|
Post by tedward on Apr 10, 2010 17:34:46 GMT -4
They can supposedly read a car number plate from low Earth orbit through the atmosphere. They'd probably be able to read the serial number on the LM. White has a point, there was a lot of hype about the LRO that hasn't lived up. Just want to pin this down. On the subject of spy satellites and number plates. If I may. Number plates are vertical, in the main. There are a few that adorn the bonnets of a a few exotica but the usual hum drum have the upright. When the upright is supposedly observed then I would think the angle for observation places the spy satellite not overhead. So said sat is zooming away looking for naughty people, not so much number plates. Where is this from? I ask in all ignorance of spy sat abilities.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 10, 2010 20:35:11 GMT -4
...but it is a point brought up to defend a proposition and therefore an argument.Indeed, but that's a usage for which I typically reserve the cautionary quotation marks: it's an "argument." Then again, Jarrah's isn't generally an argument; it's contradiction.Followed by the most amusing pseudo-intellectual tap-dancing involving basic arithmetic, logarithmic scaling, integrated radiation doses, and calendrical shenanigans. "Because Jarrah said so" would be a logically defensible argument if he could demonstrate any adjudicated knowledge of any of the topics he covers. However the opinion of a decidedly uninformed layman does not carry the weight of an expert's opinion. And his unwillingness to face the experts and put his theories to the test in the real world, outside his happily walled garden, speaks volumes. What makes it a particularly odious argument in this case is when Jarrah's videos are wielded by people who classify us "sheeple" and call us "closed-minded" for believing what NASA has supposedly spoon-fed us and not accepting the "enlightened" truth of the hoax theories. Odious because all they've done is put blind faith in Jarrah's spoon-feeding and declined to open their eyes to the possibility that he doesn't know what he's talking about and isn't especially motivated to treat the subject fairly. Each of these proponents is amazingly blind to the projection and subsequent hypocrisy. It comes down to a grand ad hominem. The hoax believers have arbitrarily decided who is right and who is wrong, and are largely unconcerned with what the argument is about. Oh, and of course the obvious fact that your only interest in life is ruining his, but that goes without saying!And that continues to be a source of amusement. More of my potential clients, upon Googling my name, have run across Jarrah's videos and responded almost verbatim, "Wow! Is that guy for real?" I fail to see how I've wrecked his life in any way, since I mostly ignore him. He makes a happy little nest for himself and his sycophants. When he is willing to put his claims to a real-world test amongst real-world experts, in a way that does not allow him to escape accountability by controlling the appearance of the debate, then he will have my attention. YouTube obviously doesn't count.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Apr 12, 2010 17:21:14 GMT -4
Seems Hagbard has gone. Abducted?
Its a pity cos I was interested to find out how the Japanese did the Kaguya trick.
Hagbard will reappear back in Icke and post that he tried to convince Clavius but the silly "sheeple" didn't listen to his proof that it was hoaxed.
This thread is an interesting insight into HBs behaviours though...........
Changing the subject - bringing in the spy satellite angle to divert attention away from Apollo.
Simply denying the evidence is genuine but failing to explain how, and more importantly why, the LRO photos were faked.
Failing to provide alternative explanations with supporting evidence. Instead just postulating a theory with no substantiation, which is why he will never achieve credibility except on Icke where proper discussion is non-existent.
The term "clutching at straws" is appropriate but that won't stop the Icke forum from ressurecting the old arguments. Soon there will be a new thread started along the lines of - "The flag is fluttering - that is irrefutable proof that it was faked".
Some of my favourites -
There could be no moon rover because its tyres would melt.
The LEM could not fly because it has no wings.
The astronauts looked nervous during a press conference so that proves they didn't go.
Everyone in NASA since the start of the program has been under hypnosis and the hypnotists themselves have also been hypnotised. Now the whole LRO project staff are also being hypnotised into photoshopping the landers into the photos.
The Kaguya Prioject staff are also hypnotised.
Derren Brown must be making a fortune. It would be much cheaper for NASA if they just hypnotised Hagbard.
|
|
|
Post by slang on Apr 12, 2010 17:21:17 GMT -4
Look, I don't want to argue about this! Excellent! Well worth sharing.. from (what seems to be) the authors' youtube channel: (some bad language)
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Apr 13, 2010 12:05:41 GMT -4
Is there anyone in the anglosphere who hasn't already seen that? ;D (Just noticed the thread title has a spelling error. And I also figured out why.)
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Apr 13, 2010 14:18:42 GMT -4
Actually, I read a transcript of that sketch before I saw it.
|
|
|
Post by slang on Apr 13, 2010 16:15:44 GMT -4
Is there anyone in the anglosphere who hasn't already seen that? In my experience: surprisingly many, even in my age group. But I had young, impressionable HB's in mind.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Apr 21, 2010 3:01:26 GMT -4
They don't entirely have to be, though. People here can give you a great deal of information on the properties of optics that mean capabilities have been greatly exaggerated. Besides, license plates are at an angle that a satellite couldn't read anyway. It could if the car was up on a jack. ;D I think that whoever made that statement was just talking hyothetically about the capibilities of the satelite's camera.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Apr 21, 2010 3:09:17 GMT -4
But it's not close enough to see properly what it is; it's as if it's a few hundred feet below. It's actually a few tens of miles below, and at that distance that's just what you would expect to see from the optical systems on board the LRO. I know, it's just that the picture made it look as if the viewer were looking down from a few hundred feet with the naked eye. What do you want, a piece of fake balsawood LM hull? I'll get you a piece if you buy my ticket! ;D So how come the HB-debunking community has been harping on and on about the LRO: "This will be the last word on the subject", "Conspiracy theorists, you're time is up!" etc.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Apr 21, 2010 3:12:21 GMT -4
I just question how and when they went, and who did go. Somebody could have left the reflectors there, yes. Why? What is your evidence that the record as stated is fraudulent, and what do you propose as an alternative? I have no evidence, as in a camera shot of the initiated astronauts doing it, blueprints for the secret unmanned craft that dropped off the retroreflector or anything like that. But what I meant was that it is possible that it could have been done this way. It's incorrect to say: "The Apollo missions had to be real because there's no other way the retroreflector could have got up there."
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Apr 21, 2010 3:18:15 GMT -4
If the photograph isn't clear enough to conclusively determine that the object in question is indeed an authentic Apollo Lunar Module descent stage, how can it possibly be clear enough to determine that the construction material is balsa wood? That was an example of what it could be. It's not a good enough pic to determine what the object was made of, including whether it was made out of Grumman steel and aluminium. It depends on the location of the camera and the object being photgraphed. This was just an example of the camera's capabilities, see my post above. Impossible because the pink unicorns only speak Yiddish and mission control don't. Oh, yes. I know all the lines!
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Apr 21, 2010 3:22:07 GMT -4
Well that's a slight improvement. Impressive, but not earth-shattering. Certainly not up to the standard we were led to expect.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Apr 21, 2010 3:38:40 GMT -4
As for the retroreflectors: Objects can be placed on the moon like that without human hands.That wasn't the question. Objects have been observed on the surface of the Moon within mere yards of the positions of the retroreflectors, whose positions have been documented for decades. Please explain how such precision could have been obtained. Are you aware of any other pinpoint unmanned planetary landings at all? I dispute your implication that precision unmanned landings are possible. Please substantiate your claim. I have no evidence, as in a camera shot of the initiated astronauts installing the retroreflector, blueprints for the secret unmanned craft that dropped off the retroreflector or anything like that. But what I meant was that it is possible that it could have been done this way. It's incorrect to say: "The Apollo missions had to be real because there's no other way the retroreflector could have got up there." Evidence? Well, what we have are eye-witness testimony from people claiming to be former government insiders, and Jarrah White et al, who seem not to be in high esteem on this forum. I suspect that won't satisfy you and you'll say all these people are liars. But I'm in the same position, in a way. When the agency of an Illuminati-occupied government comes forward and claims that it put 12 men on the moon and flashes a few groovy pictures in front of my eyes to prove it, then I'm afraid that doesn't satisfy me!
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Apr 21, 2010 3:44:06 GMT -4
Quite true; and the images we have received are consistent with an informed understanding of those capabilities. Maybe you should spend more time listening to scientists and engineers and less time listening to kids who hang out at YouTube and make home movies. Actually it was the testimony of the HB-debunking community that led to my expectations, hyperbole like "We'll be able to find out if the words "UNITED STATES" can be read on the hull of the LM" etc. ;D It's a rotten old world ain't it? ;D
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Apr 21, 2010 3:45:55 GMT -4
They can supposedly read a car number plate from low Earth orbit through the atmosphere. They'd probably be able to read the serial number on the LM. White has a point, there was a lot of hype about the LRO that hasn't lived up. Just want to pin this down. On the subject of spy satellites and number plates. If I may. Number plates are vertical, in the main. There are a few that adorn the bonnets of a a few exotica but the usual hum drum have the upright. When the upright is supposedly observed then I would think the angle for observation places the spy satellite not overhead. So said sat is zooming away looking for naughty people, not so much number plates. Where is this from? I ask in all ignorance of spy sat abilities. This was all hypothetical. See what I wrote above.
|
|