would be first thought - in vacuo of course.
3) Alternatively just make rocks from scratch in vacuo to match one of the 'Lunar' meteorites found by Von Braun
Just some suggestions
Now other stuff LRRR LRO etc has been brought up. Do you want to discuss that here, on the jump analysis thread, or what?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 9, 2010 12:16:06 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 19:10:53 GMT -4
Double speed as opposed to 2.45 speed you mean? Actually I would prefer to view A11 @ 2.45. If you meant 2.45 why didn't you say 2.45? Why did you say double speed? I'm not fussy right now
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 19:10:25 GMT -4
You haven't proved that the Apollo footage is mangled. OK one last shot - that is a disingeuous post. 2001 is in MUCH higher focus, resolution and stability than Apollo footage.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 19:08:22 GMT -4
But was he responsible for the LRO images? Do you still claim this? Even though he died in 1999? Do you believe any of NASA's missions are/were real? Which ones? Gimme a break LRO images are dodgy - that's another topic though. How many lines of inquiry do you want to have going @ once? Right. I am going to get to the bottom of that NASA timecode... Calling Mr Truegroup.... That will be my last online action pertaining to Apollo this evening. G'night. Next stop Germany for a few days. Probably 100% offline
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 19:04:27 GMT -4
Like a good film director can't fix that? 2001 was magical.... Appeal to an un-named entity who can magically fix all the holes in your ideas noted. You have also confirmed our suspicions that you have absolutely no interest in the truth at all, since anything that doesn't fit your idea will be the work of this supremely talented director. 2001 was not magical. It was visually very impressive, but even to me I can see the way the effects were done and spot the flaws where they just couldn't get it right. Well done! What about if it was mangled to the extent Apollo footage was, and also the perogative was not to make mistakes rather than provide sumptuous footage?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 19:01:47 GMT -4
You say a good film director could fix anything in the footage, but you also say they left things in the footage that prove a hoax. I'm sorry, but that sounds contradictory. Speaking of Stanley Kubrick, do you still think he's responsible for the LRO images? I am looking for subtle but measurable errors Kubrick would have been my number one choice. He had the credentials and the eye for detail. A true genius. He credited NASA on 2001. He got the NASA camera for Barry Lyndon.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 18:56:13 GMT -4
I am arguing a case because I think it is VERY SUSPICIOUS nothing has soft landed on the Moon for 3 decades Why is it suspicious? Why are we obliged to find your suspicions reasonable? Nothing has soft landed on the Moon. So what? We have, as I have already mentioned, soft-landed things on Mars, Titan and an asteroid since then. It is irrelevant, and will remain so as long as you insist on using YouTube as your source for your research. You have NO IDEA whatsoever what generation information you are looking at, or where that time stamp came from or why. You have no idea what it actually means to be a researcher. I will invite the poster who provided the video to explain As for Titan asteroids and Mars - who says? Anyway Mars is a different prospect - it has an atmosphere - as does Titan I think. And a rendezvous with an asteroid is essentially a docking not a landing
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 18:52:24 GMT -4
Because off screen wires can be attached and removed - simples By whom? Magical people who leave no footprints? And to what are they attached? A magical rig that is invisible even when the camera tilts upwards? Rodin, you haven't even looked at the footage before throwing out these absurd ideas. you couldn't show your bias any more clearly if you tried. You want it to be fake. I can tell you, I have seen ALL of the footage, and your wires and slowed-down video suggestions simply do not fit. Like a good film director can't fix that? 2001 was magical....
|
|