About the Russian soldiers planting a flag on the Reichstag foto: The first foto very clearly shows a solder with a wristwatch on his right wrist, hence looting. Unfortunatly you dont show how the watch was edited out.
You'll notice that there are Apollo shills who have abusively downrated some comments in order to make them disappear.
I could disable the vote on comments to make the disabled comments reappear for I am the owner of the video, but I won't do it: I want people to see by themselves how close-minded and fanatical the Apollo shills are!
I think too, the word "hoax" is being to kind. The word hoax makes me think of some guy in bigfoot suit having a good larf. Like Kennedy, Oswald, Tonkin, 9/11, ect., ect., the moon landing is on the order of crimes against humanity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Van Allen Belts are the smoking gun. We couldn't get through them back in 70's and we can't still to this day. End of the friggin' discussion. It has nothing to do with how fast you fly through the belts. The fact is you will be irradiated beyond you biological ability to survive in anything beyond a lead covered vehicle. Radiologists put that lead shield on you when you have an X-ray for a reason. And that's a microscopic dose compared to the belts. The moon landing are pablum.
The landing of the LM on the moon is another smoking gun; it is impossible to simulate it on earth, because the conditions are too too different: The LM has to start with a relative horizontal velocity of around 6000km/h at an altitude of 110km and arrive near the lunar ground with both horizontal and vertical velocities nulled; it is not trivial, and it is certainly not with the LLRV that they could test it.
With their poor computer, they would have had to make many tests and crashed many Lunar modules (empty of course) before managing to land one safely; these tests would have cost a hell of money.
It is more economical to fake the landing, and the success is also guaranteed (even if they manage to make the LM land safely, there still could be a problem in the next landing with astronauts inside).
Even if the astronauts had really managed to land on the moon, but were unable to go back from the moon, or were dying of radiations, it was not interesting the CIA; a full successful faked mission (in a limited time and not excess of money) was still more worth it in the eyes of the CIA than a half successful real mission.
The CIA also knew that this adventure would fascinate people at a such point that they would defend it with any bad argument they could find, and that the media would blindly back up the project and call doubters "kooks".
the CIA knew that the doubters were standing no chance to endanger the credibility of the project and would only reap contempt, and that's exactly what is happening.
The space radiation itself is a smoking gun, the space is filled with radiation, it's coming from all sides. There are particle there cannot be protected against, they penetrate the hull, and they split when passing aluminum. The NASA crook James Van Hoften admit it, they cannot fly out beyond the belt before an protection is found.
I just love how everyone throws out the phrase "pseudoscience" to make themselves sound intelligent. I do believe it does quite the opposite effect, lol.
The scope is visible on BOTH photographs.The brightness has been altered, but if you open your eyes and look, you will see the scope on top of the Carcano on both photographs. No fakery here... Just a communist dickweed who wanted to shoot the best president we ever had.
@yesiamawizardjonny It should have mentioned that the Warren Commission analyzed the original images, not the spruced-up versions used by the media. At the time, images for printing were routinely altered by airbrush, because the print techniques of the time made simply made the images look muddy unless simplified by blurring out minor details and sharpening soft ones. Get an airbrush book of that era. I doubt a single catalog shot in any big-name catalog, was not enhanced for the same reason.
@yesiamawizardjonny Apollo 12, November 14. Know what else happened that day in 1969? A solar flare! Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 96. I count 89 hours for the apollo 12 mission and 23 hours of M6 class and X4 class solar flares. energies in the range of 6 x 10^25 joules/gram. No one survives a solar flare in the M6 or X4 range. You will fry like a hot dog in a microwave oven.
@hunchbacked If you want to see real space-related images that actually were faked, no doubt about it, go to jamesoberg daht org and look for the Russian astronaut photos... the "Soschi Six" images, IIRC. If an astronaut died or got booted out, they got painted out of publicity images. They successfully covered up their version of the "Apollo One" fire... if they hadn't, NASA would have known not to make the very same mistakes that took the lives of the crew.
If you think that I have uploaded this video to prove that the Apollo photos are fake, then you are effectively not bright!
Of course I will not prove that the Apollo photos are fake with this video (but I have so many other videos to prove it), it is just an entertainment.
It at least shows that modifying photos to change reality and make see something which does not exist is not something new and has always existed.
Absolutely, and I did not say anything else in this video.
It's you who said that I was trying to prove something about Apollo photos being faked in this video because of the provocative title of this video.
I am sure that most of the negative ratings of my video come from the provocative title.
No, the Apollo photos are not faked because of this video, but they are because of other videos I made, and in particular the last one I uploaded today!
@dalek14mc The only thing faked about the Apollo photos is that they were NOT taken on a giant soundstage and were in fact TAKEN ON THE MOON!!!!!!!!!!!
The Apollo photos are faked, not because of this video, but they are faked, period.
If you think they are not faked, then you are extremely naive, because there is an enormous evidence that they are faked, I have plenty of videos showing incoherencies.
So bad for you that you are too blind to see them.
@hunchbacked-You're just saying they are faked and you believe that you're right about everything, you're seriously concieted. I believe they are real because they are backed up by REAL science.
@hunchbacked pseudo experts?!?!?!?!??!?? LIES! Nearly every reputable scientist in the world believes we went to the moon. My uncle, for example, has an EXTREMELY IQ, is very smart and is a professor. He believes they went to the moon. The only people who deny it are you. And you have been lying about your education. You said you're a computer engineer. Then you said you were an aerospace engineer, and then you said you were a "space"-engineer...... don't know that the hell that means ahhahaha
@hunchbacked Here is some real science for you. November 14, apollo 12 launched. Guess what else happened that day? A solar flare! I count 89 total hours for the apollo 12 mission and 23 hours of solar flare activity in the X4 class range. X class is 6 x 10^25 joules/gram. An ungodly number of rads. No one can survive 23 hours of solar flare activity in the M6 class or X4 class range. Manned mission to the moon totally debunked by science. No one survives M6 or X4 class solar flares.
@Daddyo930. The Apollo 12 mission LAUNCHED on Nov 14, but it didn't land on the moon until 5 days later on Nov 19. Even if I accept that the flare lasted the whole day of Nov 14 (which I don't), when they were walking around on the moon the flare had been over for at least 119 hours. Which means they didn't get out of the protective radiation screen of the CSM until long after any danger posed by the flare was long gone. So much for your theory.
@Daddyo930 Oh, and they didn't EVA on the moon for 23 hours. First EVA was 3 h 56 m 03 s, Second EVA was 3 h 49 m 15 s. Total time elapsed: 7 h 45 m 18 s.
So, your claim that "No one can survive 23 hours of solar flare activity..." is complete horsehocky, because they weren't walking around on the moon exposed to solar & cosmic radiation for that long anyways!
@FuckYouLetMeLogIn Let me be even more specific. The apollo craft could not have survived even one minute of a solar flare in the X5 class. The amount of energy is far beyond what apollo was built to withstand.
The Apollo advocates say that the proof that the moon rocks are authentic ricks from the moon and not bits of lunar meteorites fallen on the earth is that they show "zap pits" on them, that is little holes made by micro meteorites.
But, if micrometeorites could cause these holes in rocks, they could also have pierced the suits of the astronaut, at least enough to damage them.
@hunchbacked The rocks took billions of years to get pitted. The astronauts were only in space for days, and while on EVA were wearing suits with materials designed to stop micro-meteoroids... which are, after all, only dust that is moving fast. The odds of the astronauts taking a significantly-sized speck of rock in that short a period of time were very small.
I don't believe in this theory of "micrometeorites" striking the moon rocks; this is bullshit.
Much to the contrary I believe that these little holes have been originally made in bits of lunar meteorites picked in antarctica in order to give the evidence that they were not moon rocks; then the apollo believers later invented the bullshit excuse of the "zap pits" to try to explain these little holes.
No moon rock has ever been brought back from the moon.
@hunchbacked Meteorites and moon rocks don't even look alike- meteorites get burned and melted on the way in, and absorb moisture as they sit there, awaiting discovery. Moon rocks are dry, dry, dry and the micropits have not been sanded away by passage through the Earth's atmosphere. Show me a meteorite that still has its micropits, lunar or otherwise. It just doesn't happen.
@hunchbacked Of course You can't believe in the "micrometeorite theory". How could You? Because it might affect Your prejudicies saying that man can't have been on Moon. Every evidence of a manned lunar landing MUST be faked. That's the only way You can keep Your worldview from collapsing.
The "micrometeorite" theory is completely made up.
It is not proven at all, apart from the fact that the "moon rocks" show holes which might make think of "micrometeorites".
I say that these holes have been made artificially, and I even think that theye have initially been made to give the evidence that the "moon rocks" were not really from the moon.
The pseudo theory of the micrometeorites has then been invented in order to give a justification to these holes.
@hunchbacked What do YOU think will happen when a micrometeorite hits a stone with at least 2.38 km/sec (the speed any object will reach, falling free to Moon from infinite distance)? No hole created? Where does the energy from the impact go?
And, who should have drilled these holes, and why?
Micrometeorites may not be impossible, but I doubt a rain of micrometeorites struck the moon.
Moreover the micrometeorites would tend to gather together (by mutual attraction) and form a bigger meteorite.
About what made these holes, there are several hypotheses; Jarrah White has given his; personally I think that these holes could be done with a laser beam.
@hunchbacked Back in much earlier days, meteorites were much more common than now, and since the bombardment has gone on for billions of years and no wind- or water-erosion has occured, the rocks show signs of every impact they've got. If micrometeorites had "gathered together" (some do, but not most), comets wouldn't have had tails, and we wouldn't have hade the meteor showers we can see several times a year.
@hunchbacked Excuse me, but I must say that those who can't accept that man has reached another celestial body, tend to invent more and more fantastic excuses for the evidences that it actually has occured. Many times it's quite desperate attempts to try to explaine away the proofs.
It was much more easy to actually send men to Moon, than to design and create all these absurd fakery the "Hoax-believers" invent to defend their "religious" beliefs.
It's not that I can't accept that man cannot reach another celestial body, it's that I strongly doubt than man can reach another celestial body that easily.
In the sixties, the USA were not ready to send a man on the moon.
And even today, with a more advanced technology, no country could do it.
@hunchbacked There were things done back then that can't be done now. No one has dived to the bottom of the Marianas Trench since then. You can't hop on a plane in the USA and be in London in three hours any more. There are electronic music devices from back then that can't be repaired- no one makes the parts! But going to the Moon is only tough because of money problems, and the fact the gov't lacks the rocket scientists now retired or dead, unreplaced. No new missile tech needed, you see.
And I will even go further, if the most technologically advanced countries were now uniting their efforts, they still could not do it, even with a much more advanced technology, not before a moment.
@hunchbacked Then WHICH were the main obstacles? Man had traveled in space for eight years. Rockets, powerful enough were built and tested. several unmanned probes had softlanded on Moon. LEM's, both unmanned and manned had been tested in Earth orbit. Spacesuits and other equipment had been constructed and tested for years. WHICH technology wasn't advanced enough?
Several countries could send men to Moon as soon as new rockets and spaceships had been built, if someone just put up the billions.
@hunchbacked WHY would they need much more powerful computers than they actually had? Any particular reason?
What "integration of electronics"? They didn't use vacuum tubes in those days. WHY would the electronics cause a problem?
What "thrust control"? Regarding which rocket engines? WHY would that be a problem?
No one is "immune" to radiation. Show me the scientifical studies which show that humans can't travel to Moon and back in a couple of weeks, because of the radiation.
@hunchbacked I haven't even touched on micrometeorites. I'm still negotiating the terms of surrender on the radiation issue with some nutbag. Tweekerhead aka krisdevall aka monkeyboysdontknow aka blahblahblah still won't admit that SID's affect this planet. Go figure.
@Daddyo930 Does it matter? The fact that a flare happened does not mean the craft was in Downtown Solar Flare when it happened. Would a tornado in Japan put a VW in Kansas in any danger?
@Pygar2 Before you go on, examine the Catalogue of LDE flares 1968 to 1986. Published by NASA astrophysics data systems. Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th. Solar PROTON events, not solar flares. This is a record of solar proton events that hit the earth, hence the moon. According to that data, apollo was in Downtown Solar Proton event when they were allegedly on the moon which is not protected by an atmosphere. The astronuts would have been roasted.
@Daddyo930 Events detected from Earth, not necessarily aimed at the Earth. They undoubtedly got a few spare solar protons... but not one of the astronaut's dosimeters showed even 1/400 of a lethal dose of radiation... and actual dose taken is, after all, where the rubber meets the road. You can hear a cannon going off, even if you don't catch the shell in your belly. The notion that everything the Sun emits is aimed right at the Earth/Moon system, simply is not the case. We're small. It's huge.
@Daddyo930 "Irrelevant." We are discussing lethal doses of radiation, none of which were involved in the flight plan... which included taking solar "weather" into account, as well as ducking well clear of the core of the Van Allen Belt. Tell you what, find a legit quote by James van Allen that says he agrees with you.
@Pygar2 They are quite relevant. If you don't know the basics of astrophysics, which I seriously doubt that you do, why should I bother wasting my time with an idiot? Now, do you know what heliocentric and heliographic coordinates are?
@Pygar2 4184000 rads per minute. That is what the solar constant is. 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. 1.95 langleys per minute which is 41840.00 J/m² = 8.70482104 × 10^16 MeV's. Maybe apollo was shielded to energies of up to 400 MeV. The solar constant is orders of magnitude more than what the apollo craft could have handled.
@Daddyo930 Are we forgetting distance- and the fact that no probe ever sent out has shown any sign of being melted by your idea of the solar constant? Please have your math checked by someone who actually deals in this sort of thing, and ask him about a 15' vehicle 93 million miles from the sun.
@Pygar2 It took you three weeks to come up with that lame response? Why don't you marinate on this for a while. We know that not all of the solar constant is ionizing radiation. What percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation? Take your time answering.
@Daddyo930 When you asked that question 3 weeks ago you thought that 100% of the solar constant was ionizing. So don't act like you've known all along.
But hey..It only took you 3 weeks to learn that it's not, all thanks to some Apollo believers that have been schooling you.
@Tweekerhead I'm still waiting for you to answer three questions. 1. Where is the reference to Stonyhurst in the Catalogue of LDE flares. I'm sorry for insisting there were 112 pages. There were only 112 pages of data, 182 total. Nowhere in that catalog does it say anything about using Stonyhurst. 2. What percentage of the solar constant is ionizing? 3. Do you ever admit to being wrong on anything?
@Daddyo930 You want me here at your convenience, pay me. I don't care about your "percentage"; the amount of air pollution in a tornado in Ohio is of no importance to persons unexposed to it- say, for example, in Singapore. Since you are having trouble understanding this point, allow me to repeat myself.
"Does it matter? The fact that a flare happened does not mean the craft was in Downtown Solar Flare when it happened. Would a tornado in Japan put a VW in Kansas in any danger?"
When you want to find anomalies, you will find them if they are there or not. Like uneducated Moon Hoax buffs who literally have no idea what they are talking about concerning the cameras, film, shadows, light sources, temperature, perspective, spacecraft, gravity, radiation... I could go on. A mountain of evidence... no, *proof* of Oswald's guilt, and one unconfirmed claim that the shadows are wonky, *not* by a trained photo examiner or photogrammetry expert, is supposed to trump all that?
@Pygar2 I love the morons who say Oswald was not a lone gunman. If these pseudo science morons (Hunch says he is a "space engineer......), knew anything about ballistics, they would know that Oswald is guilty. The moon hoax is just more ridiculous nonsense.
Ref. the Oswald shot. Newspapers and magazines and catalog pictures of that era were routinely airbrushed, in order to bring out some details, while blurring out others that would reproduce poorly, making the image look "muddy". Check this out for yourself; plenty of books on the subject of airbrushing that go back to that era. Remember, Life Magazine was not a court document, Its cover had to sell the magazine. By yesteryear's standards, nothing wrong was done. Printing tech has improved since.
@hunchbacked The McAdams page has an analysis of these photos; I only wish I could post a link to it. One of the tests involved comparing the things that didn't move (like Oswald) in multiple photos, stereoscopically. No anomalies were found. And no anomalies were found in examining Oswald. The examiners were working with first generation items, later generations would begin to show spurious problems. I've even seen one JFK book in which a prominent line was drawn across LHO's chin!
@hunchbacked if you add /4eoh3a8 to tinyurlDAUTKOM you should be interested in what you read about the supposedly fraudulent backyard photos. I am sorry to have to spell "dot" and com incorrectly but youtube lives in fear of someone (gasp!) posting a link.
Great vid' ! Another good example of this hoax phenomena is the William Karel film "Dark Side of the Moon", where it claims Kubrick filmed the Moon landings. It shows Nixon aids from Kissinger to A. Haig edited to make them look like they're talking about a fake landing. So many hoax believers thought this was real, they actually quotes fake facts from this "mockumentary".
Film and videos as well as photos' can be used to indoctrinate gullible fools into irrational thinking and belief systems.
That's exactly what the monks who tried Galileo said to him: "We are right about everything, abd you are wrong about everything, because we have decided so!"
@hunchbacked I freezeframed 8:36 and found nothing unusual, either on my or Oswald's right. Even in this very poor version of the picture, nothing odd at all.
My favorite fake photo is the childish photoshop that attempted to make it look as if Bush was holding a book upside down. If you are interested in this sort of thing, find James Oberg's page about the cosmonauts who vanished from photographs if killed or disciplined. Search for "Sochi 6" or "Soschi 6", one or the other should do it.
@hunchbacked Marina took at least *3* photos of Oswald and his guns. She said she took them. When his mother saw one, she tore it up knowing how incriminating it was. Many experts examined the prints, the negatives and the camera they were taken with and saw no problem with any of them. These photos are only the top of a mountain of evidence against Oswald - yet you would have us think there was a conspiracy? Is there ANY conspiracy theory you don't like?
It's gullible people like you who allow conspiracies to live.
Go on believing all the lies the CIA is telling you, go on being manipulated like the puppet you are; you are not trying to understand things, you believe them like they are presented to you.
In old times, you might have been one on the monks who sentenced Galileo.
@hunchbacked I'm an agnostic; why would I have been a monk?
I love how the crackpots always compare themselves to Galileo. I doubt you've ever read a single word the man ever wrote. You certainly don't know much about the scientific method he helped create.
@hunchbacked Nonsense. I've always known that Bush was lying us into a war. It was obvious from the beginning, and the people involved (e.g., Richard Clarke) have said so. And I was very disappointed to see Powell giving bogus evidence to the UN. Bush is a war criminal under several Nuremberg principles, but sadly no one wants to prosecute him.
See, when there's a real conspiracy the people involved do talk, and quickly. And I evaluate every case on its own merits.
After Truman created the CIA, he regretted it and said he had (unintentionally) created the "American gestapo"; and that's exactly what it is: An organization of megalomaniac criminals specialized in manipulation and propaganda, and who do not back up before crime to meet their ends.
@hunchbacked In terms of the CIA's involvement with torture at the "black sites", you're absolutely right -- the CIA is an American Gestapo. And we also know about the NSA's passive taps on the fiber links at AT&T in San Francisco, and they almost certainly exist at every major communications hub.
Again, when there's a real conspiracy, people do talk. There's real evidence. I'm glad to see you pay attention to this instead of wasting your time on a non-existent Apollo conspiracy.
@hunchbacked See watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM Some people actually investigate the facts, and when they do they find there is simply no evidence of a conspiracy.
I suppose if you're willing to disregard every law of physics and assume that every bit of evidence is faked by the government, then you can believe whatever you want to believe.
@hunchbacked Sure. And it's not credible. The solid evidence of Oswald's guilt includes far more than those pictures, but you'd rather ignore it because it goes against what you'd rather believe, which is that the US government is an evil force that's all powerful except in landing humans on the moon.
I repeat the question: is there any conspiracy theory you don't like? It must be hard for you, having so many to choose from, and having most of them contradict each other.
Moreover, if NASA was going to hoax landing men on the moon, then NASA most certainly would have kept the details of the hoax as simple as possible so that their hoax would not eventually be uncovered. You might want to read the If Apollo was a Hoax... thread over on the apollohoax net forum.
8:45 That bigfoot movie long ago was proven to be fake. Eventually the people who created the movie admitted how easy it was to create the fake footage which initially fooled several experts. Experts who wanted to believe what they were seeing.
8:05 Screen capturing frame 8:05 from your video and then enhancing the still frame, one readily sees that the sniper scope is present in both photographs.
It's not me who have said that the sniper scope has disappeared on one photo, I hadn't even noticed it; it's a comment I read on the web page I found it; so you should tell that to the authors of the web page, not to me who just repeated what I read.
@hunchbacked I didn't say that it was you who said that the rifle scope had disappeared in the second photo. I was merely pointing out that in fact the scope is present in the second photo.
I don't give much importance to that rifle scope which would have disappeared or not.
On the other hand, what's much more important to me is this strange black line under Oswald's chin; it doesn't look like a water spot at all (a water spot would be more irregular); it rather looks like a very bad photoshop to me.
Personally, if I had wanted to paste oswald's head onto a body, I would have made a much better work, and I don't consider myself an expert.
@hunchbacked I found a much larger (4234 x 5283 pixels) version of the photo of Oswald holding the rifle in his back yard. You can clearly read the magazine name as The Militant. After downloading the photo and applying strong gamma curves to lighten shadows, one can clearly see that there is no water spot just below Oswald's chin. Instead one sees the shadow of Oswald's chin and jaw.
I have found your photo, and I am absolutely not convinced by your gamma curves, they prove absolutely nothing.
I have a very simple question: On the right of Oswald's chin, they is a black spot; yet it's the side of the face which is exposed to the sun; so where does this black spot come from?
They say that photographic experts have analyzed the photos with techniques like photogrammetry, but if their analysis was proving it was Oswald's face, then it's useless, because the contention is not about this face being Oswald's one, but about Oswald's face having been pasted into this picture.
And about the black line being a water spot...hmm, more than dubious!
@hunchbacked:
About the Russian soldiers planting a flag on the Reichstag foto: The first foto very clearly shows a solder with a wristwatch on his right wrist, hence looting. Unfortunatly you dont show how the watch was edited out.
Still a nice movie to watch!
zetje01 3 weeks ago
You'll notice that there are Apollo shills who have abusively downrated some comments in order to make them disappear.
I could disable the vote on comments to make the disabled comments reappear for I am the owner of the video, but I won't do it: I want people to see by themselves how close-minded and fanatical the Apollo shills are!
hunchbacked 1 month ago
lol, looks like someone is trying to supress the truth seekers lol...
trust me we didnt go to the moon
chopin999 1 month ago
@chopin999
They always act this way: As they can't silence the arguments of the doubters, they try to silence the doubters themselves.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
;-)
pt1qard 2 months ago
I think too, the word "hoax" is being to kind. The word hoax makes me think of some guy in bigfoot suit having a good larf. Like Kennedy, Oswald, Tonkin, 9/11, ect., ect., the moon landing is on the order of crimes against humanity.
DinjenPolevaulter 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DinjenPolevaulter
I agree with you.
I have always said that Apollo was a crime against science.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DinjenPolevaulter
I am soon to post a video which proves that the computer of Apollo had no memory.
You might be interested.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In complete agreement!
DinjenPolevaulter 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There are 13 people who have downrated this video.
They think that I am trying to disprove the moon hoax with this video because of the provocative title.
That shows how much the belief of some in Apollo is irrational, and is close to fanaticism.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@hunchbacked 13 freemasons watched this
tenthousandyearsgoon 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@hunchbacked well i saw it on TV and i saw pictures of it so OF COURSE we went to the moon!
tenthousandyearsgoon 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
8:13 wow
tenthousandyearsgoon 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Van Allen Belts are the smoking gun. We couldn't get through them back in 70's and we can't still to this day. End of the friggin' discussion. It has nothing to do with how fast you fly through the belts. The fact is you will be irradiated beyond you biological ability to survive in anything beyond a lead covered vehicle. Radiologists put that lead shield on you when you have an X-ray for a reason. And that's a microscopic dose compared to the belts. The moon landing are pablum.
DinjenPolevaulter 2 months ago
@DinjenPolevaulter
The landing of the LM on the moon is another smoking gun; it is impossible to simulate it on earth, because the conditions are too too different: The LM has to start with a relative horizontal velocity of around 6000km/h at an altitude of 110km and arrive near the lunar ground with both horizontal and vertical velocities nulled; it is not trivial, and it is certainly not with the LLRV that they could test it.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@DinjenPolevaulter
With their poor computer, they would have had to make many tests and crashed many Lunar modules (empty of course) before managing to land one safely; these tests would have cost a hell of money.
It is more economical to fake the landing, and the success is also guaranteed (even if they manage to make the LM land safely, there still could be a problem in the next landing with astronauts inside).
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@DinjenPolevaulter
What was important to the eyes of the CIA was not that the exploit was real, but that it had a total guarantee of success, and people believed in it.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DinjenPolevaulter
Even if the astronauts had really managed to land on the moon, but were unable to go back from the moon, or were dying of radiations, it was not interesting the CIA; a full successful faked mission (in a limited time and not excess of money) was still more worth it in the eyes of the CIA than a half successful real mission.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DinjenPolevaulter
The CIA also knew that this adventure would fascinate people at a such point that they would defend it with any bad argument they could find, and that the media would blindly back up the project and call doubters "kooks".
the CIA knew that the doubters were standing no chance to endanger the credibility of the project and would only reap contempt, and that's exactly what is happening.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DinjenPolevaulter
The space radiation itself is a smoking gun, the space is filled with radiation, it's coming from all sides. There are particle there cannot be protected against, they penetrate the hull, and they split when passing aluminum. The NASA crook James Van Hoften admit it, they cannot fly out beyond the belt before an protection is found.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
I just love how everyone throws out the phrase "pseudoscience" to make themselves sound intelligent. I do believe it does quite the opposite effect, lol.
Prototypexl 5 months ago
@Prototypexl
I can only aree.
Those who talk of "pseudo science" are often the ones who don't understand science and the arguments of those who have something to say.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
yeah thoose fotos look SO real that moon landings must have been also faked...
Abensberg 5 months ago
:(
PETE4REALITY 6 months ago
Actually the Adamski photo looks like what we now know to be a Haunnebu II. This goes very far in explaining why the "Venutians" had German accents.
sjcottsi 6 months ago
The scope is visible on BOTH photographs.The brightness has been altered, but if you open your eyes and look, you will see the scope on top of the Carcano on both photographs. No fakery here... Just a communist dickweed who wanted to shoot the best president we ever had.
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny It should have mentioned that the Warren Commission analyzed the original images, not the spruced-up versions used by the media. At the time, images for printing were routinely altered by airbrush, because the print techniques of the time made simply made the images look muddy unless simplified by blurring out minor details and sharpening soft ones. Get an airbrush book of that era. I doubt a single catalog shot in any big-name catalog, was not enhanced for the same reason.
Pygar2 7 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny Too bad for him John Wilkes Booth got there first...
Pygar2 7 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny Apollo 12, November 14. Know what else happened that day in 1969? A solar flare! Catalogue of LDE flares (January 1969 - March 1986) differential rotation of the Sun during the period 1921-1971. page 96. I count 89 hours for the apollo 12 mission and 23 hours of M6 class and X4 class solar flares. energies in the range of 6 x 10^25 joules/gram. No one survives a solar flare in the M6 or X4 range. You will fry like a hot dog in a microwave oven.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
Sorry, hunchbacked, but you haven't really proven anything. All you have proven is that photos have been faked.
dalek14mc 8 months ago
@dalek14mc
And what else do you think I wanted to prove in this video?
hunchbacked 8 months ago
@hunchbacked If you want to see real space-related images that actually were faked, no doubt about it, go to jamesoberg daht org and look for the Russian astronaut photos... the "Soschi Six" images, IIRC. If an astronaut died or got booted out, they got painted out of publicity images. They successfully covered up their version of the "Apollo One" fire... if they hadn't, NASA would have known not to make the very same mistakes that took the lives of the crew.
Pygar2 7 months ago
@dalek14mc That was his intention, so he has proved something, and you've just proved that you're not very bright.
Kenmorfdublin 7 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin-Actually, this doesn't prove anything other than his ignorance, let alone, that "that I'm not very bright."
dalek14mc 7 months ago
@dalek14mc
If you think that I have uploaded this video to prove that the Apollo photos are fake, then you are effectively not bright!
Of course I will not prove that the Apollo photos are fake with this video (but I have so many other videos to prove it), it is just an entertainment.
It at least shows that modifying photos to change reality and make see something which does not exist is not something new and has always existed.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked-No, but your friend did, moron.
dalek14mc 7 months ago
@dalek14mc
No, my friend didn't.
He said that my intention was to show that photos can be faked (and that the habit of faking them has a long history).
The moron may not be the one you think!
hunchbacked 7 months ago
Comment removed
dalek14mc 7 months ago
@hunchbacked-That's the dumbest idea ever, everyone know photos can be faked, we've been doing it for over 200 years.
dalek14mc 7 months ago
@dalek14mc
Absolutely, and I did not say anything else in this video.
It's you who said that I was trying to prove something about Apollo photos being faked in this video because of the provocative title of this video.
I am sure that most of the negative ratings of my video come from the provocative title.
No, the Apollo photos are not faked because of this video, but they are because of other videos I made, and in particular the last one I uploaded today!
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked-"Not only Apollo photos are fake"
I'm not supposed to take anything away from that?
The apollo photos are not faked, PERIOD.
dalek14mc 7 months ago
@dalek14mc The only thing faked about the Apollo photos is that they were NOT taken on a giant soundstage and were in fact TAKEN ON THE MOON!!!!!!!!!!!
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
@hunchbacked Trust me... Dalek and I know who the moron is...
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
Comment removed
Kenmorfdublin 7 months ago
@dalek14mc Yes, thank you for repeating and confirming my assertion.
exterminate!.... e x t e r m i n a t e !...EXTERMINATE!!!
Kenmorfdublin 7 months ago
@dalek14mc
The Apollo photos are faked, not because of this video, but they are faked, period.
If you think they are not faked, then you are extremely naive, because there is an enormous evidence that they are faked, I have plenty of videos showing incoherencies.
So bad for you that you are too blind to see them.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked-You're just saying they are faked and you believe that you're right about everything, you're seriously concieted. I believe they are real because they are backed up by REAL science.
dalek14mc 7 months ago
@dalek14mc
backed up by real science?
Don't make me laugh!
Your real science is pseudo experts who know much less than what they think.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked pseudo experts?!?!?!?!??!?? LIES! Nearly every reputable scientist in the world believes we went to the moon. My uncle, for example, has an EXTREMELY IQ, is very smart and is a professor. He believes they went to the moon. The only people who deny it are you. And you have been lying about your education. You said you're a computer engineer. Then you said you were an aerospace engineer, and then you said you were a "space"-engineer...... don't know that the hell that means ahhahaha
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny EXTREMELY HIGH IQ***
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
@hunchbacked Here is some real science for you. November 14, apollo 12 launched. Guess what else happened that day? A solar flare! I count 89 total hours for the apollo 12 mission and 23 hours of solar flare activity in the X4 class range. X class is 6 x 10^25 joules/gram. An ungodly number of rads. No one can survive 23 hours of solar flare activity in the M6 class or X4 class range. Manned mission to the moon totally debunked by science. No one survives M6 or X4 class solar flares.
Daddyo930 6 months ago
@Daddyo930. The Apollo 12 mission LAUNCHED on Nov 14, but it didn't land on the moon until 5 days later on Nov 19. Even if I accept that the flare lasted the whole day of Nov 14 (which I don't), when they were walking around on the moon the flare had been over for at least 119 hours. Which means they didn't get out of the protective radiation screen of the CSM until long after any danger posed by the flare was long gone. So much for your theory.
FuckYouLetMeLogIn 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Oh, and they didn't EVA on the moon for 23 hours. First EVA was 3 h 56 m 03 s, Second EVA was 3 h 49 m 15 s. Total time elapsed: 7 h 45 m 18 s.
So, your claim that "No one can survive 23 hours of solar flare activity..." is complete horsehocky, because they weren't walking around on the moon exposed to solar & cosmic radiation for that long anyways!
FuckYouLetMeLogIn 5 months ago
@FuckYouLetMeLogIn
And then?
You really think they were safe from the solar flares when they were in the LM?
I don't!
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@FuckYouLetMeLogIn Let me be even more specific. The apollo craft could not have survived even one minute of a solar flare in the X5 class. The amount of energy is far beyond what apollo was built to withstand.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
That's what I have told them.
They think that the danger was only when they were outside the LM, but that they were safe when they were in the LM.
But they also were in danger inside the LM.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@Daddyo930
The Apollo advocates say that the proof that the moon rocks are authentic ricks from the moon and not bits of lunar meteorites fallen on the earth is that they show "zap pits" on them, that is little holes made by micro meteorites.
But, if micrometeorites could cause these holes in rocks, they could also have pierced the suits of the astronaut, at least enough to damage them.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@hunchbacked The rocks took billions of years to get pitted. The astronauts were only in space for days, and while on EVA were wearing suits with materials designed to stop micro-meteoroids... which are, after all, only dust that is moving fast. The odds of the astronauts taking a significantly-sized speck of rock in that short a period of time were very small.
Pygar2 5 months ago
@Pygar2
I don't believe in this theory of "micrometeorites" striking the moon rocks; this is bullshit.
Much to the contrary I believe that these little holes have been originally made in bits of lunar meteorites picked in antarctica in order to give the evidence that they were not moon rocks; then the apollo believers later invented the bullshit excuse of the "zap pits" to try to explain these little holes.
No moon rock has ever been brought back from the moon.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@hunchbacked Meteorites and moon rocks don't even look alike- meteorites get burned and melted on the way in, and absorb moisture as they sit there, awaiting discovery. Moon rocks are dry, dry, dry and the micropits have not been sanded away by passage through the Earth's atmosphere. Show me a meteorite that still has its micropits, lunar or otherwise. It just doesn't happen.
Pygar2 4 months ago
@hunchbacked Of course You can't believe in the "micrometeorite theory". How could You? Because it might affect Your prejudicies saying that man can't have been on Moon. Every evidence of a manned lunar landing MUST be faked. That's the only way You can keep Your worldview from collapsing.
YDDES 4 months ago
@YDDES
The "micrometeorite" theory is completely made up.
It is not proven at all, apart from the fact that the "moon rocks" show holes which might make think of "micrometeorites".
I say that these holes have been made artificially, and I even think that theye have initially been made to give the evidence that the "moon rocks" were not really from the moon.
The pseudo theory of the micrometeorites has then been invented in order to give a justification to these holes.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked What do YOU think will happen when a micrometeorite hits a stone with at least 2.38 km/sec (the speed any object will reach, falling free to Moon from infinite distance)? No hole created? Where does the energy from the impact go?
And, who should have drilled these holes, and why?
YDDES 4 months ago
@YDDES
Micrometeorites may not be impossible, but I doubt a rain of micrometeorites struck the moon.
Moreover the micrometeorites would tend to gather together (by mutual attraction) and form a bigger meteorite.
About what made these holes, there are several hypotheses; Jarrah White has given his; personally I think that these holes could be done with a laser beam.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked Back in much earlier days, meteorites were much more common than now, and since the bombardment has gone on for billions of years and no wind- or water-erosion has occured, the rocks show signs of every impact they've got. If micrometeorites had "gathered together" (some do, but not most), comets wouldn't have had tails, and we wouldn't have hade the meteor showers we can see several times a year.
WHY drill holes with lasers in those rocks???
YDDES 4 months ago
@hunchbacked Excuse me, but I must say that those who can't accept that man has reached another celestial body, tend to invent more and more fantastic excuses for the evidences that it actually has occured. Many times it's quite desperate attempts to try to explaine away the proofs.
It was much more easy to actually send men to Moon, than to design and create all these absurd fakery the "Hoax-believers" invent to defend their "religious" beliefs.
Jarrah is a laugh. Very ignorant about much.
YDDES 4 months ago
@YDDES
It's not that I can't accept that man cannot reach another celestial body, it's that I strongly doubt than man can reach another celestial body that easily.
In the sixties, the USA were not ready to send a man on the moon.
And even today, with a more advanced technology, no country could do it.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked There were things done back then that can't be done now. No one has dived to the bottom of the Marianas Trench since then. You can't hop on a plane in the USA and be in London in three hours any more. There are electronic music devices from back then that can't be repaired- no one makes the parts! But going to the Moon is only tough because of money problems, and the fact the gov't lacks the rocket scientists now retired or dead, unreplaced. No new missile tech needed, you see.
Pygar2 3 months ago
@YDDES
And I will even go further, if the most technologically advanced countries were now uniting their efforts, they still could not do it, even with a much more advanced technology, not before a moment.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked Then WHICH were the main obstacles? Man had traveled in space for eight years. Rockets, powerful enough were built and tested. several unmanned probes had softlanded on Moon. LEM's, both unmanned and manned had been tested in Earth orbit. Spacesuits and other equipment had been constructed and tested for years. WHICH technology wasn't advanced enough?
Several countries could send men to Moon as soon as new rockets and spaceships had been built, if someone just put up the billions.
YDDES 4 months ago
@YDDES
Man has never traveled through the Van Allen belts, he has already remained close to the atmosphere.
He has not landed on another planet in the void either.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked That's just Your unsupported private opinion. I asked WHICH technology wasn't advanced enough to send men to Moon in the 60's?
How much have You studied the spacetravelling technologies?
YDDES 4 months ago
@YDDES
Plenty of technologies:
- Computer
- integration of electronics
- Thrust control
- immunity to radiations
- ...
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked WHY would they need much more powerful computers than they actually had? Any particular reason?
What "integration of electronics"? They didn't use vacuum tubes in those days. WHY would the electronics cause a problem?
What "thrust control"? Regarding which rocket engines? WHY would that be a problem?
No one is "immune" to radiation. Show me the scientifical studies which show that humans can't travel to Moon and back in a couple of weeks, because of the radiation.
YDDES 4 months ago
@Daddyo930
The Apollo advocates probably think that the micrometeorites made detours to avoid the astronauts and only strike the rocks!
Or they think that the meteorites only struck the lunar surface when the astronauts were not there out of respect for Apollo!
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@hunchbacked I haven't even touched on micrometeorites. I'm still negotiating the terms of surrender on the radiation issue with some nutbag. Tweekerhead aka krisdevall aka monkeyboysdontknow aka blahblahblah still won't admit that SID's affect this planet. Go figure.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 I'm sure it wouldn't have stood up to a volcano or tornado very well either. Sure is nice it wasn't exposed to any of these threats!
Pygar2 5 months ago
@Pygar2 Could apollo fly through X class solar flares or solar proton events?
Daddyo930 5 months ago
@Daddyo930 Does it matter? The fact that a flare happened does not mean the craft was in Downtown Solar Flare when it happened. Would a tornado in Japan put a VW in Kansas in any danger?
Pygar2 4 months ago
@Pygar2 Before you go on, examine the Catalogue of LDE flares 1968 to 1986. Published by NASA astrophysics data systems. Page 82 for explanation of the chart. Page 87 for November 17, 18 and 19th. Solar PROTON events, not solar flares. This is a record of solar proton events that hit the earth, hence the moon. According to that data, apollo was in Downtown Solar Proton event when they were allegedly on the moon which is not protected by an atmosphere. The astronuts would have been roasted.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Events detected from Earth, not necessarily aimed at the Earth. They undoubtedly got a few spare solar protons... but not one of the astronaut's dosimeters showed even 1/400 of a lethal dose of radiation... and actual dose taken is, after all, where the rubber meets the road. You can hear a cannon going off, even if you don't catch the shell in your belly. The notion that everything the Sun emits is aimed right at the Earth/Moon system, simply is not the case. We're small. It's huge.
Pygar2 4 months ago
@Pygar2 Do you know what heliocentric and heliographic coordinates are?
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 "Irrelevant." We are discussing lethal doses of radiation, none of which were involved in the flight plan... which included taking solar "weather" into account, as well as ducking well clear of the core of the Van Allen Belt. Tell you what, find a legit quote by James van Allen that says he agrees with you.
Pygar2 3 months ago
@Pygar2 They are quite relevant. If you don't know the basics of astrophysics, which I seriously doubt that you do, why should I bother wasting my time with an idiot? Now, do you know what heliocentric and heliographic coordinates are?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Pygar2 4184000 rads per minute. That is what the solar constant is. 1.95 langleys Ly per minute. one langley is 41840.00 J/m². 41840 joules per meter squares or 41840 joules per kilogram = 4184000 rads. 1.95 langleys per minute which is 41840.00 J/m² = 8.70482104 × 10^16 MeV's. Maybe apollo was shielded to energies of up to 400 MeV. The solar constant is orders of magnitude more than what the apollo craft could have handled.
Daddyo930 4 months ago
@Daddyo930 Are we forgetting distance- and the fact that no probe ever sent out has shown any sign of being melted by your idea of the solar constant? Please have your math checked by someone who actually deals in this sort of thing, and ask him about a 15' vehicle 93 million miles from the sun.
Pygar2 3 months ago
@Pygar2 It took you three weeks to come up with that lame response? Why don't you marinate on this for a while. We know that not all of the solar constant is ionizing radiation. What percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation? Take your time answering.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 When you asked that question 3 weeks ago you thought that 100% of the solar constant was ionizing. So don't act like you've known all along.
But hey..It only took you 3 weeks to learn that it's not, all thanks to some Apollo believers that have been schooling you.
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Tweekerhead I'm still waiting for you to answer three questions. 1. Where is the reference to Stonyhurst in the Catalogue of LDE flares. I'm sorry for insisting there were 112 pages. There were only 112 pages of data, 182 total. Nowhere in that catalog does it say anything about using Stonyhurst. 2. What percentage of the solar constant is ionizing? 3. Do you ever admit to being wrong on anything?
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 I'm waiting for you explain how RAD is mass.
I haven't been wrong about anything that we've discussed because I don't make this stuff up like you.
I deal with facts not hunches or stupid emotionally biased assumption, that's your field of expertise.
.
Is this your catalog?
ht tp://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987CoSka..16...79A/0000082.000.html
Tweekerhead 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 You want me here at your convenience, pay me. I don't care about your "percentage"; the amount of air pollution in a tornado in Ohio is of no importance to persons unexposed to it- say, for example, in Singapore. Since you are having trouble understanding this point, allow me to repeat myself.
"Does it matter? The fact that a flare happened does not mean the craft was in Downtown Solar Flare when it happened. Would a tornado in Japan put a VW in Kansas in any danger?"
Pygar2 3 months ago
When you want to find anomalies, you will find them if they are there or not. Like uneducated Moon Hoax buffs who literally have no idea what they are talking about concerning the cameras, film, shadows, light sources, temperature, perspective, spacecraft, gravity, radiation... I could go on. A mountain of evidence... no, *proof* of Oswald's guilt, and one unconfirmed claim that the shadows are wonky, *not* by a trained photo examiner or photogrammetry expert, is supposed to trump all that?
Pygar2 1 year ago
@Pygar2 I love the morons who say Oswald was not a lone gunman. If these pseudo science morons (Hunch says he is a "space engineer......), knew anything about ballistics, they would know that Oswald is guilty. The moon hoax is just more ridiculous nonsense.
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
Ref. the Oswald shot. Newspapers and magazines and catalog pictures of that era were routinely airbrushed, in order to bring out some details, while blurring out others that would reproduce poorly, making the image look "muddy". Check this out for yourself; plenty of books on the subject of airbrushing that go back to that era. Remember, Life Magazine was not a court document, Its cover had to sell the magazine. By yesteryear's standards, nothing wrong was done. Printing tech has improved since.
Pygar2 1 year ago
@Pygar2
It's not just airbrushing for the purpose of selling magazines, there's really a problem with the shadows.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked The McAdams page has an analysis of these photos; I only wish I could post a link to it. One of the tests involved comparing the things that didn't move (like Oswald) in multiple photos, stereoscopically. No anomalies were found. And no anomalies were found in examining Oswald. The examiners were working with first generation items, later generations would begin to show spurious problems. I've even seen one JFK book in which a prominent line was drawn across LHO's chin!
Pygar2 1 year ago
@Pygar2
When you don't want to find anomalies, you find no anomalies.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked And when you really want to find anomalies, as you do, you find plenty where there are none.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
@hunchbacked if you add /4eoh3a8 to tinyurlDAUTKOM you should be interested in what you read about the supposedly fraudulent backyard photos. I am sorry to have to spell "dot" and com incorrectly but youtube lives in fear of someone (gasp!) posting a link.
Pygar2 1 year ago
Great vid' ! Another good example of this hoax phenomena is the William Karel film "Dark Side of the Moon", where it claims Kubrick filmed the Moon landings. It shows Nixon aids from Kissinger to A. Haig edited to make them look like they're talking about a fake landing. So many hoax believers thought this was real, they actually quotes fake facts from this "mockumentary".
Film and videos as well as photos' can be used to indoctrinate gullible fools into irrational thinking and belief systems.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@receiver69
That's exactly what the monks who tried Galileo said to him: "We are right about everything, abd you are wrong about everything, because we have decided so!"
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@receiver69
Right about what?
About the Oswald photo being authentic?
Then how do you explain there is a black spot on the right of Oswald's face which is the face which is exposed to the sun if we judge by his shadow?
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked I freezeframed 8:36 and found nothing unusual, either on my or Oswald's right. Even in this very poor version of the picture, nothing odd at all.
My favorite fake photo is the childish photoshop that attempted to make it look as if Bush was holding a book upside down. If you are interested in this sort of thing, find James Oberg's page about the cosmonauts who vanished from photographs if killed or disciplined. Search for "Sochi 6" or "Soschi 6", one or the other should do it.
Pygar2 1 year ago
@hunchbacked Marina took at least *3* photos of Oswald and his guns. She said she took them. When his mother saw one, she tore it up knowing how incriminating it was. Many experts examined the prints, the negatives and the camera they were taken with and saw no problem with any of them. These photos are only the top of a mountain of evidence against Oswald - yet you would have us think there was a conspiracy? Is there ANY conspiracy theory you don't like?
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
It's gullible people like you who allow conspiracies to live.
Go on believing all the lies the CIA is telling you, go on being manipulated like the puppet you are; you are not trying to understand things, you believe them like they are presented to you.
In old times, you might have been one on the monks who sentenced Galileo.
hunchbacked 11 months ago
@hunchbacked I'm an agnostic; why would I have been a monk?
I love how the crackpots always compare themselves to Galileo. I doubt you've ever read a single word the man ever wrote. You certainly don't know much about the scientific method he helped create.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
It was just an example.
What I was meaning is that you are ready to accept any official truth, without contesting it, without seriously investigating what truth is in it.
I'm sure thatn when Colin Powel showed the WMD on an Iraq map at the UNO, you believed it was true, it could not be fake.
And when Bush presented the pseudo letter from Saddam Hussein to Niger president to beg for Uranium for his "nuclear bomb", you also believed him.
hunchbacked 11 months ago
@hunchbacked Nonsense. I've always known that Bush was lying us into a war. It was obvious from the beginning, and the people involved (e.g., Richard Clarke) have said so. And I was very disappointed to see Powell giving bogus evidence to the UN. Bush is a war criminal under several Nuremberg principles, but sadly no one wants to prosecute him.
See, when there's a real conspiracy the people involved do talk, and quickly. And I evaluate every case on its own merits.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
The result was this heinous propaganda against France: This shows how it is easy to manipulate people, and CIA is champion in this domain.
Now, it is proven fake, without the least contest: You have been proven that authorities can make you believe something which is not true.
hunchbacked 11 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
After Truman created the CIA, he regretted it and said he had (unintentionally) created the "American gestapo"; and that's exactly what it is: An organization of megalomaniac criminals specialized in manipulation and propaganda, and who do not back up before crime to meet their ends.
Goebbels is not dead, he is still alive!
hunchbacked 11 months ago
@hunchbacked In terms of the CIA's involvement with torture at the "black sites", you're absolutely right -- the CIA is an American Gestapo. And we also know about the NSA's passive taps on the fiber links at AT&T in San Francisco, and they almost certainly exist at every major communications hub.
Again, when there's a real conspiracy, people do talk. There's real evidence. I'm glad to see you pay attention to this instead of wasting your time on a non-existent Apollo conspiracy.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
@hunchbacked See watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM Some people actually investigate the facts, and when they do they find there is simply no evidence of a conspiracy.
I suppose if you're willing to disregard every law of physics and assume that every bit of evidence is faked by the government, then you can believe whatever you want to believe.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
Have you never envisioned the possibility that Marina might have been threatened by the CIA to tell lies?
hunchbacked 11 months ago
@hunchbacked Sure. And it's not credible. The solid evidence of Oswald's guilt includes far more than those pictures, but you'd rather ignore it because it goes against what you'd rather believe, which is that the US government is an evil force that's all powerful except in landing humans on the moon.
I repeat the question: is there any conspiracy theory you don't like? It must be hard for you, having so many to choose from, and having most of them contradict each other.
ApolloWasReal 11 months ago
The ideas from a site I found on the net "The hoax photo archive", I give the link to this web page now in my description.
It's fair to signal it.
My work has been to put in shape these ideas to make them nicer to look at.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
1800s photoshop v0.00000001 lol
SounzNice 1 year ago
Moreover, if NASA was going to hoax landing men on the moon, then NASA most certainly would have kept the details of the hoax as simple as possible so that their hoax would not eventually be uncovered. You might want to read the If Apollo was a Hoax... thread over on the apollohoax net forum.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid
This is true; that's why I have doubt about the "experts" who used microscope and photogrammetry to prove that the Oswald photo was authentic.
I think that experts must not only say they think a photo is authentic, but they must also explain why, and how their works came to that conclusion.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
Comment removed
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
8:45 That bigfoot movie long ago was proven to be fake. Eventually the people who created the movie admitted how easy it was to create the fake footage which initially fooled several experts. Experts who wanted to believe what they were seeing.
9:22 Good find! I didn't know about that one.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
8:05 Screen capturing frame 8:05 from your video and then enhancing the still frame, one readily sees that the sniper scope is present in both photographs.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid
It's not me who have said that the sniper scope has disappeared on one photo, I hadn't even noticed it; it's a comment I read on the web page I found it; so you should tell that to the authors of the web page, not to me who just repeated what I read.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked I didn't say that it was you who said that the rifle scope had disappeared in the second photo. I was merely pointing out that in fact the scope is present in the second photo.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid
I don't give much importance to that rifle scope which would have disappeared or not.
On the other hand, what's much more important to me is this strange black line under Oswald's chin; it doesn't look like a water spot at all (a water spot would be more irregular); it rather looks like a very bad photoshop to me.
Personally, if I had wanted to paste oswald's head onto a body, I would have made a much better work, and I don't consider myself an expert.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked I found a much larger (4234 x 5283 pixels) version of the photo of Oswald holding the rifle in his back yard. You can clearly read the magazine name as The Militant. After downloading the photo and applying strong gamma curves to lighten shadows, one can clearly see that there is no water spot just below Oswald's chin. Instead one sees the shadow of Oswald's chin and jaw.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid
I must admit that the photo I have shown is very bad quality, but I can't make any decision as long as I haven't seen your photo.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid
I have found your photo, and I am absolutely not convinced by your gamma curves, they prove absolutely nothing.
I have a very simple question: On the right of Oswald's chin, they is a black spot; yet it's the side of the face which is exposed to the sun; so where does this black spot come from?
It's totally illogical!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@stalkervision
They say that photographic experts have analyzed the photos with techniques like photogrammetry, but if their analysis was proving it was Oswald's face, then it's useless, because the contention is not about this face being Oswald's one, but about Oswald's face having been pasted into this picture.
And about the black line being a water spot...hmm, more than dubious!
hunchbacked 1 year ago